marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
MM Writes ([personal profile] marahmarie) wrote in [site community profile] dw_suggestions2012-09-26 12:41 am

Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.

Title:
Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.

Area:
Styles

Summary:
There is currently a hidden feature on the Visible Tags Page: the ability to show the approximate access-level assigned to each tag. I would like DW to add CSS or a combination of JavaScript and CSS to all our journals to show the hidden feature to everyone who opts-in.

Description:
Currently the Visible Tags page shows all your tags in a single, alphabetically sorted list but does not *visibly* indicate which tags are used on private, access-list-only or public posts. So one day about a year ago I asked myself, "Why not?" and wound up writing CSS that exposed the access-level of all my private and access-list-only posts. This became a fantastic sorting system since I have no other way to tell what I've thrown where without using the Manage Tags page, which can be kind of awkward and time-consuming.

So a week ago I took this a little further and refined the CSS so that 1) only logged-in users see the access-levels alongside each tag and 2) logged-in users see the exact access level used on each tag - public, private, or access-list-only. Here's a screen cap of my current Visible Tags page using my latest CSS for it (logged-in view - logged-out you won't see any of the extra information shown in this screen cap):
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll128/marahstest/expose_access-level_tags_page.jpg

What I'm humbly hoping for is this system of sorting tags by access-level, as seen in the screen cap, gets adapted site-wide either as the default view on the Visible Tags page (of course, it will be visible to logged-in users by access-level only) or else becomes an opt-in default option (which is where JavaScript would probably come into play; otherwise, this is a pure CSS hack).

There are a few possible issues with adapting this styling: 1) it may take more firepower to serve up the additional CSS (but I'm thinking it would not be enough to crash servers or do anything that dramatic as things stand; it's just hard to calculate how much this might slow things down without knowing how much firepower DW has to spare) and 2) there is currently an issue where if you use a tag at more than one access level (say you use your "cats" tag both publicly and on several access-list-only posts) it will get an HTML tag indicating it's for public use only, which means DW won't be able to style it with the specific CSS to reflect that you used it three times publicly and three times for access list readers. Until that split-usage quirk is fixed, my idea makes for an imprecise-at-best look at how your tags are being used. But I think it's still better than not having any sorting system in place at all; in the meantime you can still use your Manage Tags page to drill down more precisely.

If this were to get adopted, I could see future improvements to it such as sorting tags by access level on the Visible Tags Page instead of sorting them entirely alphabetically as we do now, adding the ability to style each access level separately, and so on.

Poll #11751 Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 47


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
15 (31.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (6.4%)

(I have no opinion)
28 (59.6%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.1%)

[personal profile] swaldman 2012-09-28 12:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Note that it's already possible for somebody to use CSS or a style layer to do this (as Marahmarie has done) - but it's probably a minority of users who have the knowhow to do it themselves.

I think that there are two seperate questions here:

1. Should the visibility level of tags be shown by default (as suggested)
2. Should there be a UI option to vary this default

I have no strong opinion on (1), and a minor aversion to (2).



It seems like something that would sit really nicely in some sort of gallery of style layers that just change individual things ("snippets"), that people could contribute to and others could use... that's way outside scope, though, and I've no idea whether there's a plan for such a thing :-)
kyrielle: A photo of kyrielle, in profile, turned slightly toward the viewer (Default)

[personal profile] kyrielle 2012-09-28 01:35 pm (UTC)(link)
My gut reaction is that I have an aversion to #1 as well - but I'm not sure it's a legitimate aversion. My issue is if someone looks at the tag and sees, as noted, its MOST public usage of the tag (is the tag public? yes it is. it's public because it's on at least one public post) and assumes that means things tagged with it are common knowledge (just because it's on public posts doesn't mean it's ONLY on public posts).

I think the tag level reflecting that the *tag* is public (which it is) rather than the number of posts under it that are public, is appropriate. But I don't want people to make assumptions.

That said, they COULD just click the tag and look at the posts, see the top one is public, and assume they all are. It's not like this exposes any information or allows any assumptions someone couldn't already make if they wanted to, even without knowing how to re-style the page to see it.

[personal profile] swaldman 2012-09-29 07:53 am (UTC)(link)
it would be 1) a major re-write of existing code, thus hard, time-consuming, and expensive to pull off

Nope, it would be quite easy to do - and in fact can already be done by anybody who has the knowhow to write their own style layer.
denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)

[staff profile] denise 2012-09-30 01:47 am (UTC)(link)
You guys aren't expected to try to figure that out. If it'll be a problem, we'll tell you.

[personal profile] swaldman 2012-09-29 07:49 am (UTC)(link)
I was averse to 2 because I didn't especially like the idea of adding more options to an already option-laden system. Having said that, it occurs to me this morning that this option might fit best in the style customization screens, which are already so full of confusing options that I'm not sure I care very much ;-) In which case, it would be nice to let people who don't code have the choice.