[OSDPL] Feedback requested: proposed pattern workflow

Jonathan Hung jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 14:42:15 UTC 2009


Some really good questions.

1. Patterns "Disappearing" from public view during Review process

To help reduce confusion when a pattern "disappears", a special filter
will display patterns currently in Review. Also, if a user tries to
access a pattern that was previously in the Comments stage, we can
present them with an appropriate message telling them what happened to

Alternatively, I think it is possible to keep a version visible to
registered users while another version is being revised.

I think in the end, we go with what we think makes most sense to a
pattern author. We can always take one approach and do some user

2. What happens to seemingly "orphaned" patterns that aren't
published? What happens to patterns published that weren't reviewed,
do they get reviewed?

Those are some great grey area questions. For patterns that are
orphaned and in a unpublished state, we can have the system send out
reminder emails. After a 3rd attempt, we can adopt that pattern and
make it viewable and editable by all registered users. Such patterns
should be treated specially... not sure what the best approach is.

For patterns that aren't reviewed and published, I think they should
be reviewed at some point. Again we can have the system send out
reminders to editors to review unreviewed patterns. I think it's
possible to "Assign" a pattern to an Editor if a period of time
elapses. I'd have to do a bit more research.

On a similar note, what happens if a pattern is previously "Reviewed"
but since edited by the author or another Editor. Should that pattern
be placed back to a "To be Reviewed" state? Ideally small edits would
just pass through without needing review, but there's no good way of
determining a minor vs major edit.

This makes me evaluate the effects of reviewing on the OSDPL.

On one hand we want the patterns to be of good quality, but on the
other hand do we want being reviewed a requirement? Does this make
reviewing a bottleneck?

I think we should schedule a meeting next week to address some of
these issues. Wednesday 2pm ET / 11am PT looks good. I'll send out an
agenda / list of questions to ponder by Monday.

- Jonathan.

Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
Tel: (416) 946-3002

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Allison Bloodworth
<abloodworth at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Thanks Jonathan for your great work on this! I agree that this is a very
> balanced structure to start with, which can be refined as needed we start to
> work with authors in the library.
> My only big question is whether it would be strange for patterns to
> disappear from the library while they are in review. Folks may have seen
> them before and want to reference them again. In an ideal world it would be
> nice if we could let the public see a different version of the pattern from
> the one the reviewer and editor are working on, but I'm not sure we can
> easily accomplish that. We may want to consider making a copy of the pattern
> when it goes into review so folks can still see it. I actually think it
> would be OK in this step to let people continue to make comments--but I'm
> assuming that there probably wouldn't be *that* many comments and the
> authors and editors wouldn't be bombarded. However, if the comments would be
> on a copy, that may not be idea as I envision that when the pattern is
> published this copy would be deleted. Then the comments would have to either
> be copied over to the 'final' pattern or be lost (which wouldn't be good).
> I also think it's going to be important to have good filtering mechanisms
> for pattern library users, as well as a clear, concise explanation of the
> different states of the patterns in the library so folks understand and can
> control what patterns they are using/viewing. It would be *great* if there
> were some way to configure your default view for this filter when you set up
> an account, for example to only see "Reviewed" Patterns. It will be
> especially important that the pattern authors understand the implications of
> the different steps (and the fact that they can skip steps) as they move
> their patterns through the workflow. I am wondering what will be done if a
> pattern author never requests a review--will the patterns be triggered go
> into that state at some point, perhaps after an effort to contact the
> author? I'm guessing some people will author patterns and move on to other
> things, and we may *want* to move the patterns forward even if the author
> can't continue to work with us.
> A final question that came up for me is how will the many editors will know
> which pattern to work on with an author. I'm guessing there will be a large
> pool of editors, and if patterns aren't either directed to or quickly picked
> up by a particular person, it may be difficult to ensure that a pattern is
> edited efficiently. We *could* have a system where while first all editors
> are informed that a particular pattern is ready for review, and if someone
> doesn't "pick it up" in a certain timeframe (e.g. 3 business days), it is
> assigned to someone. Then we'd need some sort of system to make sure there
> was an even rotation among editors.
> I think a lot of these are fine points, though that we can continue to think
> through as things move forward--once again, nice work! :)
> Allison
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for the great comments and feedback. It appears there
>> isn't anything major that needs addressing, so we're going to move
>> forward with planning the implementation of the workflow and the
>> community features that support it.
>> Attached is an updated diagram illustrating the same process but with
>> extra elaboration how each stage works.
>> If you have feedback still to give, please share them even though
>> we're starting work on implementing this.
>> Thanks all!
>> - Jonathan.
>> ---
>> Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
>> Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Colin Clark <colin.clark at utoronto.ca>
>> wrote:
>>> Jonathan,
>>> You've put together a very clear, easy to use, and forward-looking plan
>>> for
>>> our pattern library. I like the way you've balanced openness with author
>>> comfort, providing various checkpoints for drafting, editing, and sharing
>>> ideas with the larger community.
>>> Looks like you've received some good feedback. It's really great to see
>>> this
>>> vision shaping up. Building a healthy community around the OSDPL is
>>> undoubtedly an important part of Fluid's long term sustainability.
>>> +1
>>> Colin
>>> On 14-Jan-09, at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone.
>>>> Over the next 3 to 4 months, we will be making a push to get the Open
>>>> Source Design Pattern library sustainable. In order to reach that
>>>> point, there is a roadmap for the work to be completed. Part of that
>>>> roadmap includes the implementation of a flexible pattern workflow
>>>> that helps guide a pattern author from draft to publication, while
>>>> allowing input from the community throughout the process.
>>>> I would like to get your opinion on the following proposed workflow.
>>>> The workflow aims to balance the author's comfort and privacy, while
>>>> allowing for a larger community to have their input on a design
>>>> pattern.
>>>> Please examine the attached diagram. The main points to get from this
>>>> workflow:
>>>> - While in "Draft" state, the pattern is visible only to the author.
>>>> The author can save and revise their patterns as they wish.
>>>> - While in "Request for Public Comments" state, all registered users
>>>> on the OSDPL can view and comment on the pattern. The public internet
>>>> will not be able to see the patten (although anyone can register for
>>>> an account). Such patterns are clearly indicated as "Work in Progress"
>>>> as to not confuse it with "Published" patterns.
>>>> - While in "Request for Review", pattern Editors review the pattern
>>>> and collaborate with the pattern author to get it to a polished state.
>>>> - To have a pattern stamped as "Reviewed", the author must: request a
>>>> review; and have an Editor review and publish the pattern.
>>>> - For flexibility, the pattern author can publish their pattern at any
>>>> time. But doing so will cause their pattern to be stamped as "Not
>>>> Reviewed".
>>>> -- this allows for immediate visibility to the world and could create
>>>> some interesting interactions.
>>>> -- registered users will be able to comment, rank, and flag patterns.
>>>> -- it is possible to remove a pattern from the public and considered
>>>> on a case-by-case basis.
>>>> Throughout the workflow notifications are sent to the relevant parties
>>>> alerting them that new content is available for them view, comment, or
>>>> review (in the case of an Editor). All patterns that are recently
>>>> published or in a "Request for Public Comments" state will be featured
>>>> clearly and easily accessible on the site (after some improvements to
>>>> the site's look and feel).
>>>> What are your thoughts on this? Too complicated? Not open enough?
>>>> Needs more community involvement during the workflow?
>>>> We aim to start work early next week, so your feedback is appreciated!
>>>> For more information on the workflow, timeline of work, and other
>>>> proposed work, please see this wiki page:
>>>> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/kQNS
>>>> - Jonathan.
>>>> PS. While designing this workflow I felt like a politician....
>>>> Balancing the rights of the individual while benefiting the greater
>>>> good. Excuse me while I go and get this awful taste out of my mouth.
>>>> :)
>>>> ---
>>>> Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
>>>> Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
>>>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>>>> <OSDPL-Workflow3.png>_______________________________________________________
>>>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>>> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>> ---
>>> Colin Clark
>>> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
>>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
>>> http://fluidproject.org
>> <OSDPL-Workflow4.png>_______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
> Allison Bloodworth
> Senior User Interaction Designer
> Educational Technology Services
> University of California, Berkeley
> (415) 377-8243
> abloodworth at berkeley.edu

More information about the fluid-work mailing list