You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a very infrequent contributor, case selection has probably been one of the larger barriers to me when making annotations.
From the perspective of a user with limited knowledge of how cases are categorized on ToS;DR, selecting a case when annotating a service is frustrating and difficult given the triviality of the task.
Without already knowing where a case is, searching for it through the dozens of other cases in the small window provided is noticeably time-consuming.
In my experience, I often have to scroll through the list up to three times just to find the case I'm looking for. This is made worse by the fact that a new user like myself will often be looking for a case which, just, doesn't exist. That means they will have to go through the dozens of cases multiple times just to confirm what they are looking for isn't there.
The categorization of cases (ownership, governance, guarantee, etc.) under topics helps, but doesn't seem sufficient at this scale. Assuming that a user knows which topic a given case is under, the user is still required to scroll through the massive list. This isn't helped by the fact that a lot of cases feel as though they can fit under multiple topics_(e.g. "Your IP address is collected, which can be used to view your approximate location" under "Types of Information Collected" feels as though it could also fit under "Trackers")_
I'm not entirely sure about potential remedies to this. Separation between typically "Privacy" and typically "TOS" cases? Removal of some redundant cases from the selection (surely "deprecated" could be removed, and "waivers" appears as an empty topic)? A search function feels as though it would be the best solution, though.
(To be clear, I have near-zero experience with web development, I'm just trying to provide feedback. Please take this with a grain of salt.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The new annotations tool greatly improved ths by having search.
So you should only see that window when editing points or creating points that are not on a document.
As a very infrequent contributor, case selection has probably been one of the larger barriers to me when making annotations.
From the perspective of a user with limited knowledge of how cases are categorized on ToS;DR, selecting a case when annotating a service is frustrating and difficult given the triviality of the task.
Without already knowing where a case is, searching for it through the dozens of other cases in the small window provided is noticeably time-consuming.
In my experience, I often have to scroll through the list up to three times just to find the case I'm looking for. This is made worse by the fact that a new user like myself will often be looking for a case which, just, doesn't exist. That means they will have to go through the dozens of cases multiple times just to confirm what they are looking for isn't there.
The categorization of cases (ownership, governance, guarantee, etc.) under topics helps, but doesn't seem sufficient at this scale. Assuming that a user knows which topic a given case is under, the user is still required to scroll through the massive list. This isn't helped by the fact that a lot of cases feel as though they can fit under multiple topics_(e.g. "Your IP address is collected, which can be used to view your approximate location" under "Types of Information Collected" feels as though it could also fit under "Trackers")_
I'm not entirely sure about potential remedies to this. Separation between typically "Privacy" and typically "TOS" cases? Removal of some redundant cases from the selection (surely "deprecated" could be removed, and "waivers" appears as an empty topic)? A search function feels as though it would be the best solution, though.
(To be clear, I have near-zero experience with web development, I'm just trying to provide feedback. Please take this with a grain of salt.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: