Currently the field Summary is in section Revision so from this layout I understand that for each change users should give that change a Name and a Summary.
The issues I see:
- To describe a change two fields are unusual and IMO a single field would be sufficient
- While editing the document content, both fields are not cleared so in practice you end up not updating those which renders the history useless (think of git would use a default commit message if you don't change it explicitly). This is the main issue I experience.
- The history shows the Summary but not the Name. So what is the Name good for?
- In the search for a document the default field is Summary. IMO this doesn't make sense if the Summary is specific per revision while the user is typically searching for a document
I suggest the following solution:
- Move Summary out of section Revision.
- So we use Name for Revisions only and ideally rename that field to Changes
- Show Name/Changes in the History instead of Summary
- Change the UI so that user must enter a Name/Changes when changing a document revision and can not simply keep its content of the previous revision (likely an additional window)
What do you think?
Currently the field Summary is in section Revision so from this layout I understand that for each change users should give that change a Name and a Summary.
The issues I see:
I suggest the following solution:
What do you think?