@andreslucena I have a question regarding this link with moderation path:

If I have an user (moderator) with only those permissions: allowed_to? :read, :moderation, process: process
how he can access moderation page? Because the "edit" action will not appear.

See scenario from decidim/decidim-participatory_processes/spec/system/admin/invite_process_moderator_spec.rb

Also, another issue is with decidim/decidim-proposals/spec/system/admin/valuator_manages_proposals_spec.rb because proposal's title will not point to /manage/proposal page (/admin/participatory_processes/proc1/components/10/manage/proposals/6)

Hi @roxanaopr, that's a good point.
The consistent option that comes to mind is to add an icon for these roles. In the case of moderators, we could use the flag icon.
A different case is the valuator role, which as it is a permission associated to the proposals component, it should only be shown when a space has this component:

There are two aspects to take into account:

• This will appear for all admins.
• It will be a temporary change, until we do the admin redesign, and therefore will probably only be active in one release.

It is worth saying that we are not 100% happy with this solution, we are open to other options if anyone wants to chime in.

Hi @carolromero ! This might be a good approach for those cases, Thank you!

@carolromero For proposals listing page, we already have "comment-square" icon

I think that we sould use another icon for "Valuate" action

Maybe we can use something like this?

@roxanaopr we've chosen the comment icon because it is actually the one used to evaluate the proposals (answers, private notes and valuation are done through the same view).

@roxanaopr we've chosen the comment icon because it is actually the one used to evaluate the proposals (answers, private notes and valuation are done through the same view).

@carolromero But it will be ok to have duplicate comment icon? One for "Answer Proposal" and one for "Valuate"

Hi @roxanaopr we wouldn't duplicate it, to valuate a proposal you would normally access it through the same answer option (which includes the valuation if it is enabled). Does this make sense?

Hi @roxanaopr we wouldn't duplicate it, to valuate a proposal you would normally access it through the same answer option (which includes the valuation if it is enabled). Does this make sense?

Hi @carolromero ! So "answer proposal" action will also play the role for "Valuate" action because both are linked to the same page, right?

So "answer proposal" action will also play the role for "Valuate" action because both are linked to the same page, right?

@roxanaopr that's correct! 😊 In the end the valuator's role is to, in addition to assigning an economic valuation, review the proposals in general and eventually also leave a response.

I have tested this locally and technically everything looks as was requested by @decidim/product. But I'd like to propose some changes if @decidim/product would consider these.

This is already great start but I think with very minor changes we could make it better by ordering these buttons consistently in every view. I think it wouldn't require any other changes than changing these orders.

Order of actions

After testing this, UX wise it is still super confusing that these buttons come in different orders in different parts of the admin panel. The main and most important principle of UX design is consistency and users will struggle when they don't find the same button always at the same place.

Below are some examples of the current orders (using this PR):

• Generic
  • Components listing:
    
  • Categories:
    
  • Attachments and attachment collections:
    
  • Scopes:
    
  • Scope types & Areas & Area types:
    
• Pages:
  
• Templates:
  
• Participatory spaces
  • Processes:
    
  • Assemblies:
    
  • Initiatives:
    
  • Votings & Consultations:
    
  • Conferences:
    
• Components
  • Accountability:
    
  • Blogs:
    
  • Budgets:
    
  • Debates:
    
  • Elections:
    
  • Meetings (whoosh 😰):
    
  • Proposals:
    
  • Sortitions:
    

So I would assume that while the user is in the admin panel, their primary action is always to stay within the admin panel. My assumption (based on my own use cases) is that I primarily want to either:
a) Edit the item in the list
OR
b) Get one level deeper in the UI (e.g. budgets component) in multi-dimensional UIs

So my suggestion would be the following primary order:

1. Edit action is always the first in the list, even in the budgets component (if we want to be consistent because in accountability I generally don't want to drill deeper primarily but more often I want to edit the item)
2. If list action is available (e.g. budgets, accountability), that comes always as the second
3. The third (or second) is the "preview" eye icon which lets you see the item in the participant view
4. The fourth (or third) is the "publish/unpublish" check/uncheck icon which publishes/unpublishes the item (if you think logically, edit -> preview -> publish)
5. (other actions in consistent order)
6. The second last (or the very last) is the permissions button
7. The very last item is always the remove button when it is available, otherwise permissions

What do you think @decidim/product?

Title links

Also, I would still like to repeat my comment from #9400 that I really think we need to have the title link where it actually makes sense, i.e. where it links to the relevant / most used view in the admin panel. I would myself decide between the "most used" based on this:

• When the component has a "drill down" option (i.e. accountability, budgets), it would drill one level down
• Where the component does not have a "drill down" option (most other places), it would go to the editing view but never outside of the admin panel (within the admin panel you should stay within the admin panel unless you specifically decide to go out of there, i.e. click the "eye" icon to preview)

I understand that this has been already discussed at @decidim/product but I just want to emphasize this point that I find it very confusing that we cannot click the list titles.

I have been following many end users closely when they browse the admin panel and they intuitively always click the title of the item to select that item. But the confusing part is that they are taken to the participant view when they were not expecting that.

So I think the title links are important but they just need to point to the correct place. Another point to support this would be the consistency factor that I think it will be confusing after the upgrade when titles no longer have links in them. This will raise many questions.

By as said at #9400, my opinion doesn't really matter here as I'm not the one deciding about these. I just wanted to bring this up really clearly, at least I've said it publicly.

@ahukkanen thank you always for taking the time to argue your point of view. Your opinion does matter and your feedback is always valuable ❤️.

Order of actions

Regarding the order of the actions, I agree that consistency can be improved, paying attention especially to the more cross-cutting actions. And I also agree with the position logic, placing first the most frequent actions, such as editing.

My ordering proposal, though, differs a little from yours. In this document I've mapped all the actions of the spaces and components in the order I'd place them (I just left the blanks to scan more quickly which actions are repeated the most):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pmCvRo9A-KQMiDL2Yh1SYvdo3yiFi9DHcePnkK5qbLE/edit?usp=sharing

The main difference from what you propose is that the preview action is placed more towards the end. Since the link to the frontend disappears from the titles, I find it easier to locate if it is placed second to last, rather than in the middle of other options that can vary a lot depending on the component.

In the document I marked in red the actions that were still need to be added and that I understand that Roxana has already added.

My hesitation now is, considering that the redesign of the admin panel will start in a couple of months, is it worth the effort? (I don't know how much work it is to reorder the actions and add the missing ones).
I leave it to your discretion, @roxanaopr and @ahukkanen.

Title links

About the title links, I see that indeed it is better to keep the links to the titles and have them take you either to edit or go down a sub-level (and I really apologize on this one because I talked offline with Andrés about this but I had missed the comment where this was pointed out).

The trade-off is to sacrifice some consistency, since as @andreslucena comments here, some resources will not have links, such as meetings or debates created by participants.

But overall it would be a better solution, because in addition to what Antti says, this way we would not have to add extra actions (moderate and valuate) depending on the permissions that the admin has, right?

Again, I understand that the previously agreed upon changes have already been made, so please feel free to ignore this feedback if you think it is not worth the effort, as this change will most likely only be in version 0.28.

@ahukkanen Can you please take a look if the new changes are according tot the latest requirements?

@ahukkanen Thanks for merging it! :D Do you know where those changes will be seen on nightly?

@roxanaopr This PR is now running at nightly. It has been configured to build in the morning, not in the night - a bit misleading for sure. 😄

It will likely be changed to run during the night time in Europe.