18 ms·
I'd much rather see my edit form shown again, with my content still in it, and a conflict warning... Nothing worse than loosing that 20 minutes of typing to a c
by kiallmacinnes 8y ago
I'd much rather see my edit form shown again, with my content still in it, and a conflict warning... Nothing worse than loosing that 20 minutes of typing to a conflict!
- lixtra 8y agoBut this is easy to do. Just embed a version number (or hash) in the form. If after submitting the version to be changed is not the same as in the form, then you know there is a conflict.
- falcor84 8y agoWow, 20 minutes is a long time to spend on a "Github organisations description". But yes, I'm absolutely with you on that. Whenever I need to submit a long text field in an online form, I got into a habit of always first copying the contents into my clipboard, to prevent myself from causing irreperable harm to things around me if the request fails. But going back to the UX, I would prefer that the site accepts my change and stores it in a journal (a-la git or Wikipedia), before overseeing it with the next change, so that I could easily revert to it or merge it with the newer change.
- MaulingMonkey 8y agoI'd rather see the edit warning when multiple people are editing the same info before 20 minutes of typing even starts, and a interface for accessing history for the edge cases.