Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve Link Checker GUI #2588

Closed
Tracked by #1704 ...
svenseeberg opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #3191
Closed
Tracked by #1704 ...

Improve Link Checker GUI #2588

svenseeberg opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #3191
Assignees
Labels
effort: low Should be doable in <4h feature New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers prio: medium Should be scheduled in the forseeable future. tested Was successfully tested on cms-test
Milestone

Comments

@svenseeberg
Copy link
Member

svenseeberg commented Dec 12, 2023

Motivation

Currently the broken link checker lists links as "broken". This is not always correct. Architecturally, the link checker cannot definitely determine if a link does or does not work in a browser.

The broken link checker only supports editors by finding potentially broken links.

Proposed Solution

The GUI of the broken link checker should be less "definitive" when proclaiming URLs as broken. It should be clear that links need to be checked manually and that it is (most likely) safe to ignore broken links, if they work for the editor.

For example, we should talk about links that "need manual verification" instead of being "broken" or "invalid".

The "Ignore" function should be renamed to "manually verified".

Alternatives

Many support questions?

Additional Context

Design Requirements

  • N/A
@svenseeberg svenseeberg added feature New feature or request prio: medium Should be scheduled in the forseeable future. ui-ux Issues that requires an UI/UX perspective. labels Dec 12, 2023
@svenseeberg svenseeberg added this to the 24Q4 milestone Dec 12, 2023
@hauf-toni hauf-toni self-assigned this Jan 22, 2024
@sarahsporck sarahsporck moved this to To Do in team-uiux 🎨 Feb 6, 2024
@sarahsporck sarahsporck removed the status in team-uiux 🎨 Feb 6, 2024
@JoeyStk JoeyStk mentioned this issue Feb 15, 2024
54 tasks
@MizukiTemma MizukiTemma mentioned this issue Feb 15, 2024
24 tasks
@osmers osmers modified the milestones: 24Q4, 24Q3 Mar 20, 2024
@hauf-toni hauf-toni moved this to In Progress in team-uiux 🎨 May 17, 2024
@osmers osmers added the effort: low Should be doable in <4h label Jun 10, 2024
@osmers
Copy link

osmers commented Jun 10, 2024

Effort low since it only concerns renaming the categories.
For UI/UX @nikolahoff @hauf-toni I want to point out that we have a special case where links on the computer work but in the app they don't. This concerns internal links that were moved to a new location. Not sure what to do with them or how to make it clear to users that even though they appear to be working on the computer, they most likely need to be replaced.

As discussed in the CMS/UI/UX/Service Call today, we'll also open another issue to rethink the design of the link checker to make it more intuitive. Edit: here the new issue #2837

@nikolahoff
Copy link

@osmers here my proposals for the wordings.
Invalid > Verification needed (i.e. with alert icon, indicating the user that action is required)
Ignored > Link verified (i.e. check-icon indicating the link is ok)

@osmers osmers moved this from In Progress to Done in team-uiux 🎨 Jul 2, 2024
@osmers
Copy link

osmers commented Jul 2, 2024

The service team approved the namings - in German we'd suggest: Überprüfung notwendig and Link überprüft

Question to the CMS team - does it make sense to move verified links to the general valid list? And then they get checked again once the link checker rechecks links? Or does it recheck links too often for that to be useful?
I'm asking bcs as far as I understood, the links under "Ignore" are currently not re-checked unless done manually, right? And they might break at some point but noone would notice...

@osmers osmers modified the milestones: 24Q3, 24Q4 Oct 2, 2024
@JoeyStk JoeyStk added good first issue Good for newcomers and removed ui-ux Issues that requires an UI/UX perspective. labels Oct 8, 2024
@MizukiTemma
Copy link
Member

@osmers
There is a bulk action "Ignore" and "Unignogre". Should this be renamed for example to "Mark as velified", "Mark as not vverified anymore"?

@osmers
Copy link

osmers commented Nov 7, 2024

@MizukiTemma seems reasonable :) mark as verified is good - maybe to move it to the other list, something like recheck link? And that automatically removes it from the list and then depending on the outcome of the check adds it to valid or verification needed?

@MizukiTemma
Copy link
Member

@MizukiTemma seems reasonable :) mark as verified is good - maybe to move it to the other list, something like recheck link? And that automatically removes it from the list and then depending on the outcome of the check adds it to valid or verification needed?

Links will be moved to other categories (valid, varification needed, etc) depend on their last status before ignored.

@MizukiTemma
Copy link
Member

MizukiTemma commented Nov 7, 2024

Question to the CMS team - does it make sense to move verified links to the general valid list? And then they get checked again once the link checker rechecks links? Or does it recheck links too often for that to be useful? I'm asking bcs as far as I understood, the links under "Ignore" are currently not re-checked unless done manually, right? And they might break at some point but noone would notice...

Hmm, I can imagine such cases, but I'm afraid then users will be confused whether a link was judged as valid by link checker or marked as valid by an user, especially when a link in the vaid list is not working.

ohw, wait. I played a bit with ignored links. They are moved to other categories whenever the content in which they are embetted are updated 🙈

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: low Should be doable in <4h feature New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers prio: medium Should be scheduled in the forseeable future. tested Was successfully tested on cms-test
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants