New author system UI changes

[mjpost]

The following are the tasks that should be done on this branch (see Hugo template changes):

• Add three-way icons indicating verification status
• Add documentation describing what these icons mean
• Add documentation explaining verification status
• Add documentation urging people to fill out their ORCID profiles and add to Open Review
• Link verified and unverified page (e.g. for /people/fei-liu-unimelb and /people/fei-liu/unverified )
• Visually mark unverified papers

Reconsidering:

• Adapt metadata editing UI and submission pipeline
• Visually distinguish verified from unverified papers

[nschneid]

Why is the build failing? "No such file or directory" error for people.yaml

[mbollmann]

Because it was created before the transitioned data was merged into master-new-author-system.

[mbollmann]

Weird, but why did restarting the jobs not help... let's see if merging the base in helps

[mbollmann]

I also assume this PR should be a draft at this stage, and not ready for review?

[github-actions]

Build successful. Some useful links:

• Complete site preview: https://preview.aclanthology.org/master-new-author-system-ui
• Potential changes of interest:

This preview will be removed when the branch is merged.

[nschneid]

Do we have consensus that we can proceed at least for the time being by not visually distinguishing verified and unverified papers?

I think so—and this will require updating the author page template.

[mjpost]

I think so—and this will require updating the author page template.

Oh, to remove the checkmark from verified-no-orcid folks? I'll do that now.

[nschneid]

Title text for the ORCID icon that might help address @mbollmann's concern: "ORCID profile (some papers below may be guesses if they were submitted without ORCID iD)"

[mjpost]

Title text for the ORCID icon that might help address @mbollmann's concern: "ORCID profile (some papers below may be guesses if they were submitted without ORCID iD)"

Sure, I can add that. I saw that you had addressed it in the documentation, but I'm happy to make this more visible.

[nschneid]

I saw that you had addressed it in the documentation, but I'm happy to make this more visible.

Especially because the verification page documenting this will not be linked from an icon if there is an ORCID profile to link to.

[nschneid]

Went ahead and did it as it's a small change.

[mjpost]

Thanks. Fixed the logic on the question mark.

Are we ready to merge this? I am going to write the blog post.

[nschneid]

@mjpost Sorry looks like we crossed commits. And you don't want to display any icon for legacy-verified pages? Don't we want to encourage ORCID submission for those?

[mjpost]

Hmm. My thinking from our three-way discussion is that we don't want three icons, but that that would naturally place legacy-verified people in a simple unlabeled bin.

I guess we do want to encourage ORCID iD submission. I had in mind people who are verified but have passed away (unlikely to submit an ORCID iD, also not needed), but I suppose there are also many who have been legacy verified but are still publishing. Still, it seems like putting a question mark on their account, when we have verified them, isn't quite right.

WHAT IF for legacy verified accounts

• we do the question mark
• but make it green
• change the title text to indicate what this means

[nschneid]

Yeah that sounds reasonable. I'll let you implement it.

[nschneid]

(Rebase on abde567 before making the changes?)

[mbollmann]

Still, it seems like putting a question mark on their account, when we have verified them, isn't quite right.

Tangentially, this is exactly why I don't like the term "legacy verified". It implies that we don't support this way of verification anymore, which is simply not the case as there will always be authors who no longer publish, and we might verify them (without an ORCID) in the future if the need for disambiguation arises.

[mbollmann]

There seem to be lots of things in here that weren't here last time I checked, and I won't have time to review more closely this weekend.

[mjpost]

Where is the CSS class text-verified defined? I cannot find it anywhere.

[mjpost]

Where is the CSS class text-verified defined? I cannot find it anywhere.

I found it (don't understand scss; search for "text-verified" had failed)

[nschneid]

LGTM!

[nschneid]

@mjpost Could you please restore the longer ORCID icon tooltip: "ORCID profile (some papers below may be guesses if they were submitted without ORCID iD)"

[nschneid]

@mjpost fixed a tag issue

[nschneid]

OK, it looks great! My only feedback now from the user side is the script variant issue I raised in #6807. Let me try fixing it on the front end (rather than messing with the Python library).

[nschneid]

Script variant is now removed from unverified author links:

[nschneid]

@mbollmann did you want to take a final look at the code or is this ready to merge?