Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-03-31

The group is actively tracking progress on:

• 🌱 [meta] Reorganize Block items in the administration menu Active

Issues brought forward from the previous meeting:

• ✨ [Meta] Appearance page is too long and confusing Active
• 📌 [PP-3] Figure out what to do with the install/uninstall modules page Postponed with notes:
  • #3307567: Drupal Usability Meeting 2022-09-09 → : started discussing the proposed options but ran out of time, possibly splitting the confirm form into its own issue (we may want to look at that for both modules and themes, standard pattern, consider implications of project browser), worth considering parity with Drush (and other extension/package managers).
  • #3310096: Drupal Usability Meeting 2022-09-23 → : @simohell presented the various proposals, but we again ran out of time to have a in-depth discussion, using the drop-button pattern on the module page for the existing links + Uninstall was suggested.
• 🐛 Placement of batch progress messages Active with notes:
  • #3322499: Drupal Usability Meeting 2022-11-25 → : We started looking at the issue but ran out of time.
• 🐛 Accessibility bugs with vertical tabs Needs work
• ✨ Allow media items to be edited in a modal when using the field widget Postponed with notes:
  • @AaronMcHale: Issue could use some guidance.
    In comment #109 the issue was marked as postponed for needing input from UX, accessibility and media initiative. Apparently there are some outstanding UX/accessibility questions (but I'm not sure what they are). This was echoed in comment #111.
    Comment #144 is asking what is needed to move the issue along (the postponed state seems to be causing some delays/confusion as to how to proceed).
    Perhaps we can at least take a look at what the issue is doing and provide some recommendations/guidance on how it could be implemented.
• ✨ Allow blocks to be configured to show/hide on 200/403/404 response pages Fixed : see comment #3335028-6: Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-01-27 → for more details on what a review should address.
• 🐛 Password suggestions are hidden from screenreaders Active
• 🌱 [Policy] Remove tour module from core Fixed with notes:
  • @xjm tagged for review and sign off from the usability group before it can go ahead, noting that Tour is seen as a usability module and the core committers were not able to reach a consensus.
• 📌 Make core's structure descriptions more consistent Closed: won't fix
• 📌 Creating a new workspace should also switch to it Needs work
• 📌 Content translation overview should add destination query parameter Needs work raised in Slack by @smustgrave

benjifisher → credited rkoller → .

benjifisher → credited simohell → .

We discussed ✨ Allow blocks to be configured to show/hide on 200/403/404 response pages Fixed . I am adding it as a related issue.

I previously added issue credits, a rough transcript, and a link to the recording.

To do: add a comment to the issue summarizing our recommendations.

i have started going through the next batch of still open meeting issues. for this issue no comment was left but the issue in question was committed meanwhile. i've just quickly skimmed to the end of the video but it sounds like that we never explicitly agreed who comments on the issue or i have missed it. i can only vaguely remember the outline of the points we've raised back then and since there were definitely one or two reasonable points how about instead of commenting retroactively on the already closed issue perhaps look through the recording and open a follow up issue?

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.