search

opengovfoundation / madison-assets

madison-assets
GNU General Public License v2.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

Document Template #6

Open bryanconnor opened 10 years ago

bryanconnor commented 10 years ago

Got some updated templates for the document page here including what some of the other tabs might look like. Still need lots of input on what the content of the other tabs should be.

document-template-01 This view shows some mobile styles of the main document page including annotations and the sidebar. Different types of comments are delineated with a symbol as color would be somewhat confusing.

document-template-02 The information tab shows a longer description of the bill in plain English, an explanation of the current status of the bill as well as a history of previous statuses. In the right bar there is some supplementary information including a map of the area this bill applies to.

document-template-03 Seamus mentioned a story about featuring contributors so I have a few shown in the contributors tab besides the bill's sponsor. This could be structured a number of different ways. Below there is a table listing all contributors. Lots of different data could be fed into this table.

cmbirk commented 10 years ago

Thanks @bryanconnor . Any thoughts on how to differentiate comments vs questions when the user's creating them? Should this just be a toggle?

bryanconnor commented 10 years ago

It could be a toggle but it feels a little strange to write a question and then mark it as a question. Could we flag any comment with a question mark in it as a question?

cmbirk commented 10 years ago

That's an interesting idea. I'm trying to think of some examples that wouldn't fit that model.

@krues8dr any thoughts on auto-classifying comments as questions if they include a question mark?

krusynth commented 10 years ago

Seems like there are going to be rhetorical questions in standard comments. (E.g. "Why the heck is this in there? It should be blah blah instead.") I vote for a toggle as well - no need to overthink the solution.

bryanconnor commented 10 years ago

False positives for rhetorical questions wouldn't be all that bad. This feature is all about the document sponsor and the people behind the scenes. I think forcing a toggle on the user presents them with an ambiguous action without much explanation or reward. If document creators want a way to filter questions I think it should be on Madison to classify them, not on the user.

krusynth commented 10 years ago

I disagree - if the point is for the people's voices to be heard, forcing a flawed, hidden filter that will end up with things being missed is not a thing we want.

krusynth commented 10 years ago

That being said, I don't think we need this differentiation in the first place - just make everything a comment.

cmbirk commented 10 years ago

We're trying to differentiate between people who need feedback (questions) and those that don't (comments). This may be over-zealous. The idea originated from a SF supervisor.

Let's hold on this one for now until we get more feedback.