While the new interface looks terrific, there is a problem with the way information about each articles is arranged. Because the author's name follows the blurb, and not the title of the article, the layout creates the impression that the person who wrote the article has written the blurb--and not necessarily the article. More specifically, it looks like 'Davin Heckman' and 'Alex Link' and the rest are authors of the BLURBS, not authors of the essays that are being blurbed.
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.
Request new password provides one-time password/access but when you try to create a new password using this method, it requires you to know your old password, which of course was the problem in the first place. .. I thought this was fixed but I guess not.
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.