Content
View differences
Updated by Parimal Satyal almost 4 years ago
**As** a project member
**I want to** be able to easily identify empty fields in a work package
**so that** quickly identify if information is missing, and fill them out when that information becomes available
### Acceptance criteria
This work package only concerns the work package form fields, not the new updated sub-header section described in <mention class="mention" data-id="40539" data-type="work_package" data-text="#40539">#40539</mention>. So for fields that are migrating from the form section to the sub-header, please ignore this rule.
### Acceptance criteria
Having the same placeholder text makes it easier to scan a list of attributes and determine very quickly which ones are filled and which ones are empty. The _type_ of field (long text, short, date) is not as relevant pre-interaction, and becomes evident on click/tap.
* Unify the placeholder for editable attributes that are empty such that they are always represented repreesnted with a "-"
* Conserve the "-" placeholder in existing attributes
* Replace "<Field name>: Click to edit..." with "-"
* When the value is "0", the field is not empty and "0" must then be displayed (with the appropriate unit where appropriate).
* Give the placeholder a minimum length (existing behaviour) so that the click zone is larger than just the width of the "-"
### ~~Original Original text (archived 20 Jul)~~ Jul)
~~Forwarded Forwarded from a premier customer request:~~ request:
~~The The placeholders for editable attribute differ depending on the type of attribute used.~~ used.
~~We We often use~~ `~~-~~` ~~but use `-` but for long text fields, a repeated "<Field name>:" followed by "Click to edit..." is used. Would it be possible to make a more consistent choice, and what would that be from a UX perspective.~~ perspective.
<figure class="image op-uc-figure"><div class="op-uc-figure--content"><img class="op-uc-image" src="/api/v3/attachments/23669/content"></div></figure>
**I want to** be able to easily identify empty fields in a work package
**so that** quickly identify if information is missing, and fill them out when that information becomes available
### Acceptance criteria
This work package only concerns the work package form fields, not the new updated sub-header section described in <mention class="mention" data-id="40539" data-type="work_package" data-text="#40539">#40539</mention>. So for fields that are migrating from the form section to the sub-header, please ignore this rule.
### Acceptance criteria
Having the same placeholder text makes it easier to scan a list of attributes and determine very quickly which ones are filled and which ones are empty. The _type_ of field (long text, short, date) is not as relevant pre-interaction, and becomes evident on click/tap.
* Unify the placeholder for editable attributes that are empty such that they are always represented
* Conserve the "-" placeholder in existing attributes
* Replace "<Field name>: Click to edit..." with "-"
* When the value is "0", the field is not empty and "0" must then be displayed (with the appropriate unit where appropriate).
* Give the placeholder a minimum length (existing behaviour) so that the click zone is larger than just the width of the "-"
### ~~Original
~~Forwarded
~~The
~~We
<figure class="image op-uc-figure"><div class="op-uc-figure--content"><img class="op-uc-image" src="/api/v3/attachments/23669/content"></div></figure>