dw_suggestions: A User's Guide

[denise]

dw_suggestions: A User's Guide

So, you want to learn more about the dw_suggestions process! This entry will be made the "sticky entry" in the dw_suggestions community (replacing the existing one, which was starting to show its age) to serve as an introduction to the Suggestions process, Dreamwidth development, and just what the heck people should be keeping in mind while they're discussing things here.

Let us begin our magical mystery tour.

( dw_suggestions: A User's Guide )

And that is Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About dw_suggestions But Were Too Shy To Ask Or Just Kept Forgetting To Bring Up! Any further questions?

Add an HTML5/CSS3 (core) style

[allen]

Title:
Add an HTML5/CSS3 (core) style

Area:
styles

Summary:
We should put in a style, be it a customized style or a core style (core5?), that generates HTML5 code and uses CSS3 features. Since this wouldn't be universally supported, we should also available only on a beta/opt-in basis at first.

Description:
Ok, HTML5 isn't actually an official standard yet, but the latest versions of the major browsers support significant sections of it. Same with the various parts of CSS3 and WAI-ARIA. And while we wouldn't want to force everyone to upgrade their browsers, it would be nice for users and developers to have the option of trying out the new features.

In particular, I'd suggest that we build a single S2 layer that generates valid, semantically correct HTML5. We'd probably also need to update the Javascript on the pages to work with the new structure. We could even do a single page at a time, falling back on the default style if the HTML5 version of the page isn't available. This would give us time to standardize the page structures, accessibility requirements, etc., without having to worry about getting a working version of everything done.

Beta opt-in could be through the <a href = "http://www.dreamwidth.org/betafeatures">beta features</a> page. Only users who had opted in would see the new HTML5 pages. To make it simple, we'd probably want to have that value sticky everywhere, so that if you chose to see HTML5, you'd see it on all pages where it was available by default. (Though style=light or style=mine would probably still be available as an override.)

Poll #6688 Add an HTML5/CSS3 (core) style

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 48

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
21 (43.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (6.2%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (4.2%)

(I have no opinion)
22 (45.8%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Enable crossposter to output like the rss feed, if desired

[branchandroot]

Title:
Enable crossposter to output like the rss feed, if desired

Area:
crossposting

Summary:
Enable an option to crosspost truncated entries, according to the syndication level the user has set.

Description:
The crossposter crossposts the full content of any entry, and normally this is just what one wants. But I know there are times I've wished I could set it to crosspost only part of the entry, with a link back to my DW entry--to crosspost a lure, as it were, rather than a full mirror. The RSS feed already does this, as default behavior, and has a few more options besides, depending on how much info one wants to broadcast. So I suggest giving the crossposter the option to post at those same levels (full, cut, summary, and title [http://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=119]), taking its cue from the synlevel that's set.

This would require something new in the crossposter settings, but that interface is still quite simple until you get to the "what does my footer look like" section, so as long as this comes at the top it doesn't seem like it would be option-overload. I envision something like "Crosspost using Syndication Level [checkbox]"; it would be especially useful to make the words "Syndication Level" a link to the Privacy area of settings, possibly adding an anchor to the Syndication Level line for this purpose. Because the default syndication level is to truncate to the cut tag, the default setting for this option should be unchecked.

Ideally, using the synlevel setting will make this easier to implement, both because no new setting option will have to be created and because the syndication level setting is one that at least some of the userbase is already familiar with. It already has its own control in the GUI settings area and won't require messing around with the admin console. This seems like a reasonable way to add flexibility without adding complication.

Poll #6687 Enable crossposter to output like the rss feed, if desired

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 46

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
21 (45.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
9 (19.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (6.5%)

(I have no opinion)
13 (28.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Show circle on interest search

[ciaan]

Title:
Show circle on interest search

Area:
interest search

Summary:
When you search on an interest, it shows all users who list that interest, but viewing can also be broken down into smaller categories. I would like one of those categories to be the users and communities I have in my circle.

Description:
When you search on an interest, it shows all users who list that interest, but viewing can also be broken down into smaller categories.

Show: All Account Types | Users Only | Communities Only | OpenIDs Only

I would also like to add "Circle Only" to the choices.

Yes, in many cases I know what my friends are interested in because I know what they post about, but I would also like to be able to see at a glance which of the users and comms that I follow actually list a certain interest.

Poll #6689 Show circle on interest search

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 49

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
29 (59.2%)

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

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
20 (40.8%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)