WEBVTT 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:46.000 Welcome. This is the people usability meeting for October twentieth. 2023. I'm Benji Fisher moderating. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:52.000 And also on the call are several people, some of whom are at Tuple Con and LEAL right now. 00:09:52.000 --> 00:10:01.000 Aaron Mchale and Mongol. Laura Skola, author, child. Ralph Kohler, I'm Simo Hilstman. 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:03.000 Thank you all for coming. 00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:08.000 Unless someone else has something they'd like to bring up, I'd like to start with this issue. 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:21.000 Use modules in field creation flow. For the sake of recording the issue number is 3 3 8. 6 7 6 2. 00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:22.000 Go ahead. 00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:35.000 I'm just wondering if we could maybe start with the just summarize the conversation loudly and I were having because I don't know if you have to jump away to something else. So maybe we could, maybe, we should start with that actually. 00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:43.000 Okay, just one thing before. You do that and pasting into the zoom chat a link. 00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:51.000 2. My local Tuple site shared via DD. You can log in as admin admin. 00:10:51.000 --> 00:11:01.000 And this, the merge request for the issue I mentioned already applied. But go ahead, Aaron, sorry. 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:14.000 Yes, so, this kind of relates to, originally the issue that we looked at last week around, the field UI, and, merging the field instances and feel storage into a single form. 00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:19.000 So I, I can summarize my understanding and then if you wanna just jump in, feel free. 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:39.000 And we can, summarize for the group kind of what we've been talking about and kind of how how we think we've got a good idea of maybe some some things we can do going forward so I I was talking I first slide to televise it because we we did discuss it the meeting and I or a summary to talk about it because we we did discuss it the meeting and I or a summary, but then I thought it'd 00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:45.000 be, since it'd be a drip upon, it makes sense to, discuss it in person and before we call it anything else. 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:58.000 So, I believe we sort of talked about it and I brought up some of the concerns we, in during the meeting and then, very, also I think you would listen to the transcript of the. 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:10.000 The meeting. Like the, key thing is, like there's some of the, like, concern we've brought up. We, agree for, valid concerns. 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:14.000 The thing we, you know, we talked about is that, they're on that specific issue, like, and quite a lot of field. 00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:25.000 You have once there's, you know, a lot of work was then. And advance the naturally there was quite a lot of user testing was done in advance of. 00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:33.000 Of that and actually of the prototypes and mock-ups that have been done prior to the implementation. 00:12:33.000 --> 00:12:46.000 And so one of the things we talk about is how in the field creation flow actually when when we, so when I, so, when I saw it in a Dripal and then I saw like the and how that works when you're creating a field. 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:52.000 It's actually, it does feel quite like quite a nice flow to have everything in one form. 00:12:52.000 --> 00:13:01.000 And also that a lot of the issues be raised really are relevant only if you have, if you don't, you know, if you have more than one instance of a field. 00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:10.000 So if you have only one instance of a field, then having like the field instance config and field storage conflict on the same point is actually not as big an issue. 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:22.000 But as I said, we we did discuss some of the specific concerns we had or in things like the accessibility of jumping between like, you know, Todd, let's say you tab between. 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:37.000 You start the department you're edged in field that's part of the field instance then you tab to field for the field storage and we discussed some of those and we agreed that what we would do is actually create, some follow up issues to look at those specifically. 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:41.000 And that's something that you said you were particularly keen at looking at, where we could make improvements. 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:54.000 And also we talked about how actually we could make more improvements to the layer of the field. So the edit form, to make it sort of clear where things are, I feel specific to the instance and where they are. 00:13:54.000 --> 00:14:07.000 Related to the storage is anything you want to come in on those things just now Laurie If you wanna I'm making you yourself. 00:14:07.000 --> 00:14:17.000 Alright, so if you wanna add one comment, that where we discuss a little bit about the process as well, like what would be the best way to involve the. 00:14:17.000 --> 00:14:25.000 This group in the processes that they are doing and I want to highlight that you know the process that we've been using is It's new for us. 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:33.000 So we've been also experimenting with the process and now based on the feedback that I heard from Aaron and I believe that he was representing the group well based on that. 00:14:33.000 --> 00:14:41.000 Reading the transcribe that you know you would like to be involved in the process. And what I think we should do is Try to involve this group. 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:51.000 As early as possible in the process. And what that means is that's around the design phase. Okay, the implementation. 00:14:51.000 --> 00:15:03.000 So before we actually even implement production quality code, we have a discussion with the group. And get feedback on the designs before we even implement anything and then we have sort of I love it. 00:15:03.000 --> 00:15:09.000 We could address some of that feedback early on in the process and that's something we didn't. 00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:16.000 They can do account. That we've been trying this process with, yeah, something that we can take into account. 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:22.000 Going, going forward. Obviously that's different for issues that. You know, if there's issues in the triple. 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:29.000 They should keep our people proposed features without. Actual design or user research in the beginning. Obviously, it's those issues can only be reduced after they are implemented. 00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:42.000 So, you know, the process might be that'll be different for. You know depending on whether there was actual you have to sign down in the early on in the process versus. 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:48.000 When there's just someone proposing a change. If you're pulled. 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:51.000 Yeah, and we, we also talked about how it It's sometimes not easy to know from the usability group whether an issue has previously had. 00:15:51.000 --> 00:16:10.000 User research done and how much testing was done. So that's something we also talked about where maybe we could make that more visible and issues so that the group is aware of when things have been and even potentially like a summary of what the outcomes. 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:29.000 So like we You know, we talked about we don't wanna, share the specific cardings or specific transcripts, but we could at the very least provide a summary that says, you know, These tests were done and this was the key finding some of those tests and things like that so the group is more informed when it comes to reviewing things. 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:36.000 I, does that, that's a fair assessment. Yeah. Thank you. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:17:00.000 We've also had some discussions where, and Christine have you are reviewing some of the processes and trying to establish them in a way where they're documented somewhere and that's also that makes it clear that you know we have fair expectations from you know all everyone who is involved in like in watch one stage you know We expect what kind of involvement from each other. 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:10.000 So just I guess documenting some of this in, in a. More formal way so that it's more transferring to everyone. 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:16.000 Yeah, that's something I've been quite, keen on for a while. Just never, at the time to start looking at as well. 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:33.000 And, something we also talked about. When we, leave feedback on an issue and we'll be talking about doing their views maybe like having some kind of like having a more like a formalized template, doing the reviews, maybe like having some kind of, like having a more, like a formalized template and, something we talked about is, raising our feedback in a way that. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:42.000 That doesn't preclude any, continued discussion because like I think you quite, you put it quite well that some for sometimes for contributors when they see a comment that has like lots of, you know, well known contributors attached to it. 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:54.000 And even if we try and use like terms like suggestions and recommend like that still carries a lot of weight. 00:17:54.000 --> 00:18:03.000 When we maybe don't necessarily mean it to. So we were talking about idea where we could like when we leave review, phrase as like, here's the problems we discovered and here's some ideas how we could address that. 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:06.000 So that it doesn't, imply that Cause we don't always mean that this is the way something has to be done. 00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:15.000 We still want to encourage people to contribute and to bring off alternative ideas and to be able to bring things up. 00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:22.000 So that was another thing I thought was really good idea that we could as part of this process as we could, you know, look at. 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:43.000 I think that was, I think that's a good thing. I appreciate that was a lot of information to throw it the group and yeah I'm sure we'd be happy to take any questions on kind of those conversations we've had and clarify anything. 00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:53.000 What are the first steps we should be taking to implement some of these? To someone want to draft? A template for usability reviews. 00:18:53.000 --> 00:19:01.000 Can we expect to see some documentation on how processes are going. 00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:15.000 Are we actually? Changing. Long established. Practices like having usability and accessibility as Corgates. 00:19:15.000 --> 00:19:27.000 Yeah, I think that Court case discussion is up. It's a good question and I have lots of thoughts on that. 00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:37.000 Where it's I do think we want solutions that we built the usable but I also think that We need to look at that there's a scale of things and like we need to understand that. 00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:52.000 If we have site based movement on issues, for example, if we don't need to solve all of the issues in a single issue that we can make iterative process. 00:19:52.000 --> 00:20:00.000 The worst things. And, if we, and sometimes even if we have Meeting again. 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:10.000 Happen in my opinion in cases where you have 9 things that you improve and then you have one minor. With that, like I still think it's a net then. 00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:15.000 For us, sometimes you have to compromise a little bit. So we can make everything perfect and that's how we can. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:27.000 You know, half dot. Rapid progress in our issues. I'm happy to take on drafting some of the process. 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:39.000 Parts and make a proposal maybe in the in the upcoming few weeks and then I would be happy to send it for you from this group as well. 00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:41.000 Okay. Thomas? 00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:50.000 So I'm sorry I walked in really late so I've only caught the last bit but I so I'm responding to what Laurie just was speaking about. 00:20:50.000 --> 00:21:10.000 However, it sounds like we are going to be discussing changing the core gate of usability. However, historically speaking, I seem to recall that we had a lot of use ofability challenges back in the day. 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:19.000 And that the reason for including it was that when left to their own devices, individual developers were not taking the time. 00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:32.000 To bring issues to any form of usability review and adding the core gate. While it's it can be pretty easy to say hey as a developer. 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:36.000 I feel that this particular issue doesn't need to be held up in usability. Removing the Corgate. 00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Means that it's going to be opt-in rather than opt-out. And it would be really sad to revert to the days of Drupal 6 usability versus where we've been able to really move. 00:21:54.000 --> 00:22:08.000 More recently. I I would hate to see us regress as a project. From something that has brought a lot of good and I feel that what we have today is far superior to where we used to be. 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:09.000 Okay. 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:13.000 So if you wanna respond to that, I'm not saying that we should be removing the gate. 00:22:13.000 --> 00:22:21.000 I personally can be more in principle kind of thinking over gates. Where we have a principle that we want to make triple usable in everything that we do. 00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:24.000 And that. Allows us to think it in a way like if this improves if this is a net win for our usability. 00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:39.000 Even if there's one regression. Usability in some. Small part of the change that could still meet the principle that we are trying to make the project more usable. 00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:40.000 But. 00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:46.000 First, when, when you think about gates, it's always means that everything needs to be usable, but then it's again how usable does it need to be. 00:22:46.000 --> 00:22:47.000 It's like because 00:22:47.000 --> 00:23:11.000 It's who's making the determination. Who determines whether or not something is useful is the individual generating the patch or coming up with the solution the one to determine that so it it feels very circular if the person determining whether or not something meets the need of usability or is a regression. 00:23:11.000 --> 00:23:18.000 It's it's important to separate. The person taking the action. From someone reviewing the action. 00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:25.000 Right, and ultimately that's up to the core committer to decide whether the gate has been met. 00:23:25.000 --> 00:23:33.000 As individuals with an interest in usability, we can all give usability to reviews for. Interview. 00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:52.000 This group is not the only one with the authority to. Say that something passes the gate. I think, probably Christina and Roy is usability topic maintainer, listed in maintainer. 00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:58.000 Have more authority than we do. But. 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:06.000 But the the gate is there and ultimately it's the core committer who decides. 00:24:06.000 --> 00:24:07.000 Okay. 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:30.000 I'm also wondering what is the concern? Is it like slowing down and we wanna Not having slow because I think at least in this group whenever I can join Things are being discussed and moving on and I sometime I might see like bike shedding concerns but I Didn't see in this group that we had a lot like we taking concern of like You know, this is something. 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:41.000 That can be dealt with but perhaps something can get in and have a ticket for future near future that will deal with that specific regression or something. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:48.000 So I do want to give, I do want a specific example that we. Did have some specific. 00:24:48.000 --> 00:25:03.000 Usability issues that we were aware of when we worked under the designs for the field. For example, the the label field which is on the before displayed before the field types. 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:13.000 With something that users often forgot. To feel before moving to the next step. But it, so that's, that's a usability issue with it. 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:23.000 But then it was. Decided or recommended by the. You should have been the researchers that since this is not going to be the final design that the in implement that this is something that did not prevent anyone from actually using the software. 00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:38.000 It was more a convenience problem. It was it was annoying. So I was, declared at that point that The fact that we can make edited progress on that issue. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:50.000 It's more valuable than trying to solve that issue somehow in this. A middle step issue. So that's an example of where, you know, we made a pragmatic decision that you know, business up. 00:25:50.000 --> 00:25:56.000 You have a bit the issue that we are aware of, but we believe that it's not severe enough. 00:25:56.000 --> 00:25:57.000 Actually, makes sense for us to fix it at this point. 00:25:57.000 --> 00:26:04.000 But. How does that necessitate changing how the group operates though? Because it sounds like the system worked as is as intended. 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:07.000 And so there wasn't any holdup. 00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:18.000 Okay. Okay, I don't think there this is I'm not saying that this even means that there's a change in how the group operates. 00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:27.000 I'm mainly just trying to communicate how we make those efficiency in that progress and how would we do that in future so that there is transparency between the groups. 00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:52.000 How that is done because I feel like their screen occasionally, you know, questions about that. Are we following the same process that we did before and maybe there has been some changes to how we approach things because I do believe that if you apply the gates sort of thinking technically that is against them the usability case because it is a usability issue that we are introducing in that issue. 00:26:52.000 --> 00:27:03.000 I mean, all I would suggest is that it then be documented. Like, I don't think, I haven't heard any talk from within our group about any, I haven't heard any talk from within our group about any frustration or from other sources. 00:27:03.000 --> 00:27:10.000 It's more that if there's an override group about any frustration or from other sources, it's more that if there's an override for whatever validation or from other sources, it's more that if there's an override for whatever valid reason, it's simply documented that if there's an override for whatever valid reason, it's simply documented that, hey, this is a 00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:11.000 short-term fix because of X and then move on. 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:17.000 Right. Yeah, I think the documentation is the key point in this Lori said. We have to work on transparency. 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:33.000 And we have methods for that. There are meta issues. Their follow up issues and yeah as a back end developer i know how important it is to dive into the code and make changes. 00:27:33.000 --> 00:27:41.000 But I also have a bit of experience and I know how important it is to, let people know. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:51.000 What's going on and not just the code, but also a description of what the code is supposed to be doing. 00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:56.000 And we all know that issue descriptions are too often neglected. 00:27:56.000 --> 00:28:05.000 Yeah, one of the, I guess, for Thomas, Ben, actually, as well, like we were just talking, I was saying how, while I'm talking about how this group could be involved more in the earlier stages. 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:28.000 So again, the field UI. And when far we might want to, you know, have prototypes and mockups actually presented the groups of the group has that opportunity to, provide input those early stages and then also like on issues, have a bit more context about like, you know, if user research was done and what kind of a summary of that research was, one of the other ideas actually that 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:38.000 we talked about that could be was kind of a we were just bike setting on ideas as like for things like the field you had where we want to like it's a really quickly. 00:28:38.000 --> 00:29:00.000 We could maybe look at some kind of, a lot of systems have the ability to like opt in to like beta features, you know, like, you can, that's quite common these days and maybe that's something that we could look at potentially for triple chorus like you know you could you could say as a site owner I want to see, you know, things that are, that are in court 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:06.000 that are maybe still being like UI changes that are not quite 100% yet, but it might get us an opportunity to get more feedback. 00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:20.000 So that was like what I did that came completely on the blues, there wasn't any kind of like, it was just, we were having a conversation, I was like, okay, that could actually be quite a interesting pattern to, to explore, for for Dripolis to whether we do something like that. 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:26.000 How are and that that wasn't that we discussed the possibility of making the field into an experimental module. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:34.000 Oh, yeah, so. One of the, I guess in this case it was like, we didn't, we talked about what we talked about. 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:40.000 I mentioned that like an experimental module and, this was a kind of alternative idea for like how we could. 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:47.000 Have something where, cause for like an experimental module, the site has, like maintainers actively go and enable it. 00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:53.000 Whereas we and you were talking about how you didn't want to have as much of a Like how did you, how did you describe it? 00:29:53.000 --> 00:30:00.000 I guess is, I don't wanna. Perfect. Too much. 00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:02.000 Larry, you're muted. 00:30:02.000 --> 00:30:09.000 Yeah, so there were several reasons why we thought that we would prefer not to go with that process was first that it could be really challenging to get people to enable module like this. 00:30:09.000 --> 00:30:16.000 So we would actually not be getting. Lots of feedback on this. Second reason was that because we need one trip to be on board with some of the changes that we are making. 00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:28.000 It would be challenging, to actually get a realistic sense of the experience if it was in an experimental module. 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:34.000 It would take much longer. Done what it what it's taking currently because of people are updating their modules. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:40.000 . update it to be compatible with the new immediately or much faster because they know that it's coming in the next release. 00:30:40.000 --> 00:30:47.000 Okay, I declare bike setting. 00:30:47.000 --> 00:30:56.000 Alright. Alright. 00:30:56.000 --> 00:30:57.000 No. 00:30:57.000 --> 00:30:58.000 Laurie. 00:30:58.000 --> 00:31:07.000 Then third was the, the, the timeline. So if you go to experimental, it just means that it takes much longer for us to actually make those improvements and then we get to the point where like someone like, you know, Aqua might not be yes interested anymore in investing it because it adds to the cost of, you know, making those changes. 00:31:07.000 --> 00:31:08.000 Okay. 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:18.000 Aaron, can you tap him on the shoulder? I declare bike shedding. I don't want to discuss the difference between having an experimental module and having an opt in feature for beta. 00:31:18.000 --> 00:31:25.000 But what I do want to focus on are the next steps and Laura has already, said he'll be. 00:31:25.000 --> 00:31:35.000 Drafting some documentation. Is there anything else we should be doing in the near term? 00:31:35.000 --> 00:31:46.000 Okay, yeah, so I'll just say that like this is something because this is a conversation that we we do have, again, it's something that I'm, quite, team. 00:31:46.000 --> 00:31:58.000 There's a, One with the immediate. UI issue was to I'm gonna be filing some follow up issues for the specific concerns and we and Laura is really keen to take a look at those and see if we can, what we can do to address them. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:09.000 And, yeah, I think, you know, I'm also clicking on, templating into those kind of processes and things to. 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:15.000 So yeah, I suppose those are 2 specific next steps that will. Happy. 00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:18.000 Okay. So let's move on. It's almost, half past the hour. 00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:31.000 Let me share my screen again. Give me a minute. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:32.000 And here's. 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:49.000 Just, but just there's one final thing before we do. I just wanna thank Laurie for, jumping on the call at such short notice because I literally had the word taps on the shoulder and giving up the time because I know it's very busy today so yeah thank you for thank you for coming on and It's great that we were able to have these conversations. 00:32:49.000 --> 00:32:50.000 Today and through over the week. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:33:00.000 Okay. Yeah, yeah, thanks everyone for the work that you're doing. So I'm gonna More from those next steps and maybe. 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:06.000 Come back to the meeting and. Maybe in a week or 2, I will let you know upfront when I can come next time. Right. I have to drop. 00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:10.000 So. Thanks, everyone. 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:11.000 Hey, thank you. 00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:12.000 Thanks. 00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Thank you. 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:17.000 Yeah. 00:33:17.000 --> 00:33:27.000 And, and thank you, Erin, for offering, to file. Follow up issues. I know that, Simo and I think also Ralph have also been creating new issues and the issue. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:38.000 I'd like to talk about today's 3 3 8 6 7 6 2 use mobile and field creation flow. 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:50.000 And. Oh, I see in the chat, Simo, put in a link to a Google Doc where he has some comments on this. 00:33:50.000 --> 00:33:58.000 But I also want to say, this issue is one of the children. Of the plan to improve the field creation experience. 00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:08.000 So this is the meta issue for All the changes that Larry and his team have been working on. 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:17.000 The issue number is 3 3 4 6 5 3 9. So I think we've. 00:34:17.000 --> 00:34:32.000 Added some of these child issues. This is one that Simo added. And probably any additional issues that you've created or like maybe be children of this as well. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:33.000 Any follow ups to the things that have already been done here. 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:40.000 Properly. I'll figure out exactly where we create them soon. 00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:51.000 Okay. And use Moodles issues one of them and Combining field storage and fields. 00:34:51.000 --> 00:35:05.000 Instances on one form is. Wanted the fixed issues. introducing groups. Those are some of the things we've discussed in recent meetings. 00:35:05.000 --> 00:35:15.000 So, use mobile and field creation flow. Is another issue. Part of that big push. 00:35:15.000 --> 00:35:24.000 Last night I, I rebased the Merch request, solved, and merged conflicts. 00:35:24.000 --> 00:35:37.000 And the site I shared. And, in the Zoom chat. It's not this. This is the tugboat QA with an older version of it. 00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:49.000 This is my site where I have. Merged with the latest 11 point x. 00:35:49.000 --> 00:35:54.000 If I just go to. 00:35:54.000 --> 00:36:08.000 Structure, content types. Let's take. Basic page, manage fields. 00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:17.000 So let's. Walk through, understand, this is under active development. There are some things that are obviously broken. 00:36:17.000 --> 00:36:32.000 We don't have to point out everything. But, you know, as early as we can, we'd like to help provide some some feedback. 00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:43.000 And thank you, Ralph, for putting the issue into Zoom chat. So if we create a new field. 00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:54.000 This screen now pops up in the modal. If you remember. Selecting. 00:36:54.000 --> 00:37:04.000 Several, these are groups. Some of these are individual field types. So I think that Boolean is an individual field type. 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:13.000 Link is probably an individual. You'll type in email. But most of the others are groups. 00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:31.000 And we. We noticed that, in the previous version, in what's currently in core, if you choose one of these groups it opens up in a part of the page below what we currently see, which we thought was problematic. 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:41.000 Now when you open up one of these groups, get a new screen in the modal. 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:49.000 So the label we noticed was an easy thing to miss. I think it's. Less easy than this in its current position. 00:37:49.000 --> 00:38:08.000 On this form, you can choose plain text or you can choose. Long plain text. I do notice one problem that the label field is not marked as required. 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:15.000 But if you try to go on to the next step without. Putting in the label field. You see that it is required. 00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:27.000 Not only is the label field required, but the machine name. Is required and it's a little confusing to have these 2 parts of the error message without unhiding. 00:38:27.000 --> 00:38:33.000 The machine name. Perfect. 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:41.000 Once I start entering a label, the machine name field comes I'm hidden. And then I can continue. 00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:50.000 Before I go any further. Any comments on these first? 2 steps. 00:38:50.000 --> 00:39:00.000 I could point out that. If you now, edit. The machine, and, and delete it, and then try to continue. 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:11.000 And then you have reference that you have another error message that you need to provide a machine name but it resets automatically the machine name to the label. 00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:33.000 So that's something that's not announced. In the message that the machine there was. Recent automatically so that's something that maybe for someone who doesn't notice that it's something so if you just make leave it black 00:39:33.000 --> 00:39:42.000 Okay, I think that probably falls under the category of this is something that's still under development and we don't have to. 00:39:42.000 --> 00:39:44.000 Point out every problem. Here, Ralph. 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:51.000 Well, that's actually just, Sage adding to the error, adding to the error message. 00:39:51.000 --> 00:39:53.000 Kind of 00:39:53.000 --> 00:40:03.000 Okay. And certainly has to be documented and fixed at some point. But go ahead. 00:40:03.000 --> 00:40:12.000 One detail, if you. I already forward it. If you could go to change field type maybe. 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:22.000 And select Boolean instead. Is also a bit. Ought to have a single label field. 00:40:22.000 --> 00:40:30.000 Standing alone 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:43.000 From my perspective, it might. I don't know if it's technically possible. But if it would, if it would be possible to leave the label field onto the next, step. 00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:51.000 Basically where you define the whole field settings and leave the first 2 steps or the first step in case of something like Boolean. 00:40:51.000 --> 00:40:56.000 To the selection of the type. 00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:09.000 Okay, so the general issue is that there's We need to have some generic way of splitting up the. 00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:18.000 The steps in this modal process. And it's not going to work well for all. Cases. 00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:21.000 Thomas? 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:32.000 So, in general, I think I like what I'm seeing. I'm wondering, I saw, I'm seeing an opportunity for something to consider. 00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:43.000 In one instance, we could market as a required. Field if you go back to, where we were entering in the label. 00:41:43.000 --> 00:42:02.000 So I'm talking about the label, sorry. Alright, so one option is. To automatically put the little red star so that it makes sense that an error is going to come and to show a partial machine name so that the errors make more sense. 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:30.000 So I think that's one solution. Or one direction but the alternative that would be different than how we've historically done it would be to auto generate a sample label which would fill in the space and it would make things visible and it means that if someone just wanted to click click through and create a field, it could create like Boolean field one and increment through. 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:52.000 And I, I get that this is a change from historical, but I'm trying to present it as there's we can keep everything the way it is and I like what I'm seeing, but one way would be to, one way is to try and fix it so that the error messages make sense and the other way is to fix it so that you don't run into the error messages by automatically having a potential label in 00:42:52.000 --> 00:43:02.000 the field when you start. I don't know if that's desirable. I just wanted to to suggest that we could solve the problem in 2 ways. 00:43:02.000 --> 00:43:06.000 Okay. Ralph, go ahead. 00:43:06.000 --> 00:43:20.000 And one small addition about the general navigation. One detail to note me as a user when I oops you're already left unfortunately. 00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:23.000 Go back to Berlin. 00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:37.000 Yeah, the, yeah. Yeah, yeah, you could take, for example, because if you are in the second step and you press the change field type, you get back to the first step if you now continue. 00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:51.000 And are on the last. Step side on the field settings one and then press the Yeah, just go ahead. 00:43:51.000 --> 00:43:57.000 And our label. 00:43:57.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Okay, you. 00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:05.000 And continue. And for example, Boolean was a bad example. Anyway, if you, if you would. 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:24.000 Have a field with options. And then click the change field type. Me, I would have expected to go back to the second step where I was able to change the option but you again go back to the first step with change field. 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:25.000 Okay. So. 00:44:25.000 --> 00:44:27.000 By pressing. That is one confusing detail. 00:44:27.000 --> 00:44:34.000 So here I have plain text. Yeah, and then, and I choose playing. And continue. 00:44:34.000 --> 00:44:42.000 Okay, and now you continue and you remember oh I just wanted to plain long and you press change field type because I expect this a back. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:50.000 But now you go the whole way back. In step of an incremental step backwards. 00:44:50.000 --> 00:45:04.000 Okay, so perhaps rather than specifically a change field type button. We should have the option of going back to the previous step, whatever that was. 00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:14.000 Yeah, and that brings me to the other general detail. In general, I like the way it is presented and done in the modal. 00:45:14.000 --> 00:45:19.000 It's good. But it would be 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:28.000 Provide more context if to the title of the model at field plaintext in that case. For example, step. 00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:40.000 2 out of 3 is added or prepared prepended that way the user is. Does know at which in which step of the flow He or she is and how many steps they actually are. 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:47.000 Cause At the moment. Previously, there were pages that were disconnected sort of and you could lost in the flow. 00:45:47.000 --> 00:46:14.000 Now you have several display views on a model and you're in the same way sort of lost but if you provide some anchor and information stating where we actually are in those steps would help help from my perspective. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:23.000 Okay, and I think the Nothing the continue button and the change field type or go to previous step button. 00:46:23.000 --> 00:46:31.000 I think a natural place to click that information would be on the same line. 00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:41.000 You know, to indicate what steps there are in the form and where you are. Getting a thumbs up from Thomas. 00:46:41.000 --> 00:47:04.000 Also here the error message is if you don't choose an option they use they refer to that page title of this model that's it's not shown but there is also if you were we are changing like making so that there are steps also it could be because if you don't choose a option here. 00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:15.000 The error message said that you should select sub-type but sometimes it is not mentioned in but Calls. 00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:22.000 So it's using different term and the term refers to that if this would be a page it would be that page. 00:47:22.000 --> 00:47:29.000 Oh, I cool. So that's another thing just 00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:40.000 Okay, so if you try to split the form without choosing anything. Subtype is not text that appears anywhere. 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:45.000 On the form. 00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:49.000 So. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:48:03.000 Cancel and go back. Another sort of serious bug which just shows how raw this is, you know, this is not an issue that's ready for review. 00:48:03.000 --> 00:48:15.000 But another problem I noticed here. Is that whatever label you give it, whichever option you choose. 00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:21.000 It's not this step, but the next step on the form that has the problem. 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:32.000 You enter. A value for a select list. If you try to add another item. Or go back or save or change field type. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:40.000 Any of those seems to trigger the change field type. Option. Let me go back to the. Maybe a step. 00:48:40.000 --> 00:48:42.000 Oh. 00:48:42.000 --> 00:49:00.000 Although this actually is going back one step, which is what we wanted. Anyway, as This obviously isn't the intended behavior. 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:10.000 But it's currently broken and that's probably related to the recent changes. In how, select lists. 00:49:10.000 --> 00:49:15.000 . We are work in the UI. Go ahead, Thomas. 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:24.000 I think it's just I agree with everything that's been said. I was just gonna point out that it looked like where it says choose an option below. 00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:38.000 The issue is that subfield type. Means what option is meaning or vice versa. And so whatever language they want to go with, they just need to unify around that language and that's related to that. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:43.000 Particular piece of text on the page. Now, I don't know if someone's going to understand. 00:49:43.000 --> 00:50:12.000 So we've Ralph mentioned having like step one of 3. I don't know if in addition to that it might be good to have like step 2 pick subtype or like there may be a way to or pick option however whatever language they get behind there may be value in making certain it's mentioned in all of the appropriate places, including the button to go back and forward. 00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:18.000 Or I guess back, it really is important. But that's, that's what I'm seeing. 00:50:18.000 --> 00:50:27.000 And it would help, it would help me understand their intent. If all of the things were aligned. 00:50:27.000 --> 00:50:36.000 Right. And And, and easy slip of the thinker you might accidentally hit enter and trigger the primary submit button. 00:50:36.000 --> 00:50:43.000 Which is continue. Oh, and again. Maybe that doesn't. 00:50:43.000 --> 00:50:50.000 I wonder how bad if I click into the label and then hit enter. There we go. Oh, well, that's interesting. 00:50:50.000 --> 00:50:56.000 That's no longer remodel. 00:50:56.000 --> 00:50:59.000 And there you can see the subfield. 00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:00.000 Yeah. 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:08.000 So where can you see subfield? . Here 00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:09.000 Oh. 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:12.000 In the title so it's not actually a sub- but some feared. 00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:17.000 Oh, up here, yes. 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:22.000 So that was, that was interesting. 00:51:22.000 --> 00:51:25.000 Go ahead. 00:51:25.000 --> 00:51:37.000 On the first step, one detail that came up yesterday. In the accessibility office hours is also a site. 00:51:37.000 --> 00:51:47.000 Yeah, the ability to tap through the, available. Few types also provide the ability to navigate by Curses. 00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:50.000 So you're able up, down, left and right. 00:51:50.000 --> 00:52:00.000 And this is something that we brought up with the previous version. One that's already in core. That this looks like a grid, but it's actually. 00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:01.000 A list. 00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:10.000 But back then, They were radio buttons but they aren't anymore if I'm not completely wrong. 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:22.000 Yeah, this is actually changed so that these are not trade deal buttons and they don't press radio buttons so you can't actually navigate with the arrow keys at all so it's only tabbing. 00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:23.000 Oh. 00:52:23.000 --> 00:52:34.000 But on the next step you have see your radio. And that's kind of problematic because There we have different method of navigating with keyboard. 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:52.000 So it's encoding. So on 1 one place you add you navigate the options for by tabbing and then on the next step you will navigate the options by key up and down or left and right key but tabbing goes to that next section. 00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:53.000 Got it. 00:52:53.000 --> 00:52:59.000 Okay, and navigate with or by just tab. 00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:11.000 Okay. And once I selected a radio button, I can't get to the other one. By by tabbing I can only get to the other one. 00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:15.000 With the cursor keys. Yeah, that's, that's an inconsistency. 00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:26.000 And this is also something that I asked yesterday from, in the accessibility meeting that This is something that's kind of having those radio buttons there visible. 00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:51.000 Can be something that's. difficult for cognition. So it's kind of okay to have those as radio buttons but when it's not this when it's inside the container it can be confusing for sorry. 00:53:51.000 --> 00:54:01.000 So we have about. 10 min left. There are a lot of things here. 00:54:01.000 --> 00:54:11.000 And I think at this point. A useful thing to do. Would be to go to the issue. 00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:20.000 Let me reload the page just in case someone else has commented on it recently. What I'd like to do. 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:25.000 Is update the remaining tasks section. 00:54:25.000 --> 00:54:37.000 Of the issue summary. And document some of the things that have to be dealt with. Again, it's early. 00:54:37.000 --> 00:54:49.000 It's too early to be really giving review. But I think that if we list some of them in generic terms that will help make sure that they don't get overlooked. 00:54:49.000 --> 00:54:55.000 Ralph, did you want to send something? 00:54:55.000 --> 00:55:03.000 No. No. 00:55:03.000 --> 00:55:12.000 So remaining tasks. And, if you read the guidelines, There are links down here. 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:25.000 If you read the guidelines, the remaining tab should always be a numbered list. And you can add things to the list, but, But don't delete things, don't insert things into list so that when people refer to remaining tasks by number in the comments. 00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:37.000 It, continues to make sense. And then as tasks are completed, we. Use the strike through text. 00:55:37.000 --> 00:55:41.000 So. 00:55:41.000 --> 00:55:47.000 So one is that, make sure. 00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:52.000 So, selection. 00:55:52.000 --> 00:56:03.000 Let's work. Currently. 00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:10.000 Where you submit. But. 00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:17.000 Just repeat this. 00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:27.000 I might update this later with a reference to the comment that I made. Last night. 00:56:27.000 --> 00:56:35.000 Make sure error messages. 00:56:35.000 --> 00:56:39.000 Yes. 00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:47.000 That's the field labels. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:57:00.000 Use buttons. Or Great. I guess they're actually links. 00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:11.000 Arabia buttons. Consistently. So that keyboard. Yeah. 00:57:11.000 --> 00:57:21.000 It's consistent. In the various moments. 00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:25.000 Okay. 00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:31.000 . Or 00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:35.000 Before. 00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:44.000 Like. There Control and. 00:57:44.000 --> 00:57:52.000 Expected results. 00:57:52.000 --> 00:57:58.000 What other things have we brought up? 00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:04.000 Ralph mentioned. Listing like step one of 1 one of one of 3, 2 of 3, something like that. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:16.000 Oh yes. And decade. Where 00:58:16.000 --> 00:58:21.000 Our process. 00:58:21.000 --> 00:58:30.000 Same. Yeah. 5. 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:37.000 Let's. All the steps. 00:58:37.000 --> 00:58:42.000 The. Active Fund. 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:53.000 And also align the back button. To the at the moment it always jumps back to the First step. 00:58:53.000 --> 00:59:00.000 Nice. Okay. 00:59:00.000 --> 00:59:01.000 Change field type. 00:59:01.000 --> 00:59:11.000 But was it select to field select a different? Thanks. Bye. But. 00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:15.000 That those. 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:19.000 Yes. 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:28.000 Oh, and. It's simple and. 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:36.000 Mark required. Yeah. Okay, so. 00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:52.000 . Like not people, like. 00:59:52.000 --> 00:59:57.000 In one detail. No, I have forgot to mention. 00:59:57.000 --> 01:00:11.000 For field types that have options. And if those options in contrast to for example the preference field type have also some sort of description underneath, the bullet point. 01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:19.000 For screen readers those aren't announced automatically. And not necessarily, noticed. 01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:30.000 So let's just make a sort of generic suggestion that we make sure it works. Keyboard navigation and screen readers. 01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:33.000 Is that okay? 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:37.000 Yeah. 01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:44.000 Would you rather be more specific and mention that the 01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:46.000 What is it these? 01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:54.000 And these descriptions for timestamp, for example, ideal for using data and time calculations or comparisons not necessarily. 01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:02.000 Are announced like other descriptions. 01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:03.000 For that. 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:16.000 Automatically if you if you tab to that field. Option. Then the description isn't announced. 01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:24.000 And make sure the descriptions of field groups and field types. I think that's the term the developers are using for this process that. 01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:27.000 Yeah. 01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:33.000 These are the groups. And then within a group. We have pipes. 01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:34.000 On the 01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:37.000 Alright, Okay. 01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:41.000 Make sure that the descriptions of these are announced. By screen. 01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:55.000 Announced. Yeah. On the first On the first step it works. And it is announced, but on the second step, what the option is not. 01:01:55.000 --> 01:01:56.000 Or maybe they're actually 3 things here, field groups. No types and options. 01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:06.000 Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, Oh, by the same. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:19.000 Or should I go back to just saying. 01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:20.000 Simo, I think we're getting some background noise. 01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:29.000 But, the world. However, I'll, kind of Oh, sorry. I switched device and forgot to mute myself. 01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:39.000 Okay, just 2 min left. I think I'll. We this as a draft. 01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:52.000 Comment here and submit it. Later. As I said, it's supposed to be a numbered list. 01:02:52.000 --> 01:02:58.000 So far as previewing. 01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:11.000 And I will add a, a to go along with it. 01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:24.000 And I think it it goes without saying that they need to make the automated tests pass. 01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:35.000 And I guess the consensus is that this generally works better than the previous version. The modal flow. 01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:42.000 Idea is. Is a good one. It just. 01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:54.000 Me needs work, which of course. They have not no one has marked this issue is ready for review yet it is still in development. 01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:00.000 Locked up but the general direction looks like a good idea. 01:04:00.000 --> 01:04:02.000 Absolutely. 01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:04.000 Yes. 01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:13.000 Of course, if you have anything to add, think of something later. 01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:19.000 Please comment on the issue yourself. And we are at the end of the hour. So thank you all for coming. 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:32.000 And. I do hope that we can get this issue finished, usable and accessible. In time for Drupal 10.2 because I would really hate to. 01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:46.000 Change the admin experience. In 10.2 and then change it again radically. In 10.3. 01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:49.000 Read agreed. 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:50.000 Hey. 01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:52.000 Agreed. Thanks everyone. Thanks Benji. 01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:53.000 Thanks, Benji. 01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:55.000 Thank you. And of course we'll do it again next week. 01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:01.000 Have a nice weekYep