This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about cookies.
Skip to main content
Metadecidim's official logo
  • English Triar la llengua Elegir el idioma Choose language
    • Català
    • Castellano
Sign Up Sign In
  • Home
  • Processes
  • Assemblies
  • Initiatives
  • Consultations
  • Conferences
  • Help

Propose new functionalities for Decidim software

#DecidimRoadmap Designing Decidim together

Phase 1 of 1
Open 2019-01-01 - 2030-12-31
Process phases Submit a proposal
  • The process
  • Debates
  • Propose new features
  • News
chevron-left Back to list

Improvements for the participatory texts module

Avatar: Ariadna Vila Ariadna Vila
04/02/2021 15:48  

Lately I’ve been working with the participatory texts module and so I’ve found some improvements that we could make to the modul. 

1) To add an option to download the final text once it has been amended and modified. 

This should be done from the back office. The file must maintain paragraphs and separations, regardless of the sections into which the text is divided. 

2) When importing a text, the draft or edition section is confusing. 

One way to improve this is to not make it mandatory to add a title in every section in which the text is divided. 

On the public view of the text, a title won’t be displayed if there’s no title; at this time a default number is displayed as title if there's no text. 

3) Disable the possibility of amending when “accepted”

If the option to provide “response” (accept, reject) is enabled, and the admin “accepts” one section of the text (after the amendment process), it should no longer be possible to amend that part of the text as it is considered to be finished.

4) Remove the obligation to amend the title. 

When someone wants to add an amendment or when the admin wants to edit the text from the back office, It’s always have to change the title, even if you don’t want to. 

I think that these changes can improve a lot the use of the participatory texts module. What do you think?



  • Filter results for category: Participatory texts Participatory texts

List of Endorsements

Avatar: Nil Homedes Nil Homedes verified-badge
Avatar: Oliver Azevedo Barnes Oliver Azevedo Barnes
Avatar: Romy Grasgruber-Kerl Romy Grasgruber-Kerl
Avatar: Dave Frey Dave Frey
Avatar: Alexander Rusa Alexander Rusa
and 2 more people (see more) (see less)
Endorsements count5
Improvements for the participatory texts module Comments 5

Reference: MDC-PROP-2021-02-16221
Version number 1 (of 1) see other versions
Check fingerprint

Fingerprint

The piece of text below is a shortened, hashed representation of this content. It's useful to ensure the content hasn't been tampered with, as a single modification would result in a totally different value.

Value: 2b5aac74218f8ff83c687c29087bf207d8f7d33e84c19eb8d1dfc5b97f314267

Source: {"body":{"ca":"<p>Lately I’ve been working with the participatory texts module and so I’ve found some improvements that we could make to the modul.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>1) To add an option to download the final text once it has been amended and modified.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>This should be done from the back office. The file must maintain paragraphs and separations, regardless of the sections into which the text is divided.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>2) When importing a text, the draft or edition section is confusing.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>One way to improve this is to not make it mandatory to add a title in every section in which the text is divided.&nbsp;</p><p>On the public view of the text, a title won’t be displayed if there’s no title; at this time a default number is displayed as title if there's no text.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>3) Disable the possibility of amending when “accepted”</strong></p><p>If the option to provide “response” (accept, reject) is enabled, and the admin “accepts” one section of the text (after the amendment process), it should no longer be possible to amend that part of the text as it is considered to be finished.</p><p><strong>4) Remove the obligation to amend the title.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>When someone wants to add an amendment or when the admin wants to edit the text from the back office, It’s always have to change the title, even if you don’t want to.&nbsp;</p><p>I think that these changes can improve a lot the use of the participatory texts module. What do you think? </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>"},"title":{"ca":"Improvements for the participatory texts module"}}

This fingerprint is calculated using a SHA256 hashing algorithm. In order to replicate it yourself, you can use an MD5 calculator online and copy-paste the source data.

Share:

link-intact Share link

Share link:

Please paste this code in your page:

<script src="https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/16221/embed.js"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/16221/embed.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>

Report inappropriate content

Is this content inappropriate?

Reason

5 comments

Order by:
  • Older
    • Best rated
    • Recent
    • Older
    • Most discussed
Avatar: Nil Homedes Nil Homedes verified-badge
05/02/2021 09:48
  • Get link Get link
In favor  

I totally agree with you, I think that Participatory Text is a tool with a lot of potential but it has a lot of things to improve. I would add that:

Review the flow of voting on amendments. Enabling the possibility to vote for, against and abstain from each amendment. As well as to think about the voting possibilities when there are several amendments that refer to the same part of the text and that are contradictory between them, what should be the process? From my experience: The two amendments are confronted and the one that wins is confronted with the base text.


Create amendment typologies. Normally in this type of procedure a distinction is made between amendments of form, content or totality.


Another problem is when someone wants to add a new article to a text. There is no possibility to make an amendment that adds a new article to the text.

On point 3, I would say that it is fine for the admin to review the text of the amendment that will finally be incorporated into the text, but the author of the amendment should be able to accept those changes.

Conversation with Romy Grasgruber-Kerl
Avatar: Romy Grasgruber-Kerl Romy Grasgruber-Kerl
12/03/2021 18:16
  • Get link Get link

Hi, thanks for opening a discussion concerning the participatory text-feature. We are an NGO from Austria that got some funding from an Austrian foundation to implement Decidim here and improve the participatory-text feature. We are working together with RoR-Developers - @arusa Until end of June 2021 we'll consult stakeholders in Austria and internationally (here ;)) concerning their needs for participatory texts. Perhaps we can work together and coordinate our efforts to improve this feature? Compared to budgets-module or proposals the text-work seems not that well elaborated yet, but yes - it has huge potential. Your analysis/suggestions are very interesting though and similar to my experience when setting up our first text-process. In opposition to improving the feature that is integrated in the existing proposals-component we also considered to rethink it completely/extract it from there and try to find creative solutions to provide a new solution that can be integrated in Decidim separately. Which existing participatory-texting tools would you consider as best practices and suitable for orientation concerning functionality/user-experience etc.? We know some german platforms, but perhaps you know better ones. We didn't decide yet how to proceed concerning the development, but we would like to stay in touch and exchange ideas, coordinate efforts etc.

Avatar: Virgile Deville Virgile Deville
15/03/2021 21:07
  • Get link Get link

Always thought Pubpub was the best software for participatory text editing : https://www.pubpub.org

Avatar: Romy Grasgruber-Kerl Romy Grasgruber-Kerl
16/03/2021 09:10
  • Get link Get link

Thanks, that definitely helps!

Avatar: Romy Grasgruber-Kerl Romy Grasgruber-Kerl
17/09/2021 09:44
  • Get link Get link

@Ariadna_VA we are a addressing your input in our project to improve the participatory texts-module.

@1: For export of results we plan to provide an option to export the original text with comments, amendments in text-format (.doc), in order to make it easier to visualize the whole process and inputs. Details are still being elaborated, our idea is that we make the process transparent and provide a file that helps to continue working with the inputs. Main goal is not to export a "final text", but rather a file with all the inputs as basis for further discussion.

@2: text import: we plan to integrate an additional editor field in the admin interface with an explanation on how to format the text. Admins can decide by clicking a checkbox, whether they want the original import via document-upload or the new option via editor. Editor makes text-import much easier.

@4 We will provide (also via checkbox) the possibility to hide the title in the frontend-view. When working on frontend-improvements we saw that the title is often confusing when working on a flowing text.

Concerning the option of integrating "new paragraphs" (actually new proposals) into the text as also suggested by @Nil_Homedes we are still considering the consequences. But probably such suggestions need to be made as comments. @arusa

Add your comment

Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.

Loading comments ...

  • Terms and conditions of use
  • About the community
  • Download Open Data files
  • Metadecidim at Twitter Twitter
  • Metadecidim at Instagram Instagram
  • Metadecidim at YouTube YouTube
  • Metadecidim at GitHub GitHub
Creative Commons License Website made with free software.
Decidim Logo

Confirm

OK Cancel

Please sign in

decidim Sign in with Decidim
Or

Sign up

Forgot your password?