2007/4/26, Frank Schulenburg
Do we need an icon for "sighted" at
all? I assume that our readers will
prefer to have icons and boxes on top of articles as few as possible. It
could be better to use labels only if there's something wrong.
I agree completely that readers should get as few boxes and icons as possible. We editors
often forget that the encyclopedia reader has visited to get information on a subject, not
on the status of an article about that subject. The default page presentation should have
_no_ box or icon on it (if marked as at least sighted), perhaps excepting a small footnote
at the bottom.
I believe that these icons will make life easier, both
for readers as
well as editors. In particular, assume an article with both sighted
and reviewed versions. Then, having supplementary icons to the textbox
will make it much more clear what is the situation there. Otherwise,
you always have to browse the textbox. I suggest going for the icons.
Afterwards, we can still decide that we want a text-only solution.
For editors, I agree (if we get good, distinctive graphics). Editors would want to know
at a glance if a revsion is unrated, "sighted", rated-but-below-minimum (if
distinct), or meets-minimum. For readers, though, this is almost always unappreciated
noise, and we should keep it to a minimum. When a reader hits the tab to get to the
"current version", then he is beginning a role as an editor, and a status box
for the revision would then be appropriate I think.