#2340363: Add issue comment attribution aims to allow users to specify employers/customers who've sponsored their work in the issue queues. When displayed in comments it looks like this (atm, subject to change before deployment):

Credit to the right of username, pop-up on hover that shows those who are credited.

However, rather than the "Credit" string, we could also explore the use of icons for this. For example, the following suggestion from markcarver in #2340363-132: Add issue comment attribution:

Group of people icon instead of Credit string

(This icon is from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/309041/group_people_users_icon#size=128 and is Creative Commons (Attribution 3.0 Unported) licensed.)

Another option might be to re-use some of the imagery in Dries's Amsterdam keynote (probably not those exact images, but something similar) and optionally "light up" those that are applicable to a given comment:

Separate icons for individual, agency, end user

Also note that per drumm in #2340363-141: Add issue comment attribution:

For an icon, we would need a properly-licensed SVG icon that we all agree represents the concept of credit or attribution.

Advantages of icons, per markcarver in #2340363-144: Add issue comment attribution:

  • Icons are less intrusive
  • They break up a lot of grey text
  • They can be symbolic of what they're representing (organizations/customers) without having to speculate
  • With icons, people are more likely to inspect it and form their own associations, rather than jumping to conclusions ("Who's Credit?")

Ideas welcome!

Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

webchick’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Moar summary.

webchick’s picture

So on Mark's proposed icon, what I don't like about using a "group" icon everywhere is it seems to imply that the default is people are backed by a group of people. When in fact, at least in core, and in the vast majority of contrib too, volunteer "nights and weekends" contributions are very much the norm.

As someone who's in a very fortunate position to have their contribution time to Drupal 100% sponsored, I am actually the *most* interested in finding out when someone is *not* sponsored in any way, so I can value the hell out of their time, and try and take boring/pedantic crap off their plate if I can. Would love to be able to tell this at a glance.

Then as a core committer, my next biggest "use case" is I want to be able to know when two people are working for the same company and/or the same customer to spot potential conflicts of interest, and areas where additional "neutral" review is needed. In the original version that was easy to know, because the company name was right there on the comment. That has since become hidden in a pop-up (for very valid reasons) so this is no longer possible at a glance. You can find it if you scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Credit & committing" box, but now you've lost the context of who was saying what.

So this is why I suggested 3 icons, that turn on/off as appropriate. Volunteer contributors (arguably our most valuable ones) are then highly visible. And it's not perfect for spotting conflicts of interest, but if there are only two people in an issue with a Customer icon highlighted, and both are agreeing emphatically with each other and trying to shut everyone else up, it's a good indicator to just hover over their icon and see what it says. ;)

davidhernandez’s picture

I like the idea of using an icon. The one mark proposed is ok, but I'd try for an alternative. The three people is a little facebooky, and if I saw it 50 times on a page it would start looking like dog prints. (one persons opinion)

Dries' icons are ok, but seem like they have too much detail to be scaled to the size we need?

davidhernandez’s picture

Issue tags: +D.o UX

@webchick do you think different icons for an individual versus company is better, or same icon but different color (or some other modification)? Something like the first two in the Dries icon set could work (person versus building), but not in the drop so we can see them better.

webchick’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

We can't use just simple colour variation, because that won't meet accessibility requirements. Basically I mean something like this (NOT necessarily these icons!)

Volunteer contributor

Solid person icon Outline person icon Outline person icon

Agency-sponsored contributor

Outline person icon Solid employer icon Outline person icon

End user-sponsored contributor

Outline person icon Outline person icon Solid customer icon

Agency-sponsored contributor working on a customer project

Outline person icon Solid employer icon Solid customer icon

EDIT: Switched icons a bit so volunteers have a star (because they're awesome!), employers have a clock (for "sponsored time") and end users have a $ (because generally they are paying for their Drupal site).

markhalliwell’s picture

FileSize
34.72 KB

I like the really like the idea behind #5. I'm just not sure we should show an icon if there's nothing there to attribute though.

I do think we should have "default" icons regardless, but... crazy idea here, so bare with me.

What if we also allowed the organization/client nodes to upload a "icon" along-side their logo? This icon would have to be restricted in width/height proportions (i.e. square), but it would allow us to do something the following:

Obviously Acquia's logo isn't square so it's distorted, but you get the idea. We wouldn't default to the logo though, if no specific icon image has been provided we could use one of the defaults like in #5.

drumm’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
webchick’s picture

Hm. But doesn't #6 get us back into the "using the issue queue as a giant advertising board" territory, which was one of the main rationales for hiding this info behind a pop-up in the first place? (ref: Bojhan @ #2340363-59: Add issue comment attribution)

markhalliwell’s picture

That was in fact part of the reasoning it was moved to a pop-up, yes. The other big part was because it was a direct association of the comment to the orgs/customers.

I'm fine with generic icons, it was just a random idea.

webchick’s picture

Yeah, I actually really like the idea. :) Just want to tread carefully here, because there were some very valid concerns raised against even having the company name there, and an icon would create an even bigger associative impact.

davidhernandez’s picture

I'm generally against #6 because of the reasons mentioned, and because a lot of the org logos we have are awful. A lot do not work square, and would not work being scaled down that far. Also, this still assumes org have an org node, which I have concerns about.

markhalliwell’s picture

Fair point, lots of reasonings... hard to keep track of 'em all sometimes.

Wim Leers’s picture

#5++

Also:

because a lot of the org logos we have are awful

:D

joshuami’s picture

@webchick, I like the idea behind #5.

+1 @markcarver regarding not showing the icon if there is no attribution/credit to show.

What if the icons were time and money and only showed for the comments that had time or money associated with them. Those would be more simple and would give more visual reference for why someone would chose to click the icon and see what it means. The earlier drawback of seeing a bunch of company names on the page and discouraging a new contributor would be lessened as well. I'm still not convinced that would stop someone from contributing, but I understand the rationale.

As for the star on the individual, individual credit should show up on their user profile and might be more meaningful on the profile than on every comment they make. Issue credits should add up for the individual regardless of whether they were doing the contribution on company time. It was still their work.

We could also look at displaying the credit and committing information in the sidebar for closed issues. That would give a great visual reference that helps encourage the value of the issues closure to the community. It would be a "look who helped make this happen" message.

markhalliwell’s picture

Perhaps it should be an [office] building with time or $ overlaid? I think we need to show that this has to do with an org/customer rather than people. Displaying just time or $ or with simply a user behind them may be misconstrued that a single individual's personal time or monetary effort isn't important.

webchick’s picture

What if the icons were time and money and only showed for the comments that had time or money associated with them.

Could do! That's answering a different question than we're asking currently, though, which is "organization and/or customer?"

As for the star on the individual, individual credit should show up on their user profile and might be more meaningful on the profile than on every comment they make.

Hm. I don't really understand that. Every single contribution ultimately goes back to an individual. The thing I'm trying to determine is in the context of a specific contribution (in this case, comment), are they participating as a volunteer or not? Finding this out after the issue's already fixed doesn't help me take stuff off their plate while the issue's actively being worked on (e.g. taking on writing a change record or testing manually), which I would be inclined to do more as a sponsored person, if I find out they're not being sponsored.

We could also look at displaying the credit and committing information in the sidebar for closed issues.

This is also a nice idea, but once again doesn't address the need for "I'm reviewing a currently active issue and want to be able to tell at a glance what's being sponsored and what isn't here."

joshuami’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
FileSize
318.58 KB

@markcarver, I like the office building idea. It definitely ties back to the "organization" better. My example below is rough... tiny icons are hard to do fast.

@webchick, any comment without the credit icon would be an individual. Only those that added a comment credit would have the icon. That would make it easy to scan the issue. This is how I'm thinking it could look below:

Three states of contribution.

markhalliwell’s picture

<3 #17 :D

I feel ya on tiny icons w/time constraints (not my forté either). It would be great if we can get a designer in this discussion that could help provide real icons, perhaps even re-using the existing http://attribution-drupal.redesign.devdrupal.org environment so we can test it out.

webchick’s picture

Ah, OK that could work. The only problem then is that we are minimizing the visibility of individual contributors (and emphasizing those who are sponsored) versus making them equals.

In other words, I think we should make an icon for individuals, too. They're sponsoring their own work as well, out of their nights/evenings/family time/social life fund. :)

markhalliwell’s picture

Oooh! I think I have a great idea... how about we only show the individual (w/star) for users that are not new and confirmed? I think that certainly helps tie all the work being done in #2386793: Modify user role progression on Drupal.org and #2447543: Community user should see 'confirm' button on user profiles of some users.

drumm’s picture

We might want to avoid a star since starring things on (other) websites is a thing.

davidhernandez’s picture

The only problem then is that we are minimizing the visibility of individual contributors (and emphasizing those who are sponsored) versus making them equals.

Agree

drumm’s picture

How about something like markcarver's original icon suggestion, https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/309041/group_people_users_icon#size=128. But the two people in the background are replaced with something representing an organization and client:

  • Individual: person icon
  • with organization: person with building in background
  • with client: person with something else
  • with organization & client: person with both in background
davidhernandez’s picture

#23, that could work.

markhalliwell’s picture

I could get behind #23, I just worry about introducing too many elements for such a small icon (16x16 is what I imagined.. maybe 20x20). If we can find a designer that could make it work well, sure.

davidhernandez’s picture

Keep it super simple so it is recognizable. Person icon in center, clock or whatever left, dollar sign or whatever right. (not sure how I feel about this dollar sign business) Checkmark might be an option.

markhalliwell’s picture

edit: nevermind me... I see where this is going now. If I now understand correctly, we're basically saying that we have a "status" icon describing what "type" of attribution of the four it will be; if it is to be credited. That's fine by me.

webchick’s picture

I'm not opposed to #23 if we can make it work, but 16x16 is freaking tiny. So going back to #17 for just a moment, here's a small revamp based on the time-honoured and highly scientific method of "searching for whatever terms on images.google.com and seeing what comes out" ;)

Volunteers
Source:
volunteer: generally hands being raised or hearts.

I went with a heart, since volunteers are freely giving of themselves to Drupal, and also because hands look pretty dorky very small.

Employers
employer: mostly dudes in ties. Ick.
work: either dudes in ties running with a briefcase, or variations of "men at work" construction signs. That's kind of cute, but don't think it'd scale down.
organization: clumps of faceless people, or org charts, plus a few binders (ha).

Kind of stuck on this one. I guess stick with clock, implying "sponsored time." Else possibly briefcase (though I've never seen a Drupal developer with a briefcase ;)), or maybe fallback to the $ sign, since the implication is "you go to work to get paid."

Customers
customer: lots of hand-shaking. also, inexplicably, some checkmarks?
end user: faceless pawns, staring into screens, most looking very frustrated.

Went with a two-person icon (so as not to confuse with "individual"), indicating someone who's going to use the site once it's built. (I wasn't crazy at all about the $ sign from before; there are lots of people who do work for end-users pro-bono.)

---

And the end result is!

Illustrating volunteer with heart icon, company-sponsored user, company-sponsored user on behalf of end user.

Thoughts?

davidhernandez’s picture

FileSize
34.49 KB

We don't need to be completely devoid of color do we? I originally tried this with different colors for each icon, which looked nice on its own, but I think it is way too overwhelming to have repeated on a page. I also originally tried the same blue as the username text, but it is too stark. This is at 18px height.

davidhernandez’s picture

We'll probably still need to go 16x16. These just seem too big. Trying to envision scanning a page full of comments.

joshuami’s picture

Is the idea that the icon would only show up if the individual were credited by the maintainer?

I'm still not quite understanding why we would put an icon on every comment for every individual. They commented, their photo and username are showing up. The icon for the employer or customer should be about showing the attribution/credit. The user is selecting to give that credit for why they are able to work on the issue.

As for icons, I was chatting with @DyanneNova (web designer on the engineering team) and she mentioned that we should look to model all of our iconography after the icon set to be used in Drupal 8. (https://github.com/ry5n/libricons) I really like this idea as it starts to create a bit of consistency, which we do not have right now.

That set does not have a good "time" or business icon, but the general shapes are a good starting point.

@davidhernandez, you asked about the dollar sign. I'm not sure about the actual currency, but I do like the idea of tying the customer credit to the fact they are funding the work. Employers give time (which one could argue is a currency itself) and customers give money. That's pretty transparent. (Also, I have a 90's song about time and money stuck in my head now.)

davidhernandez’s picture

@josh, I assumed the icons would be there always. I'm not sure how it would work otherwise. You would only have a comment or two in a whole thread you give credit to? The "credit" box is there now for all comments. I thought this was to replace that? If I read webchick's comments correctly, she also wants to be able to scan the issue to check any conflicts of interested. That would be done before committing.

I have attachment to any icon source, and being consistent is a plus. I think we've all just grabbed whatever we find online. I forgot there was a designer on staff now, thanks for bringing it up. Would she have any time available to help with this?

Wim Leers’s picture

What if we put the attribution icon under the user profile picture? More room that way. But might be too noisy. Just saying it doesn't have to be in the exact same place that it's currently in, which sounds like it limits us to 16px.

Actually, it might actually not be noisy at all. For a maintainer, it's then a matter of looking at the "profile picture column", where one can see the individuals involved (very visually recognizable) and their attribution.

Then "the vertical flow" is for issue attribution, and "the horizontal flow" is for reading the details about a specific comment (username, time, comment number).

(Maybe I'm reading too much into this.)

davidhernandez’s picture

What if we put the attribution icon under the user profile picture?

I was going to suggest that, since we are trying to cram too many disparate things inline, but I was worried people would think it's looking like a bulletin board. :P

markhalliwell’s picture

Why do we have to have 3 separate icons?

I was imagining that this would be more of a single icon that shows which "type" of attribution it is.

Then we wouldn't have to worry about the inline issue. We can't put it under the profile pictures as this would conflict with the work being done over at
#2386793: Modify user role progression on Drupal.org
#2446889: Display 'new' indicator next to user picture of new users
#2447543: Community user should see 'confirm' button on user profiles of some users

davidhernandez’s picture

I don't think we have to have three separate icons, and were going with the flow. But I do think there is shared sentiment that there should always be something representing the individual. (That is my opinion anyway) There is also a difference between client and agency+client if we want to differentiate free-lancers who choose to not have a company profile.

I don't appose just replacing "credit" with a single icon, but being able to scan a page and pick out differences is useful for the committers. (I'm sure other people too)

It doesn't seem putting it in a "sidebar" would conflict with those issues. It just has to be accounted for. And the confirm button looks to be on the user's profile page, not in the comments. It would require more work though.

joshuami’s picture

I still think it weird to have a individual contribution icon. It is somewhat like saying "I attribute these words to myself." We can see they contributed because the comment says they commented. If we want to call out that someone as a contributor, we should consider badges under their profile image tied to a contribution count/score. That would be more meaningful that a repeated icon on a single issue. That's probably too big a discussion for this thread. It kinda ties to #2386793: Modify user role progression on Drupal.org, but it could really be a topic of its own.

@davidhernandez, I was suggesting that the icons should only show per comment on which the user attributed their work. Because of defaults, if you attribute once, the attribution/credit icon would be there on every comment unless you changed your attribution setting on a new comment in the thread. (And just for the record... I actually whipped out Photoshop for my sad little icons.)

Can we step back to the purpose of putting this information on the comment.

The word "credit" is there on every comment because we could not agree on actually displaying the employer and/or customer on each comment. The word credit hides the meta data, but it also makes it harder to scan for the information that @webchick mentions. Having icons that suggest the type of contribution brings back the scanning for contributions attributed to employers or customers, but it is still hidden data.

Another reason we originally included the organizations printed next to the name was to help the user see that they had correctly attributed their last comment. We've lost that function regardless of whether we use the work credit or an icon.

We might be better off to move add attribution and credit data into the sidebar and leave it off the comment entirely. The maintainer would still have the information they need to see who was involved in the issue and whether those contributors wanted to pass on credit to organizations. Maybe we could add a show/hide button for this information so we could turn on the ability to scan through an issue and actually see the organization data. Right now, you have to click on every instance of "credit" per comment to see if someone changed from an attributed comment for one employe to another comment an attributed to a second employer or customer.

I would love to whiteboard all of this. I bet we vet the possibilities quicker.

joshuami’s picture

And the confirm button looks to be on the user's profile page, not in the comments. It would require more work though.

@davidhernandez, we are planning to start with the confirm button on profile as it is a bit easier to implement to get the feature started. However, we have talked about extending it to the comment as that is the point closest to the decision to confirm.

davidhernandez’s picture

I was suggesting that the icons should only show per comment on which the user attributed their work

Maybe I'm not seeing a difference. For someone like you, the DA would be set on every comment you make in the issue, so it would be everywhere.

I would love to whiteboard all of this. I bet we vet the possibilities quicker.

100%. This isn't really the kind of work that lends itself to a comment thread. It would probably get sorted out in half an hour in person. (Drupal lie #157) This is probably the kind of issue we should tag for DSWG agenda and discuss with Advisory Group members in a hangout, then post back here with a more solid proposal?

David_Rothstein’s picture

In other words, I think we should make an icon for individuals, too. They're sponsoring their own work as well, out of their nights/evenings/family time/social life fund. :)
....
I went with a heart, since volunteers are freely giving of themselves to Drupal, and also because hands look pretty dorky very small.

I love the idea of having an icon like that to call out volunteer contributions. Unfortunately, as currently implemented the system does not collect the data that would be needed to do that. (This is what I was getting at with the various comments I left at #2288727: [meta] Provide credit to organizations / customers who contribute to Drupal issues.) Probably the quickest way to be able to do it at this point would be what @catch suggested at #2340363-71: Add issue comment attribution (adding some kind of "unsponsored" or "volunteer" option to the current list of attribution choices), but that might take a little work to figure out how to present in a non-confusing way.

Given that, maybe this issue should focus on the other icons for now and leave volunteer icons to a separate issue? I think this feature was deployed in a kind of not-quite-finished state (it was almost ready, but really needed one more round of iteration) and it would be good to replace the "Credit" wording that's there now with something better as soon as possible.

webchick’s picture

Well, I think the implication was that if you're not sponsored by an employer or a customer, you are volunteer. Or do you think there's a fourth state? If I'm not volunteer, and I'm not sponsored by a company/customer, what am I?

If an icon for individuals is controversial (and it seems like it is) I'm fine punting to a separate issue. I was trying to be sensitive to the feelings of those in the original issue.

David_Rothstein’s picture

I think there are several cases where someone who's not a volunteer will still have left the organization/customer fields blank:

  1. The 99.9+% of comments written on drupal.org before this feature was deployed :) (or specifically, whatever percentage of those represented non-volunteer work)
  2. Someone who doesn't notice this option on the form, or forgets it's there. (I've already forgotten to fill out the organization field once myself when I intended to.)
  3. Someone who is working under an NDA and isn't allowed to name the client.
  4. Someone whose organization forbids employees from attaching the organization's name to their public comments.
davidhernandez’s picture

I see no need to differentiate between someone who is a volunteer, which I assume means someone not doing this professionally, and someone who simply doesn't set the field. Or differentiate between them and someone who does display attribution. In the screenshot I added above I had a person icon in all the comments on purpose. Every contribution should be seen as the work of the individual. We just have some that will also be able to publicly credit their employer's or client's involvement.

This was started to go the extra step and credit organizations for contribution; meta data being added on top of what we have, not parsing everything about the person and contribution. I don't want to see this evolve into a mechanism by which we start to define and segmenting the people involved.

YesCT’s picture

I think we need a different solution to address the use case:
"I want to scan all the comments to look for conflicts."
And that would be a toggle that puts all the information in line.
I still think that would be useful, but I understand defaulting to not doing that.
That *might* *not* be needed when we get the credit & committing summary out. #2369159: Extend crediting UI to include organizations & customers

I think that comments made before this was rolled out could default to no icon. (or a ? which would go to edit the attribution)

I think comments made after this was rolled out could have a heart (single person, or some icon) which means not backed by org or customer.

... I can't find the issue (or comment on other issue) which talked about replacing "not applicable" with something more positive and clear... but maybe that would be in #2451381: Refine organization credit selection UX based on contributor use cases but I think it relates to the user only (heart, single person) icon as it makes it seem a valid choice to not have an org or customer.

Hiding the details
The purpose of having only "Credit" or some icon was to *hide* the details, not expose them. Purpose was to have it
1) not clutter the UI
2) not put the companies so much in the face so that it lended too much weight to a person, especially as new contributors looked at an issue, and they might be silenced because they felt they didn't have the clout that others had.

Exposing the details
Exposing the detaiis either with a toggle, (or using a processor that uses json which has the details), or the credit & committing summary, (or some other summary that shows on the sidebar). And that is a different issue to me.

Wim Leers’s picture

To visualize potential conflicts, I have a simple tangential idea no matter what solution we settle on (icons or otherwise): add a "visualize credit" checkbox/button that does .comment .content { display: none; } — this hides all the actual comments (try it!) while keeping the comment numbers, usernames and profile pictures. Highly improves the scannability :)

This ties back to #2445305: Toggle show/hide all issue comment attributions.


I think perhaps we should look at this issue from the POV of "how do we want to visualize attributions while participating in the issue process".

Visualizing potential conflicts is an edge case. I think we should do that in a separate issue, like #2445305: Toggle show/hide all issue comment attributions, to make sure we don't make the 99% case bad to support that 1% case.

webchick’s picture

Thanks, David, that makes sense. Spun off #2453271: Make "I'm a volunteer" an explicit choice in the credit UI for that. I actually think that's a good idea, and you've laid out some solid advantages, which I tried to capture in the issue summary over there.

So given we're going to punt what to do about volunteer contributions to that issue, we're probably back to the suggestions in #17/23.

I'm also fine with handling "scanning for conflicts" in a different UI, one of the others mentioned sounds fine. I just think that starting with "user stories" is useful so we have a goal in mind with designing UIs, so was listing some of mine. :)

And agreed that this issue is about "how do we want to visualize attributions while participating in the issue process."

drumm’s picture

#2453271: Make "I'm a volunteer" an explicit choice in the credit UI is adding another bit of information to consider, whether the comment was made while volunteering your own time, or not.

DyanneNova’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
FileSize
173.24 KB
172.54 KB

I've mocked up a couple of options, one with icons and one displaying the information in plain text. Both of them have advantages and drawbacks. I'm not sure that we gain much by using icons which will still require clicking for full information and will introduce a new visual system for users to learn. On the other hand, the text adds more textual clutter to an already full comment area.

Example screenshot with icons.

Example screenshot with attribution text.

webchick’s picture

The text version is definitely way too cluttered/busy. Not crazy about those specific icons, but the nice advantage of icons is that they're easily scannable (though admittedly, only once you know what the visual language is referring to).

joshuami’s picture

Status: Active » Postponed

After talking through this as a part of a team meeting. I'm pretty sure we will never come to enough of a consensus to actually agree to an icon set—at least not quickly. (We were hoping for a quick win—but that does not seem likely.)

The most consensus in the last discussion seemed to be around adding a toggle to show/hide attributions as a part of the "update this issue" controls.

I'm marketing this issue as postponed for now. We will come back to it when we are looking more closely at the issue workspaces and workflow as there will be some UI changes to issues at that time.

This is not to say this is a "won't fix", but the existing credit button is working for now and there are more important areas to focus time.

David_Rothstein’s picture

Status: Postponed » Active

Is it really necessary to have 3 separate icons? I would think one for "volunteer" and one for "sponsored" is all that's needed.

(If you really care about what kind of sponsorship it is, you can get that info from clicking - but I don't see why you would need to know the difference between client-sponsored, organization-sponsored, and client+organization-sponsored while scanning an issue.)

With just two icons this should be easier to come to a consensus on.

The current UI is really problematic. After saving a comment there is no visual indication of the credit whatsoever. As someone who switches back and forth between volunteer and paid work frequently, I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to switch the setting and saved a comment with the wrong credit. I usually remember to go back and fix it, but I'm sure not always. I do not think I am alone here and would assume that the data that has been collected so far is relatively inaccurate because of this. Having an icon would let people notice more immediately that they made a mistake and saved the wrong credit.

David_Rothstein’s picture

There is also no way to tell the difference between "volunteer" and "didn't fill out anything", so although #2453271: Make "I'm a volunteer" an explicit choice in the credit UI was implemented - and somehow got done before this issue :) - the data is never displayed anywhere. It looks like the intention when that was closed was to figure out how to display volunteer status here.

YesCT’s picture