4 ms·

In this youtube video example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjixBNKUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjixBNKUbM you demonstrate adding the new icon to th

by ugh123 3y ago

In this youtube video example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjixBNKUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjixBNKUbM you demonstrate adding the new icon to the page and then modifying it with a hover alternative color. But the rest of the compare/diff/review workflow only focuses on the change between non-highlighted -> highlighted. To me, the important part is the addition of the icon to the page, and as a reviewer it would be of upmost importance to see the visual diff of the page before and after, rather than just an icon and it's hover alternative.

jsunderland323 3y ago
By page do you mean like your live website with the changes? I've thought about this too and I think down the line the plan is to be able to attach screenshots to merge requests. However, as a reviewer you can also pull down the changes and test them against your production site locally. So you can alter between the main branch and the feature branch and compare the differences like that. The benefit of this over a screenshot is it lets you actually get to see something like the hover effect in action.
- ugh123 3y ago
  In the demo they clearly have a wysiwyg app allowing them to drag in the icon, so the project is already set up for "live demo". If i'm a non-technical reviewer, like a designer (their target market I believe), I shouldn't be expected to pull down changes and test locally (unless that part can be automated and made super easy to do without fuss). Figma kind of already does this (visual diff) with some of their tools for designers, although i'm not sure how well that can be integrated into a full fledged web-app who's changes and reviews could be shared by designers and engineers.
  - jsunderland323 3y ago
    > I shouldn't be expected to pull down changes and test locally (unless that part can be automated and made super easy to do without fuss). It's super easy and there's no fuss. You literally just switch branches. It's really easy to think the experience is analogous to code but it's not really. There's not a complex IDE setup or any complex local environment setup -- so it really is like just pull the branch open your browser, navigate to your website and test the changes.

by ugh123 3y ago

jsunderland323 3y ago

By page do you mean like your live website with the changes? I've thought about this too and I think down the line the plan is to be able to attach screenshots to merge requests. However, as a reviewer you can also pull down the changes and test them against your production site locally. So you can alter between the main branch and the feature branch and compare the differences like that. The benefit of this over a screenshot is it lets you actually get to see something like the hover effect in action.

ugh123 3y ago
In the demo they clearly have a wysiwyg app allowing them to drag in the icon, so the project is already set up for "live demo". If i'm a non-technical reviewer, like a designer (their target market I believe), I shouldn't be expected to pull down changes and test locally (unless that part can be automated and made super easy to do without fuss). Figma kind of already does this (visual diff) with some of their tools for designers, although i'm not sure how well that can be integrated into a full fledged web-app who's changes and reviews could be shared by designers and engineers.
- jsunderland323 3y ago
  > I shouldn't be expected to pull down changes and test locally (unless that part can be automated and made super easy to do without fuss). It's super easy and there's no fuss. You literally just switch branches. It's really easy to think the experience is analogous to code but it's not really. There's not a complex IDE setup or any complex local environment setup -- so it really is like just pull the branch open your browser, navigate to your website and test the changes.