Write microcopy for new "Latest updates" pieces #672
Comments
|
Content draft 🔒 is ready for FEC review. It includes introductory content and drop-down content. Actually writing this raised a few questions (of course 🙃):
Is that correct to your recollection, Nicky? I ask because: If they don't go on this page, I believe they will only exist on the calendar? That seems like a fine IA decision, but I don't think we've actually made a plan in our quarterly planning for getting those historical documents linked from the calendar yet? |
|
So, I think that some expository content is important. I get that it's a lot, but I wonder if a solution might be to use an accordion? Given that there's lots of things on this page I think it's important to say somewhere what those things are and who they're for. You're right about the additional meeting documents, and we really haven't come up with a plan for these. I'm adding to my running list of things we might do next quarter. |
|
@emileighoutlaw: The inclusion of Sunshine Act Notices and Meeting Agendas within Also, in case it is helpful, here is a link to the issue where this all was discussed: https://github.com/18F/fec-cms/issues/524 |
|
(Thanks for that issue number, Nicky!) Re: the content. My concern about expository content (content that explains what people are looking at) is that in this case, there's just a ton of it — it's just a lot to ask people to read. Additionally, in general, expository content can come off a little condescending to experienced users. So thinking about this challenge a different way, it seems like what we want to solve for is:
It occurs to me that this might actually be a really good place for tooltips. We use this pattern already on the calendar for almost the exact same purpose:
So we'd be staying consistent with our style if we added those here:
As a second, additional clue, I'd also feel good about adding publication specific info to the top of the page when we're filtering to specific content types. So from the main landing, the content would look like: But when filtered down to only press releases, we get that additional bit of orienting info (and since it's only a little bit, it's less overwhelming and comes off tonally more appropriate, in my opinion): What do you think, @noahmanger? |
|
I get your point about lengthy expository content and seems worth avoiding. I can't quite put my finger on why this solution feels off, but it does. I think it's because I think it's valuable to see a listing of all the different update types and what they are all at once in order to know what to refine to. I have two additional ideas that might solve both issues. First, use our accordion pattern:
Second, something like this: Thoughts? |
|
Of the two options, I think I prefer the first option, the accordion pattern. But I could be convinced to go with either one if you have a strong preference? |
|
That works for me. @jenniferthibault & @nickykrause ? |
|
Of the two, I also prefer the accordion. Couldn't hurt to try it, I think! |
|
If you'd like to use an accordion here, I'd recommend that we make it as wide as the text-width, instead of container width.
With a single-panel accordion, it's risky to have it so wide because it's less likely to visually register as a functioning component because the button is so far to the side, and they're so narrow. (We saw this in usability testing the data landing page charts when we used an accordion for "About this data" underneath) The closest we've come to this in existing patterns on the site is on committee pages, but they're XL height and have multiple panels, not just one.
The "show more" would be a new pattern, but it acts much the same as an accordion but within a much smaller space, which seems like a positive to me. I'm not opposed to this at all, but glad to try the accordion first. I'm hitting a larger experience snag for myself on the content inside the accordion than the element itself though. The activation text is "About latest updates" but the text inside tells me about audience segments, but doesn't really connect it to why we group docs by people. I don't want to solutioneer over @emileighoutlaw too much, but also don't want to offer unconstructive feedback, so one possible way of handling this might be to add a For in front of each category? For example:
If not, maybe just back to definitions of each content type being the header with its own paragraph? |
|
Sorry, you got all the thoughts at once because I hadn't been following this issue until tagged in! |
|
Not solutioneering over me at all Jen! I hadn't gotten super detailed in my review of the content yet (I left things a little unrefined when I wasn't sure I wanted content here at all). In terms of design, I don't have strong feelings between the accordion pattern and the tl;dr: I'm going to put some refined content below for each pattern, in case that helps us make an informed decision. Based on Jen's notes above, I find I'm leaning toward the "Show more +" option, if we think it makes a clearer interaction. Accordion optionContent:
"Show more" option
|
|
Let's go with the accordion for now since it's an established pattern. If we end up wanting to make a new one that we use elsewhere, we can replace it. FWIW, I agree that I think I prefer the "Show more" button, but trying to focus on the big challenges at the moment. |
|
Content shouldn't change either way, so we should be good to go. I'd like @AmyKort to give this a final review before we go live. Updated content for this page 🔒:
|
|
Two comments from Dorothy: I feel like the FEC Record needs a little more explanation. Maybe “FEC Record news articles inform candidates and committees about FEC developments and are published…” Under “Members of the Public” – I’d make the last part after the dash its own sentence. |
|
Made those changes in the content document and in my comment above. Thanks @AmyKort and @dorothyyeager! |
This is a small microcopy task for adding descriptions of for the remaining items that will be added to the Latest Updates.
Completion criteria:
Write descriptions for:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: