Create Mechanism to Require People to Fill Out New Identity Profile Field
#1 Updated by Boone Gorges over 10 years ago
There are a couple ways this could work.
1) When a user of the site visits who has not filled in the field, redirect them to the profile page with a message that says "You must do this to continue". When they're done, ideally they will be sent back to whatever page they were trying to view.
2) Similar to #2, except with a popup.
3) For users who have not yet filled in the field, show an in-page message (something like the "Notice Anything Different?" message, except it would show on every page of the site. See http://redmine.gc.cuny.edu/issues/show/645#change-2518) urging them to go to their profile page and fill in the field. Users could continue to use the site without filling in the field, but they wouldn't be able to get rid of the annoying box unless they filled in the field.
4) Like 3, except we also provide a "No thanks" button that allows users to get rid of the dialog without filling in the field.
5) Like 3 or 4, except that instead of having a link to the Edit Profile page, the checkboxes appear right in the dialog for easier saving.
1 and 2 are far too annoying for my taste - involuntary redirection is a terrible way to treat users, unless you have a really, really, really good reason. 5 would be fine, but in involves a bit of extra work to put a proper html form that can be submitted from any page. I lean toward 4, as it is minimally invasive, requires a fairly small amount of dev work, and gives the user the freedom to opt out, which I think is friendlier.
#2 Updated by Matt Gold over 10 years ago
I think we should discuss this at the next Subcommittee meeting. My preference is for #3, which doesn't allow users to opt-out, for the following reasons:
-- we already have required fields in the Profile (college, name)
-- the information is pretty vital to us as we analyze site usage, which in turn helps us demonstrate the importance of the site to various communities, which in turn gets us funding.
But I do think we should discuss this as a group, so let's do that at the next meeting.
#7 Updated by Matt Gold almost 10 years ago
Good question. My preference is for #2 above, since I think it's important that we get people to fill this out and I don't think we're asking too much of them. However, I'm willing to reconsider or, at least, to give them a "no thanks" option.
I've added Chris as a watcher so that we can get his take on this from a usability standpoint.
#8 Updated by Boone Gorges almost 10 years ago
I think that forced redirects/actions are very annoying. If this were an important change in our TOS or something, maybe it would be warranted. But given that it's just a small (and perhaps important, but even there I'm not clear on how it's vital in the short term) piece of information on a profile, I am against such an intrusive technique.
#9 Updated by Matt Gold almost 10 years ago
I understand your concern, and it's one that I share. On the other hand, this is a new required field, and it's required because it will help the Commons provide pretty important statistical information that will give us a better picture of who is using the site and how, possibly leading toward new site improvements. It seems to me that the field will be useful pretty much to the extent to which we can get all members to fill it out.
#10 Updated by Boone Gorges almost 10 years ago
Right, but #2 forces users to fill it out before continuing any other business on the Commons, while some of the latter options allow people to put it off until a time when it suits them, while still reminding them that it is to be done.
But in the end it's up to you, so just let me know what to go ahead with. Whatever the annoyance factor will be, it's probably not enough to warrant the effort of a drawn-out discussion.
#11 Updated by Matt Gold almost 10 years ago
But I love drawn-out discussion!
My concern about the latter options is that I've recently seen two different people who have not yet dismissed the BuddyPress docs alert. Some people seem to look past it and just leave it there.
What about #2 (pop-up) with a chance to say "Remind me Later" but then having it come up again when users next log in (repeated until they do it). Too intrusive?
#13 Updated by Boone Gorges almost 10 years ago
Here's the placeholder text I'm using for the popup. Please let me know what you want in there.
<h3>Hello, Commons user!</h3> <p>Your Commons profile now has a field for your Role, where you can tell us which hat(s) you wear at CUNY. This information will help us learn more about who uses the Commons, and make it easier for potential collaborators to find you on the site. Please take a moment to fill out this new data.</p> <a href="<?php echo bp_loggedin_user_domain() ?>profile/edit"><strong>Sure! Take me to my profile now</strong></a> | <a href="#" id="role_popup_remindmelater">Remind me later</a>
#14 Updated by Boone Gorges almost 10 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Resolved
Here's how it works:
Logged-in user visits site
If user has clicked "Remind me later" link within last 48 hours, do nothing
If user has filled in Role profile field, do nothing
Otherwise, display a lightbox-style popup with the text from my previous comment.
If the user clicks the "Sure! Take me to my profile now" link, he can fill in the field. On the next visit, he'll be able to use the site normally
If the user clicks "Remind me later", he can use the site normally for the next 48 hours, when the reminder will start popping up again.
Marking the ticket as resolved. If you have specific requests (especially once our staging environment is up and running and you've had a chance to test it), reopen this ticket or open a new one.
#15 Updated by Matt Gold almost 10 years ago
Thanks, Boone. The mechanisms sound great. Two quick thoughts on the message itself:
-- I don't think there should be a comma before "and make," since "make" is linked to "This information will"
-- I'd rephrase it thus this sentence as follows:
"Your Commons profile now has a required field for your Role, where you can describe the hat(s) you wear at CUNY. "
-- finally, the message talks about hats worn at CUNY, but we're now accepting non-CUNY memberships for CUNY projects, and have done so for some time. Any thoughts about an edit that would address that? Or maybe it's fine to leave it as is and just leave the working assumption that the great majority of our members are part of CUNY.