In reviewing +comments and +discussions .. I see that the first comment does not include user and time stamp, whereas subsequent comments do. I think each comment should have the user/time stamp for 1) consistency and 2) clarity and 3) convenience... :) (I lay it on thick)
The only way to find the information (unless there is only one comment) is to go back through the changes. Not terribly convenient. I presume when there is only one comment it will be clear through a mouse-over of the grey bar a the bottom of the card, but this changes on subsequent edits.
I think there is a general consensus that this needs to happen, but we need to have a detail discussion first. I'll get into that below, but first: the workaround:
If you add some benign content to discussion+*right+*default, then whenever +discussion is included in a form, it won't be blank and will therefore get created. Then the comment box will show up right away and all subsequent comments will be signed.
The question, to me, is whether there are cases where we want some separation between the "main" content and the comments that follow. I think this was the original vision that led us to make things the way they are, but that may or may not be practical now.
This ticket takes it even further: show comment box on nonexistent inclusions. I think I was in favor of that ticket when we made it but am now a little uncomfortable with conflating comment and create permissions in this way. I can probably get over it, but not before we setting-ize permissions.
Two other things that come up around comments:
1. supporting a more traditional framework (where each comment is a card)
2. wagneerable signature lines.
We may need to hash all of these out in a design call.
First Comment or Discussion should be user-time stamped
Support Ticket
+issues
In reviewing +comments and +discussions .. I see that the first comment does not include user and time stamp, whereas subsequent comments do. I think each comment should have the user/time stamp for 1) consistency and 2) clarity and 3) convenience... :) (I lay it on thick)
The only way to find the information (unless there is only one comment) is to go back through the changes. Not terribly convenient. I presume when there is only one comment it will be clear through a mouse-over of the grey bar a the bottom of the card, but this changes on subsequent edits.
I think there is a general consensus that this needs to happen, but we need to have a detail discussion first. I'll get into that below, but first: the workaround:
If you add some benign content to discussion+*right+*default, then whenever +discussion is included in a form, it won't be blank and will therefore get created. Then the comment box will show up right away and all subsequent comments will be signed.
The question, to me, is whether there are cases where we want some separation between the "main" content and the comments that follow. I think this was the original vision that led us to make things the way they are, but that may or may not be practical now.
The following idea, which has a slightly awkward name, basically advocates for the same solution mentioned here: sign initial content of cards with comment permissions.
This ticket takes it even further: show comment box on nonexistent inclusions. I think I was in favor of that ticket when we made it but am now a little uncomfortable with conflating comment and create permissions in this way. I can probably get over it, but not before we setting-ize permissions.
Two other things that come up around comments:
1. supporting a more traditional framework (where each comment is a card)
2. wagneerable signature lines.
We may need to hash all of these out in a design call.
--Ethan McCutchen.....Thu Mar 24 10:47:28 -0700 2011
tracked: add sig to a card's first comment
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-04 20:19:19 +0000