Improve Link Checker GUI

[svenseeberg]

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

• See discussion in https://chat.tuerantuer.org/digitalfabrik/threads/jhqyq1hd57g65qw1617xzn8ria

Design Requirements

• N/A

[osmers]

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]

@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]

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...

[MizukiTemma]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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 🙈