In the edit mode of an essay, in the body field, there is a pull down menu for Styles, however the styles listed do not correspond to any usable style in the document. This list should have styles such as Title or Body and apply those stlyes to the selected text.
Can we create a new state in workflows for essays which have been rejected for stand-alone publication, though which might be used for some other purpose? Currently, there are a number of essays in workflows which have been rejected, but we don't want to delete them because one or more of our editors believe that parts of those essays could be used in the future--as glosses, or for some other reason. These essays are clogging up different states of workflows, where they do not belong and where they distract from the essays that require action.
When I edit and then save an essay, the site displays the following error message: "Notice: Undefined property: stdClass::$workflow in workflow_node_update() (line 240 of /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/workflow/workflow.module)." Note: the edit and saving seems to work correctly, despite the message.
Move from a system where we send email prompts when an essay moves state to a system where there are periodic "digest" reminders, perhaps a weekly statement saying "You have these essays to attend to <...>." The idea is that the prompting emails are useful in the moment but don't help to get people to check in over the long term. The email would be sent according to roles - so editorial core would get a digest email with certain things, thread editors would get a different digest, and so on.
The explicit separation of workflow categories has a number of drawbacks--namely, its difficult to keep track of articles that move between a range of categories, and the distinctions are not necessarily intuitive. Potential solutions include sending out an email prompt every time work is done for an article (every time an article advances into a further category).
As the p2p process is currently set up, reviewers are (at points) unable to view/access their own comments. Immediately after reviewers 'save' their comments, those comments are not visible because they are pending approval. Once approved, those comments are again visible to reviewers. But reviewers who want to alter their comments before they are made public do not have that opportunity. One solution to the issue that was mentioned was eliminating the approval process, though the approval process is useful for reducing spam.
On current search results, the text under the links are not the blurbs, but an abbreviated version of the first few lines. These should be the blurbs when possible, and these should be visible in full. Joe: "readers of the journal, wherever they are or whatever they are doing, should be reading, without interruption."