In T339978#9012183, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Design update:
[...]
Let me have your feedback on the copy

Thanks! I'm not 100% sure about the copy; one thing that I find potentially confusing is that the "PII" acronym is used throughout the whole section and only explained at the end. But I think @ifried would know better.

Another thing is: I'm assuming that this checkbox is only shown to the "primary" organizer when enabling registration, and that it's never shown on Special:EditEventRegistration, regardless of whether you are the primary organizer or not. If so, I suppose there'll be another checkbox elsewhere to accept the agreement for secondary organizers, and also for the primary organizer if they didn't agree when creating the event, right?

PII is explained at the beginning when it is first mentioned @Daimona

Another thing is: I'm assuming that this checkbox is only shown to the "primary" organizer when enabling registration, and that it's never shown on Special:EditEventRegistration, regardless of whether you are the primary organizer or not. If so, I suppose there'll be another checkbox elsewhere to accept the agreement for secondary organizers, and also for the primary organizer if they didn't agree when creating the event, right?

Details of the clickwrap are in this task T340115

In T339978#9012639, @gonyeahialam wrote:

PII is explained at the beginning when it is first mentioned @Daimona

Oh, sorry, I didn't see that.

In T339978#9012645, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Another thing is: I'm assuming that this checkbox is only shown to the "primary" organizer when enabling registration, and that it's never shown on Special:EditEventRegistration, regardless of whether you are the primary organizer or not. If so, I suppose there'll be another checkbox elsewhere to accept the agreement for secondary organizers, and also for the primary organizer if they didn't agree when creating the event, right?

Details of the clickwrap are in this task T340115

Thanks!

Updated the copy and structure to make the message clearer:

@Daimona You talked about this scenario yesterday: In the situation where a participant's 90 days for data retention has elapsed, what would the organiser see in place of the participant's responses?
Instead of a blank space organisers can see this message - "This participant's responses have been aggregated and deleted"

In T339978#9049555, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona You talked about this scenario yesterday: In the situation where a participant's 90 days for data retention has elapsed, what would the organiser see in place of the participant's responses?
Instead of a blank space organisers can see this message - "This participant's responses have been aggregated and deleted"

Thank you, looks good.

Change 954320 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daimona Eaytoy; author: Daimona Eaytoy):

[mediawiki/extensions/CampaignEvents@master] Change section layout of enable/edit registration form

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/954320

Change 954322 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daimona Eaytoy; author: Daimona Eaytoy):

[mediawiki/extensions/CampaignEvents@master] [WIP] PQ info

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/954322

The patch for the new layout is ready and in review. The one for adding the info text is WIP because the text has to be finalised.

@ifried
Current copy(including clickwrap copy):

Questions for participants
Participants may answer the following questions while registering for the event.
During the event you can access responses of individual participants for questions that do not include Personal Identifiable Information (PII). After the event ends, responses to all questions will be available but only as aggregated responses, individual responses will be deleted.

Personal Identifiable Information (PII)
What is your gender identity?
What is your age?
What is your profession?

Other questions (non-PII)
How confident do you feel contributing to the Wikimedia projects involved in this event?
Do you belong to any Wikimedia chapters, organizing partners, user groups, affiliates, or other organizations outside Wikimedia?

To view the aggregated responses of participants you must accept the following:

• I agree to handle the participant information collected during event registration with care and in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use.

@gonyeahialam I have updated the copy (in the AC). Please check it out when you get the chance and let me know if it looks okay. Also, two notes:

• Punctuation error changes: There were some sentences that needed commas added, which was a pretty straight-forward change. However, there was also one sentence that required the removal of a comma ("...as aggregated responses, individual responses will be deleted"), which I replaced with a period. The one issue is that I don't know if "Individual responses will be deleted" is clear enough, or if it should now be changed to "Individual responses will be deleted after the event" to make the final sentence more clear. I could also add a semi-colon, but I think that makes the sentence rather long and more difficult to translate. What do you think?
• Question order: I switched the order to display age before gender identity, which I believe is the correct order, right?

Change 954320 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/CampaignEvents@master] Change section layout of enable/edit registration form

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/954320

In T339978#9137736, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam I have updated the copy (in the AC). Please check it out when you get the chance and let me know if it looks okay. Also, two notes:

• Punctuation error changes: There were some sentences that needed commas added, which was a pretty straight-forward change. However, there was also one sentence that required the removal of a comma ("...as aggregated responses, individual responses will be deleted"), which I replaced with a period. The one issue is that I don't know if "Individual responses will be deleted" is clear enough, or if it should now be changed to "Individual responses will be deleted after the event" to make the final sentence more clear. I could also add a semi-colon, but I think that makes the sentence rather long and more difficult to translate. What do you think?

Can we use 'and'? Though the sentence will be longer, it will be much clearer.

• Question order: I switched the order to display age before gender identity, which I believe is the correct order, right?

Yes. We should use the order in the T321822 as the source of truth.

@gonyeahialam: I have updated the copy to make it one sentence and rewrote the sentence slightly so it wouldn't be a clunky or run-on sentence. Let me know what you think (see below):

"After the event ends, responses to all questions will be available (in aggregate form only) and individual responses will be deleted."

In T339978#9143110, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam: I have updated the copy to make it one sentence and rewrote the sentence slightly so it wouldn't be a clunky or run-on sentence. Let me know what you think (see below):

"After the event ends, responses to all questions will be available (in aggregate form only) and individual responses will be deleted."

Yes, this works

@ifried The text in the task description seems incomplete, as two sentences from the prototype are missing. Should they be the same as the prototype?

Hi @Daimona! Apologies, the full text copy has been updated.

Some open questions to resolve:

• Is Personally Identifiable Information supposed to be capitalized?
• Is it personally or personal?
• is the line break at the beginning of the explanatory text section intentional? When I look at the text, it seems confusing to say “following” and then there is a line break and no questions (but, instead, more explanatory text). It would be potentially less confusing if there was no line break.

So far, I have some updates, which are:

• We should capitalize Personally Identifiable Information
• We should use "Personally" and not "Personal"
• There was no requirement from Legal to have the line break, so we can remove it (and I have updated the AC), but we can await final word from @gonyeahialam on it (in case it was intentional and there was a reason that I missed).

In T339978#9153886, @ifried wrote:

So far, I have some updates, which are:

• We should capitalize Personally Identifiable Information
• We should use "Personally" and not "Personal"
• There was no requirement from Legal to have the line break, so we can remove it (and I have updated the AC), but we can await final word from @gonyeahialam on it (in case it was intentional and there was a reason that I missed).

I am okay with the changes.
For the line break, the first sentence was a description(in addition to the section title) of what the section is about. Then the next text block explains to the organizer details of data handling and privacy. I separated them because they are different pieces of info and in order to make it easier to read the large block of text.

Ah thanks for clarifying, @gonyeahialam! I think what's confusing is that it says "following questions," and then it is followed by further explanatory text rather than questions. It's a bit more clear if it is one paragraph, perhaps. Or maybe the first sentence should come at the end?

In T339978#9158058, @ifried wrote:

Ah thanks for clarifying, @gonyeahialam! I think what's confusing is that it says "following questions," and then it is followed by further explanatory text rather than questions. It's a bit more clear if it is one paragraph, perhaps. Or maybe the first sentence should come at the end?

Also, before this task, we only had that first line in the copy. The best solution will be to modify the copy:

Participants may answer the listed questions during their registration for the event.

I have removed the word 'following'.

@gonyeahialam: Thanks for clarifying! I think it makes sense to keep the line break, now that you explain your reasoning. I also updated the copy in the AC to say "listed below," which I think is a bit more clear than "listed." Thank you! I think this ticket is now ready to be finished.

In T339978#9160573, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam: Thanks for clarifying! I think it makes sense to keep the line break, now that you explain your reasoning. I also updated the copy in the AC to say "listed below," which I think is a bit more clear than "listed." Thank you! I think this ticket is now ready to be finished.

I purposely didn't use 'below'. Words relating to spatial position are best not used in a UI because the position/arrangement of elements is not fixed. They could change, for example, when the page adapts to the size of the device.

In T339978#9161727, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T339978#9160573, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam: Thanks for clarifying! I think it makes sense to keep the line break, now that you explain your reasoning. I also updated the copy in the AC to say "listed below," which I think is a bit more clear than "listed." Thank you! I think this ticket is now ready to be finished.

I purposely didn't use 'below'. Words relating to spatial position are best not used in a UI because the position/arrangement of elements is not fixed. They could change, for example, when the page adapts to the size of the device.

I thought about that, but this is not an UI component, this is a single block of text. AFAIK, positioning references are particularly problematic when they refer to sides (e.g., "table on the right"), and also when they refer to content that is not part of the text (e.g., tables, images, buttons, ...). However, in this case this text is referring to text that comes immediately after; not just visually, but also in abstract.

+1. I also considered how instructional text that specifies the location may not work in certain circumstances, but it should always work in this case because the text will always be below. I also think "listed below" is more clear than "listed" because the user needs to read quite a bit of dense text before they get to the actual list, so it could be confusing to merely state the "list" without referencing where it can be found.

In T339978#9163817, @ifried wrote:

+1. I also considered how instructional text that specifies the location may not work in certain circumstances, but it should always work in this case because the text will always be below. I also think "listed below" is more clear than "listed" because the user needs to read quite a bit of dense text before they get to the actual list, so it could be confusing to merely state the "list" without referencing where it can be found.

Yeah, makes sense. Let's go ahead with the copy.

Change 954322 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/CampaignEvents@master] Add section for participant questions to the registration form

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/954322

@Daimona two things, and I think both of these are correct in the build but incorrect in the AC, since they do correctly mirror the participant questions. But calling them out here anyway:

In the copy above,What is your age? comes first , but in the build What is your gender identity? comes first.

The last line of copy in the build also differs from what is written above:

copy in this ticket:
Do you belong to any Wikimedia chapters, organizing partners, user groups, affiliates, or other organizations outside Wikimedia?

copy in the build:
Do you belong to any Wikimedia affiliates (chapters, user groups, thematic organizations)?

In T339978#9185188, @vaughnwalters wrote:

@Daimona two things, and I think both of these are correct in the build but incorrect in the AC, since they do correctly mirror the participant questions. But calling them out here anyway: [...]

Yes, indeed. The build uses the latest text from T321822. Let me update the AC.

In T339978#9185338, @Daimona wrote:

In T339978#9185188, @vaughnwalters wrote:

@Daimona two things, and I think both of these are correct in the build but incorrect in the AC, since they do correctly mirror the participant questions. But calling them out here anyway: [...]

Yes, indeed. The build uses the latest text from T321822. Let me update the AC.

Okay great, AC is met then, moving this to design sign off.

Given that a user is on Special:EnableEventRegistration
OR Special:EditEventRegistration for an existing registration
✅ a section should be added beneath the current form containing the text below.
this does not included the clickwrap agreement field and connected label.

Special:EnableEventRegistration	Special:EditEventRegistration

In T339978#9185375, @vaughnwalters wrote:

Okay great, AC is met then, moving this to design sign off.

Given that a user is on Special:EnableEventRegistration
OR Special:EditEventRegistration for an existing registration
✅ a section should be added beneath the current form containing the text below.
this does not included the clickwrap agreement field and connected label.

Special:EnableEventRegistration	Special:EditEventRegistration

@vaughnwalters Can I see the screenshot of the full form?

In T339978#9221656, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@vaughnwalters Can I see the screenshot of the full form?

@gonyeahialam I had to zoom out to see the whole form but here it all is together.

and here's a gif of it:

In T339978#9221828, @vaughnwalters wrote:

In T339978#9221656, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@vaughnwalters Can I see the screenshot of the full form?

@gonyeahialam I had to zoom out to see the whole form but here it all is together.

and here's a gif of it:

@Daimona Can't the two sections be inside a single rectangle/border, instead of rectangles around each section?

In T339978#9224183, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona Can't the two sections be inside a single rectangle/border, instead of rectangles around each section?

That's how the standard form sectioning works, each section is put inside those rectangles. We could have a rectangle for the whole form, but that's only available when the form itself has a legend, which it doesn't in this case.

In T339978#9224231, @Daimona wrote:

In T339978#9224183, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona Can't the two sections be inside a single rectangle/border, instead of rectangles around each section?

That's how the standard form sectioning works, each section is put inside those rectangles. We could have a rectangle for the whole form, but that's only available when the form itself has a legend, which it doesn't in this case.

Created a task to look into that later cc @vaughnwalters