Difference between revisions of "OJS Workflow: Copyediting Page"
(→Bruno's wireframes: Added another copyediting suggestion)
|Line 115:||Line 115:|
== Discussion ==
== Discussion ==
Latest revision as of 07:24, 8 August 2014
This section will focus on the Copyediting page.
The following PDF file presents a tour of the current (June 2014) Copyediting workflow.
- The copyediting process needs to be simplified and structured more linearly. The document transfer/upload and checkbox processes are condensed into a horizontal display to save vertical real estate which only confuses users. Most users need a numbered, vertical and linear display in order to act on the proper steps for the copyediting processes. (CDL Report, P. 106)
- The use of checkboxes to keep track of files and steps being taken, as well as trigger communication with users is a complex interaction. It would be clearer to users if the checkboxes served as confirmation of tasks or decisions only. The two processes need to be separated out from each other with clear call-outs explaining the significance of each step. (CDL Report, P. 106)
- We did not cover this in testing however many users have let us know that they need to be able to upload multiple rounds of revisions during the copyediting stage so this functionality needs to be present in the system. (CDL Report, P. 106)
- Copyeditor can approve files – but this is responsibility for the editor...? ; Suggestion: Allow only the editor to approve the files (UP Report, P. 26)
- When the editor approves the copyedited file, and then sends the book to production, they have to re-tick the files for production; Suggestion: Pre-tick all approved copyedited files when sending to production. (UP Report, P. 27)
summarize recommendations with links
John's version of a potential wireframe design for Copyedit stage, based on far more explicit labeling of steps and status.
The Copyediting Conversation
The conversation begins by the copyeditor clinking in #4 above on INITIATE AUDIT AND QUERY RESPONSE. The conversation involve sending out emails that include a "magic link" that takes users directly into the conversation, asking for or showing a response.
This is intended for some conceptual creative destruction and is not to be taken literally.
- Stays with 3-grid design; not as prescriptive or imposing
- Permits responses on responses (to an arbitrary level of depth); responses may or may not include files
- Responses include 3 states: pending (incomplete), approved, rejected
- Rounds can be added to the copyediting grid; the tree of responses can be "pruned" into subsequent rounds to keep the conversation organized.
- Files can arrive in "Production Ready" *only* by going through the Copyediting grid.
- Recasts the copyediting process around a set of "conversations", where the participants can be chosen for each and files and comments can be shared within them. These conversations can be used to organize multiple rounds, if desired.
Copyediting grids showing 3 separate conversations
Within one of these conversations, participants share files and comments
Version 1 (outdated)
- The most important difference is that instead of grid 2 handling conversations, it handles tasks. The only users assignment to the task is the direct responsible for that, which is the copyeditor. The other users can be pulled into the conversation using the "to" and the "message template" fields, in copyeditor task view modal.
- The interface to represent the conversation is just an example, it is not complete and should be better defined.
Version 2 (current)
- Introduce the idea of forum discussions.
- Introduce tutorials to explain the process to users.
The following wireframes just represent the copyeditor assignment and the copyediting tutorial.
An initial test of the wire frames revealed:
- the submission and/or file ID are important to show in grids;
- use the revision number and maybe a sign of which type of revision is that (copyediting, review, etc);
- clarify the "close" action inside the query modal, maybe use "exit" or "cancel"; also maybe close the query modal after we send a message, it was confusing for her sending the message and having to close the modal;
- clarify the query files moving process (to draft or to copyedited);
- maybe need private query option between users;
See "discussion" tab at the top of the wiki page.