Ticket

also see add a way to change set with new easy formatting

so, rename this to something like "on templates allow editing of inclusion rules in place"? (and didn't we shift to calling these forms rather than templates?)

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-11 22:58:17 +0000

makes sense, but let's keep this name for promotion purposes :)

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-21 03:55:27 +0000

I think the main thing left here is making this work reasonably well in the rule editor (options) interface.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-21 15:08:52 +0000

I ended up redoing a good chunk of rule editor interface. Changes relevant to this ticket:

1. there are really now 3 ways to interact with each rule. closed, edit, and open.

2. if you cancel or save, it now takes you to open, which is the view that gives you access to the new plus card editing. That view is trimmed down.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-22 17:39:08 +0000

The first item in the solution is said to be "mostly" solved by a link/inclusion editor. What else is there?

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-27 08:09:23 +0000

Good q. For one, I think we need in-place access to markup docs. I think there's a ticket about that somewhere (or there has been), but I don't know where.

But even beyond that, I think we need to teach the idea of +inclusions inline a bit more. It will be great to have an inclusion editor, but how do you know to click that? My guess is that this needs to involve really well-written cue text on the key rules.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-27 15:08:37 +0000

Sounds like the plan is for the link/inclusion editor to produce markup, which seems fine to me for now at least (could make it more GUI-ish later, as an option for markup-averse Wagneers). I like the teaching inquiry, so for example you mean something like "click on |image of link/inclusion/editor button| to add fields" by the *content rule once it's in edit view?

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-27 19:17:27 +0000

something like that.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-27 20:36:59 +0000