dw_beta | New Create Entries management page

This post is to report bugs in the new Create Entries page. This is a complete rewrite of the old Update page, in order to allow for future expansion and new features such as draft posts, scheduled posts, recurring posts, expanding the range of what can be posted to your journal, and a whole host of other awesome things.

When reporting bugs, please include:

* The browser name, browser version number, and operating system you're using
* The steps you took to reproduce the problem
* Whether or not you've tested the same steps in another browser (and if so, which)
* Whether you get the same result every time you try the same steps, or if it only happens sometimes

If we can't reproduce the problem under the same browser and operating system, we may also ask you for a list of any browser extensions you have installed.

Not all features are completely implemented in the new Create Entries page yet. The biggest thing currently missing is the Rich Text editor -- the only option is the plain-old-HTML option. The design of the page is geared towards changing concepts and visual/workflow metaphors around what it means to "post an entry", too -- because of the forthcoming draft and scheduled posts, we needed to adapt some of the language and some of the ways we present concepts -- even though the draft and scheduled post functionality isn't ready to be released yet. So, if something looks awkward or like it doesn't quite fit, it's probably there to allow for something we'll be releasing in the future. (You can still mention it, though!)

Things we also consider to be bugs that should be reported, in addition to something not working right:

* if you can't figure out what to do at any step of the update process
* if you have accessibility-related problems (with your screenreader, with the tab order of the page, with the workflow, etc)
* if something about the new workflow completely breaks the way you use your journal, and you can't figure out any way to work around it (there may be a way to do what you're used to doing, but if you can't figure it out, that's something we might change or might want to document, etc)

You can enable or disable beta testing at any point.

Not yet enabled

* Rich Text editing
* Using the new Create Entries page for editing existing entries
* Using the new Create Entries page for comm admins deleting posts or performing admin overrides
* Draft posts of any type, including the in-browser saved drafts that exist right now

Known/Reported Bugs

* some difficulties crossposting, looks like possibly date-related? we're trying to figure it out.

Should be fixed

* Settings not properly saving when using the "gear" customize-this-page popup; some modules disappear
* Create Entries form being repeated after posting an entry
* Error in link to Beta Features at top of page
* Error messages when using new update page in older versions of Firefox
* Difficulties with IE (oh, IE)
* Errors with time being truncated
* inactive icons showing in the icon browser
* minsecurity of journal not reflecting properly in update form
* whole host of display glitches

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Also, I really prefer each module to look like it does when you're editing/configuring. They each have a header that is in a boxed cell. It keeps each section feeling like a section. When I look at it out of configuration, it feels like everything is squished. I don't really love horizontal rules between sections, so I wouldn't suggest that, but the table cell look that it has in configuration is really clean. Also, it helps separate the feel of a lot of black text mixing in together since the headers of each section aren't colored differently.

The only visual difference between sections currently is a very vague silver line space between them.

Also, for the textareas (subject and entry), I noticed you have a very discreet border-top in a medium blue shade. Might I suggest an inset border (similar to what I use in my search box and what google uses now):

Edited (Corrected the line space color. Added some text box ideas.) 2011-10-31 16:15 (UTC)

Also, I really prefer each module to look like it does when you're editing/configuring. They each have a header that is in a boxed cell. It keeps each section feeling like a section. When I look at it out of configuration, it feels like everything is squished. I don't really love horizontal rules between sections, so I wouldn't suggest that, but the table cell look that it has in configuration is really clean. Also, it helps separate the feel of a lot of black text mixing in together since the headers of each section aren't colored differently.

This, please, so much. This whole wall of white makes it harder to spot what's the area for typing and what's the area for options (this makes the old version smarter!!!), harder to understand which option does what and where it is.

*g* Is http://www.dreamwidth.org/entry/new?v=2 any better?

So much better, yes. Thank you! I would actually color the whole box as well to have a lighter gray for content/darker gray for headers but I get why you wouldn't do that. Another possibility would be to have a 'always show headers' option because I think this has to do with learning curves as well. I need the headers now. I don't know if I'll still need them in a year.

I love that look a lot better, thanks! :D

(Wait, no, not quite - now the look reverts to the white when you're in *editing* mode. I'd love it if it could be the grey block in both, as in the mockup.)

Edited 2011-11-01 12:07 (UTC)

I like the headers better, too. The differentiation between modules is much more effective.

Re: visual look

(I kinda love this comment for your ability to explain the way you feel about the visual design) Any particular thoughts on http://www.dreamwidth.org/entry/new?v=2?

Re: border-top:

thanks for the code snippet! I'll play around with this. (which site skin are you using right now, btw?)

The inset border usually looks really in a pale grey in a white textbox with a colored bordered to simulate a highlight and faint shadow into the box for depth of field (which works pretty nice for those that aren't paying attention to the color change).

I use the default Tropo Red, just because that's what people normally see coming to the site the first time.

And v2 looks much better. I can understand why people were iffy about the boxes before (because with only 5px in between them the lines can get overwhelming), but it's considerably easier to make adjustments to each section this way.

New Create Entries management page

Not yet enabled

Known/Reported Bugs

Should be fixed

Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look

Re: Visual Look