-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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
Comments
Effort low since it only concerns renaming the categories. 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 |
@osmers here my proposals for the wordings. |
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? |
@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? |
Links will be moved to other categories (valid, varification needed, etc) depend on their last status before ignored. |
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 🙈 |
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: