Difference between revisions of "Copyediting"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added more explanation for suggestion 2)
(added evaluation reports)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Suggestion 1'''
+
= Alternative proposals =
 +
== Suggestion 1 ==
  
 
Add a category header for the columns to make clear what their content are.
 
Add a category header for the columns to make clear what their content are.
Line 5: Line 6:
 
[[File:Copyediting signoff.png]]
 
[[File:Copyediting signoff.png]]
  
'''Suggestion 2'''
+
== Suggestion 2 ==
  
 
The “author to respond” is based on role identification of selected auditor and is a hyperlink to attract attention, but once a response has been made it simply identifies role, while the  notepad [=] can be still be accessed by role for revisions. I'd like to only use the notepads with people to further distinguish them, and because notes can be added to files through the pencil, which can indicated unread messages by using a darker color.
 
The “author to respond” is based on role identification of selected auditor and is a hyperlink to attract attention, but once a response has been made it simply identifies role, while the  notepad [=] can be still be accessed by role for revisions. I'd like to only use the notepads with people to further distinguish them, and because notes can be added to files through the pencil, which can indicated unread messages by using a darker color.
  
 
[[File:Copyediting signoff role identification.png]]
 
[[File:Copyediting signoff role identification.png]]
 +
 +
= UI Evaluation =
 +
 +
We've made a call with both Rachael and Barbara to see how they were interacting with the current implementation of the copyediting process.
 +
 +
== Barbara's report ==
 +
=== Copyediting grid ===
 +
- I explained the copyediting process to her missing a final step, which is the copyeditor uploading again a file (revising it) that he might changed based on authors iteration. So she not even tried to do that. (I forgot about this option when conducting the evaluation). If you want to see, I can tell you how to do that or you can try yourself and tell us what you did).
 +
 +
- our suggestions didn't improved that much the understanding of the grid, although, to her, suggestion 2 (more text) was clearer than 1 that was clearer than what we have now. She had some difficulty to understand what's the relationship between both levels of the grid (the files and the users) and also what each column was about. I explained a little the way it is in the help text and she managed to finish the process.
 +
 +
- actually we call the users that will signoff on the file as auditors, but not everywhere. If we keep it consistent, the relation between files and people will be clearer. So we can use the 'auditor' word into the Assign grid action, when there is no users assigned to a file we can also use 'No auditors', inside the assignment modal, etc.
 +
 +
- her first idea was to select a file inside the grid to assign a user to. That reminds me our selectable columns. We can try to use them also, so the files listbuilder inside the assignment modal will reflect what was selected inside the grid. That's not high priority because she was able to assign a user to a file even with this difficulty.
 +
 +
=== Send notes modal: ===
 +
- change the place of the notes already sent to the top. It's a common place when you have something like a chat window (the field to write the message at the bottom and the notes at the top).
 +
 +
- missed the general notification that comes after sending a note, so she didn't know what happened. The notification can be placed in place, at the top of the modal.
 +
 +
- I can't think of why the modal keeps open after you submit a note. Suggested to close it.
 +
 +
- change the button text inside the modal to 'send' or 'send note'. Actually is 'OK'.
 +
 +
- she thought that was hard to find a button to close the modal. Maybe that can be improved with the changes proposed above.
 +
 +
 +
== Rachael's report ==
 +
=== Assign auditor modal: ===
 +
- show the copyediting file as required, the way we already do with fields. I think it's just a matter of using the * (required symbol) in red and next to the grid's title.
 +
 +
- thought it was difficult to understand what the option to not send the email to the auditor means. She was not sure if she clicked on that the task would be created. Maybe we can just add a text: "Clicking on submit will create an assignment notification for the author in the system. They will see this notification upon log in."
 +
And then this line next to check box: "Send an optional email notification to the author.".
 +
 +
=== File uploading: ===
 +
- if user already selected the file type, then upload the file when it is inserted into the uploader widget. Right now user has to click on upload button after a file is already selected to be uploaded, even if there's nothing else to select.
 +
 +
- we won't allow multiple files uploading, so we can just correct the label that says "upload files" to "upload file".
 +
 +
=== Copyediting grid: ===
 +
- thinks that the suggestion 2 is easier to understand than 1 that's easier than what we have now. But she also thinks that for experienced users the amount of text of 2 might be too much.
 +
 +
- the pencil icon inside the copyediting task context is confusing, even more because it is next to a file. She thought that it would open an editor to edit the current file, and she is right that the pencil icon is generally used as a symbol of editing action. I think that we had more feedback from other users that were confused by the pencil, so maybe it's time to try another one that's more related to actions than just editing.
 +
 +
- also had no idea how she could revise a file, after considering the auditors feedback. I think that we need a link action that says "revise file", although I don't know yet where to add this (if on grid level or row level or even inside the cell that contains the filename).
 +
 +
- the signoff word used as a help to the button inside the considered column is also confusing, because signoff might means agreement, which is not the case for every considered action that a copy editor might take.
 +
 +
- thinks that the send to production decision button is not in a good place. When she tried to use it she was afraid that she was sending all the visible files (draft and copyediting) to the production stage, because the button is at the top of the page. If we don't want to move the decision buttons to the bottom of the page, maybe we can use a hover text help to make more explicit that the button will only open a modal to select the files and record the decision.
 +
 +
 +
== General considerations ==
 +
Rachael had the same problems that Barbara: understanding the assign user autocomplete field, the copyediting files listbuilder inside the assing user modal, the response notes modal (closing button, message position, etc). She had less problems finding the auditor response, but she said that she managed to find it just because she thought it was the only different place, not because of the notes icon.

Latest revision as of 19:12, 29 April 2013

Alternative proposals

Suggestion 1

Add a category header for the columns to make clear what their content are.

Copyediting signoff.png

Suggestion 2

The “author to respond” is based on role identification of selected auditor and is a hyperlink to attract attention, but once a response has been made it simply identifies role, while the  notepad [=] can be still be accessed by role for revisions. I'd like to only use the notepads with people to further distinguish them, and because notes can be added to files through the pencil, which can indicated unread messages by using a darker color.

Copyediting signoff role identification.png

UI Evaluation

We've made a call with both Rachael and Barbara to see how they were interacting with the current implementation of the copyediting process.

Barbara's report

Copyediting grid

- I explained the copyediting process to her missing a final step, which is the copyeditor uploading again a file (revising it) that he might changed based on authors iteration. So she not even tried to do that. (I forgot about this option when conducting the evaluation). If you want to see, I can tell you how to do that or you can try yourself and tell us what you did).

- our suggestions didn't improved that much the understanding of the grid, although, to her, suggestion 2 (more text) was clearer than 1 that was clearer than what we have now. She had some difficulty to understand what's the relationship between both levels of the grid (the files and the users) and also what each column was about. I explained a little the way it is in the help text and she managed to finish the process.

- actually we call the users that will signoff on the file as auditors, but not everywhere. If we keep it consistent, the relation between files and people will be clearer. So we can use the 'auditor' word into the Assign grid action, when there is no users assigned to a file we can also use 'No auditors', inside the assignment modal, etc.

- her first idea was to select a file inside the grid to assign a user to. That reminds me our selectable columns. We can try to use them also, so the files listbuilder inside the assignment modal will reflect what was selected inside the grid. That's not high priority because she was able to assign a user to a file even with this difficulty.

Send notes modal:

- change the place of the notes already sent to the top. It's a common place when you have something like a chat window (the field to write the message at the bottom and the notes at the top).

- missed the general notification that comes after sending a note, so she didn't know what happened. The notification can be placed in place, at the top of the modal.

- I can't think of why the modal keeps open after you submit a note. Suggested to close it.

- change the button text inside the modal to 'send' or 'send note'. Actually is 'OK'.

- she thought that was hard to find a button to close the modal. Maybe that can be improved with the changes proposed above.


Rachael's report

Assign auditor modal:

- show the copyediting file as required, the way we already do with fields. I think it's just a matter of using the * (required symbol) in red and next to the grid's title.

- thought it was difficult to understand what the option to not send the email to the auditor means. She was not sure if she clicked on that the task would be created. Maybe we can just add a text: "Clicking on submit will create an assignment notification for the author in the system. They will see this notification upon log in." And then this line next to check box: "Send an optional email notification to the author.".

File uploading:

- if user already selected the file type, then upload the file when it is inserted into the uploader widget. Right now user has to click on upload button after a file is already selected to be uploaded, even if there's nothing else to select.

- we won't allow multiple files uploading, so we can just correct the label that says "upload files" to "upload file".

Copyediting grid:

- thinks that the suggestion 2 is easier to understand than 1 that's easier than what we have now. But she also thinks that for experienced users the amount of text of 2 might be too much.

- the pencil icon inside the copyediting task context is confusing, even more because it is next to a file. She thought that it would open an editor to edit the current file, and she is right that the pencil icon is generally used as a symbol of editing action. I think that we had more feedback from other users that were confused by the pencil, so maybe it's time to try another one that's more related to actions than just editing.

- also had no idea how she could revise a file, after considering the auditors feedback. I think that we need a link action that says "revise file", although I don't know yet where to add this (if on grid level or row level or even inside the cell that contains the filename).

- the signoff word used as a help to the button inside the considered column is also confusing, because signoff might means agreement, which is not the case for every considered action that a copy editor might take.

- thinks that the send to production decision button is not in a good place. When she tried to use it she was afraid that she was sending all the visible files (draft and copyediting) to the production stage, because the button is at the top of the page. If we don't want to move the decision buttons to the bottom of the page, maybe we can use a hover text help to make more explicit that the button will only open a modal to select the files and record the decision.


General considerations

Rachael had the same problems that Barbara: understanding the assign user autocomplete field, the copyediting files listbuilder inside the assing user modal, the response notes modal (closing button, message position, etc). She had less problems finding the auditor response, but she said that she managed to find it just because she thought it was the only different place, not because of the notes icon.