Odp:Tasks/Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews

From Odp

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: {{TitleDescription Template |Title=Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews |Description=** each Proposed Content OP has the possibility to be reviewed from its page by clicking on 'post a revie...)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TitleDescription Template
{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews
|Title=Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews
-
|Description=** each Proposed Content OP has the possibility to be reviewed from its page by clicking on 'post a review'. <del>But if you are not a member of the QC you face an error page.</del> (fixed -enrico)
+
|Description=
-
** I would like to fix this in the following way:
+
* each Proposed Content OP has the possibility to be reviewed from its page by clicking on 'post a review'. <del>But if you are not a member of the QC you face an error page.</del> (fixed -enrico)
-
*** We allow all registered user to post a review but we distinguish QC reviews from open ones.  
+
* I would like to fix this in the following way:
-
*** Is it possible to have only one link in the page (the one that is already there) and to redirect the user to either an 'Open Review' if (s)he is not a QC member, or to the official review if (s)he is a QC member?  
+
** We allow all registered user to post a review but we distinguish QC reviews from open ones.  
-
** Motivations are the following:
+
** Is it possible to have only one link in the page (the one that is already there) and to redirect the user to either an 'Open Review' if (s)he is not a QC member, or to the official review if (s)he is a QC member?  
-
*** The regular discussion pages are not effectively perceived from users.  
+
* Motivations are the following:
-
*** We <del>want</del> now have actually an open review mechanism as well as an official one.   
+
** The regular discussion pages are not effectively perceived from users.  
-
*** <del>It is bad that a user is faced with an error page when his/her intent is to post a comment on a wiki. At least (s)he should be redirected to the correct page where is allowed to post. However, t would be much better to make such process transparent to the user (as described above).</del> -fixed
+
** We <del>want</del> now have actually an open review mechanism as well as an official one.   
 +
** <del>It is bad that a user is faced with an error page when his/her intent is to post a comment on a wiki. At least (s)he should be redirected to the correct page where is allowed to post. However, t would be much better to make such process transparent to the user (as described above).</del> -fixed
}}
}}
{{Task Template
{{Task Template

Revision as of 16:15, 17 June 2008

Tasks/Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews

Title: Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews

Description: * each Proposed Content OP has the possibility to be reviewed from its page by clicking on 'post a review'. But if you are not a member of the QC you face an error page. (fixed -enrico)

  • I would like to fix this in the following way:
    • We allow all registered user to post a review but we distinguish QC reviews from open ones.
    • Is it possible to have only one link in the page (the one that is already there) and to redirect the user to either an 'Open Review' if (s)he is not a QC member, or to the official review if (s)he is a QC member?
  • Motivations are the following:
    • The regular discussion pages are not effectively perceived from users.
    • We want now have actually an open review mechanism as well as an official one.
    • It is bad that a user is faced with an error page when his/her intent is to post a comment on a wiki. At least (s)he should be redirected to the correct page where is allowed to post. However, t would be much better to make such process transparent to the user (as described above). -fixed



Sub-tasks:

Development | Create new task.| Add sub-task | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
Retrieved from "http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Tasks/Distinguishing_Open_and_QC_Reviews"
Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers