Improve the information displayed in the site preview form:

1) Change the term "Viewing" to "Reviewing" - as the workflow is reviewing a current revision
2) Add the version ID to the form -- currently it only says "revision" without referencing the version ID
3) Spacing/layout of the buttons

Suggested revision as displayed in attached screenshot.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#3 sps-improve_site_preview_form_ux-1988474-03.patch1.87 KBtoddtomlinson
#1 improve_site_preview_form_ux-1988474-01.patch1.27 KBtoddtomlinson
Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 1.19.49 PM.png20.92 KBtoddtomlinson
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

toddtomlinson’s picture

toddtomlinson CreditAttribution: toddtomlinson commented
FileSize
improve_site_preview_form_ux-1988474-01.patch1.27 KB

The following patch provides the improvements to the UX as listed above.

ericduran’s picture

ericduran CreditAttribution: ericduran commented
Title: Improve the UX for the » Improve the UX for the information displayed in the site preview form

remove tag.

toddtomlinson’s picture

toddtomlinson CreditAttribution: toddtomlinson commented
FileSize
sps-improve_site_preview_form_ux-1988474-03.patch1.87 KB

Additional improvements to UX:

1) Changed Reviewing to Previewing
2) Added AM/PM to date/time
3) Bolded the word Previewing

ericduran’s picture

ericduran CreditAttribution: ericduran commented
Status: Active » Needs work 
+++ b/css/sps.cssundefined
@@ -113,6 +113,24 @@
+.sps-preview-form input#edit-preview,
+.sps-preview-form input#edit-preview--1,
+.sps-preview-form input#edit-preview--2 {

We should not target --1&& --2.

At most it should be input {}

That being said are these actually generic? Does it make more sense to actual declare that the button is "primary" vs "secondary" so any theme could style them properly.

+++ b/sps.moduleundefined
@@ -326,15 +326,14 @@ function sps_drupal() {
+  $message = array('#markup' => t('<b>Previewing</b> %title - revision %revision_id - %date', array('%date' => date('D, m/d/Y h:i A', $node->revision_timestamp), '%title' => $node->title, '%revision_id' => $node->vid)));

Why the "b" tag?.

Also format_date() should be used instead of date().

Also if anything SPS should provide an SPS date format or just used one of the already pre-define format for any site to change it. hard-coding another date format here is just going to result in someone else making a different issue with a format they like.

+++ b/sps.moduleundefined
@@ -326,15 +326,14 @@ function sps_drupal() {
-  $message = array('#markup' => t('Viewing %title; revision %date', array('%date' => $node->vid, '%title' => $node->title)));
+  $message = array('#markup' => t('<b>Previewing</b> %title - revision %revision_id - %date', array('%date' => date('D, m/d/Y h:i A', $node->revision_timestamp), '%title' => $node->title, '%revision_id' => $node->vid)));
   sps_add_override($message, $node->bid, 'bean', array('revision_id' => $revision_id));
   drupal_goto("block/{$node->label}");

Same, format_date() over date().