Source Interface message to flagged sources is inaccurate #4420
Comments
|
Proposed alternative wording:
The rationale for the above wording is to keep it simple and focus on the part that's important to the source: they got my message/document and will get back to me. |
This seems to leave the source hanging. Do they need to take action. I think it should additionally say.
Because also "Please check back later" makes it sounds like maybe later they need to do something else. I mean, whatever it is, I feel like it should definitely say "No really you don't have to do anything else, everything is done." |
|
@heartsucker I feel the (judo-move!) addition of "the creation of a two-way communication channel was delayed until now" accomplishes need you identified & seek to solve in the sentence you proposed. Honestly, the text I recommended 2 years ago was WAY too long—and Erik's suggested text comes right-up against the limit of how long UI text should be (tho I'm a tad hurt Mr Formal wants to remove When anyone sees a block of text that's more than 1-2 lines, it begins to morph into a "wall" that discourages engagement. In today's UX meeting we'll be discussing some additional oppties to discuss convoluted concepts like "Flag For Reply," and linking-out to such a guide I feel will help Sources in need of more 411. Come join! :D |
|
Yeah, I agree that we need to be very careful with length, especially for a one-time flash message like this one. That said, I do like the reassuring power of a sentence like "You can now receive messages", which may be worth adding 5 words to our word budget. :) |
|
I see a perfect compromise coming together... huzzah! See, much more fun than one person doing all the writing (and ohey, higher quality output, too!) Thank you both @heartsucker and @eloquence Also, I love the concept of a "word budget." Heehee. Final nits:
Ok, now it's almost as long as the current message. :/ What do you guys think of the above, taking into consideration all of our contribs? |
|
One last proposed rev for brevity:
|
|
Aww, I love that! "Please rest assured" is just so lovely. And, agreed—it reads far more smoothly. Yeah, eventually adding a link to direct the user to an I say ship it! <3 |
The key issue here is that the previous message told sources that their submission had only just been passed through, which is not true. This message is also significantly shorter. Removed the icon, as the "relieved face" emoji, which is only used for this message, is no longer a good fit with the revised text. Resolves #4420
The key issue here is that the previous message told sources that their submission had only just been passed through, which is not true. This message is also significantly shorter. Removed the icon, as the "relieved face" emoji, which is only used for this message, is no longer a good fit with the revised text. Resolves #4420
The key issue here is that the previous message told sources that their submission had only just been passed through, which is not true. This message is also significantly shorter. Removed the icon, as the "relieved face" emoji, which is only used for this message, is no longer a good fit with the revised text. Resolves #4420
As a result of issue #1524 / PR #1558, the message shown to sources that have been flagged for reply was updated, from this:
To this:
This revised language is inaccurate. In particular, this part: "To err on the side of caution, we put a hold on sending all documents from that day through to our journalists. Now that we know you’re really a human, though, we’ll get your previous submission into the hands of a journalist straight away."
Flagging is a process used to manually select sources for keypair generation upon login in the case of entropy depletion. This only impacts the ability of news organizations to reply to sources. It does not impact their ability to review documents or messages from any source, nor the source's ability to send more. Indeed, reviewing documents or messages is the method by which news organizations can validate which sources to flag for reply.
I would recommend rewording other parts of this message as well, but at minimum, this part needs to be updated, so that sources don't get an inaccurate impression when a news organization was able to first see their message or document. I will propose alternative wording in a comment.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: