Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Styles: when viewing revisions, allow for the option to view with Style Book #55577

Closed
annezazu opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #56800
Closed

Styles: when viewing revisions, allow for the option to view with Style Book #55577

annezazu opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #56800
Labels
[Feature] History History, undo, redo, revisions, autosave. Global Styles Anything related to the broader Global Styles efforts, including Styles Engine and theme.json [Type] Enhancement A suggestion for improvement.

Comments

@annezazu
Copy link
Contributor

Right now, when you are viewing revisions, you're unable to also use the Style Book:

Screen.Recording.2023-10-24.at.5.20.07.PM.mov

Considering some of the style changes may not be visible in the template itself, it feels wise to be able to switch between both views.

@annezazu annezazu added [Type] Enhancement A suggestion for improvement. [Feature] History History, undo, redo, revisions, autosave. Global Styles Anything related to the broader Global Styles efforts, including Styles Engine and theme.json labels Oct 24, 2023
@pablohoneyhoney
Copy link

pablohoneyhoney commented Oct 24, 2023

I wonder if it needs to be default, opening revisions triggers the stylebook as default view. Which surfaces the issue of seeing already the stylebook icon (would it be toggle on? would two icons toggled on be weird?).

The other thought is: when opening revisions, it opens up stylebook side by side, so you can see current vs. revised.

cc @beafialho as we are refining the stylebook view.

@ramonjd
Copy link
Member

ramonjd commented Dec 5, 2023

I did some experimenting with this today, where the style book is loaded instead of the current template.

Basically hijacking the Style Book and injecting user config into it:

2023-12-05.14.15.27.mp4

Which surfaces the issue of seeing already the stylebook icon (would it be toggle on? would two icons toggled on be weird?).

Assuming we'd like to offer the user the choice to view the current template OR the style book, which sounds highly reasonable, I think this idea is worth trying out.

I was thinking that, only when the revisions panel is open, it'd be possible to toggle the style book on and off. The style book could have a different visual to indicate it's "active" but not in 100% style book mode:

Screenshot 2023-12-05 at 2 19 09 pm

To toggle back to the style book, the user would have to close revisions.

The risk is that all the button toggling becomes complex in both code and UX 🤔

@andrewserong
Copy link
Contributor

andrewserong commented Dec 5, 2023

That mockup does look cool!

The risk is that all the button toggling becomes complex in both code and UX 🤔

Yeah, that'd be my main concern. You wouldn't want someone getting stuck with their toggles in a strange configuration, but I do kinda like the idea that the Revisions and Style Book toggles are kind of independent of one another. I suppose the main difference is that we're happy for folks to navigate around global styles (block level, etc) with the Style Book open, but we wouldn't want users to do this with a different revision active.

All sounds worth playing around with to me!

@ramonjd
Copy link
Member

ramonjd commented Dec 13, 2023

Latest update in #56800 - looking at a toggle button somewhere at the moment.

2023-12-13.18.40.34.mp4

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Feature] History History, undo, redo, revisions, autosave. Global Styles Anything related to the broader Global Styles efforts, including Styles Engine and theme.json [Type] Enhancement A suggestion for improvement.
Projects
No open projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants