Checkmarks have evolved

LibraryThing has traditionally used little checkmarks next to items in lists that are in your wishlist or in your library or a couple of other "special" collections. These checkmarks have evolved over the years from simple text checkmarks to various colors of icons and images.

They have evolved again to include shapes other than checkmarks as a secondary indication of meaning for users who cannot differentiate the colors that we've traditionally used. Now we have color and shape to differentiate the icons.

Was this bug addressed during this revamp process?
https://www.librarything.com/topic/341265

Oh, here's a sample image in case I wasn't clear in my rambling above:

>2 gilroy: It is going through the test process.
This change was, incidentally, unrelated to that bug report.

>3 conceptDawg:

Is there a key available somewhere?

>5 cpg: when you hover over the icon it gives you a textual explanation

>2 gilroy: That bug seems to be fixed with these changes

Will it take some time for the changes to populate across all page types? When I visit an author page (example Keith Houston) I still see purple checkmarks which aren't anywhere in your legend. When I try to hover over them the work preview pops up instead.

>6 knerd.knitter:

Not for me, it doesn't. Should I file a bug report?

>9 cpg: what page are you on?

>8 rosalita: Probably a caching thing. I see the old ones on pages I visited recently, but new ones on those whose cache has expired. I'll try clearing browser cache and report

>11 SandraArdnas: Thanks. This was an author page that I have never visited, I don't think, so caching would not seem to be the issue in my case. But it may well take some time to popular across the full site, which is understandable.

>8 rosalita: It will only be updated on pages that have been "LT2-ified" so Author and Works will not show the new icons yet.

>12 rosalita: >13 knerd.knitter: Indeed, author pages still show the old icons even after clearing cache. Series show new ones

>10 knerd.knitter:

https://www.librarything.com/list/9659/all/Times-All-Time-100-Novels

I see green checkmarks and blue checkmarks, to the list of the book covers. And hovering does nothing.

macOS: Big Sur Version 11.6.3.
Safari: Version 15.3 (16612.4.9.1.8, 16612)

>15 cpg: I think that >13 knerd.knitter: applies for lists.

>16 AnnieMod:

Aren't lists precisely what the very first sentence of the original post was talking about?

>17 cpg: Small "L" lists not big "L" lists; not the Lists feature of LT but lists on pages.

>17 cpg: I think it was meant as lists generally anywhere. Lists as in that particular feature on LT don't show new icons for me

>18 knerd.knitter:

Aren't the big "L" lists on pages?

Hovering over icon on pages that show new icons says what the icon denotes.

>21 SandraArdnas:

What would be an example of a page that should show new icons?

>22 cpg: Check out a tag page.
List pages are still LT 1.0 so they won't have the new icons yet

>20 cpg: Yes but as >13 knerd.knitter: clarified, the changes only apply to LT2 pages. Series for example. Or the series ones in your own charts and graphs.

>23 gilroy:

I hover over an icon on the Algebra tag page, and nothing happens.

>24 AnnieMod:

I hover over an icon on the "Graduate Texts in Mathematics" series page, and nothing happens.

>26 cpg: Without specifying a browser and a OS, no one can help.

>25 cpg: Okay, so what operating system and browser are you using, so the developers can find why it isn't working.

>27 AnnieMod:

See #15 above.

>28 gilroy:

See #15 above.

>3 conceptDawg: The ones in Charts and graphs -> series look different - the blue one is has an ampersand inside and the green and grey ones are still checkmarks. They are there now at least but why the difference?

>31 AnnieMod:

When you hover over an icon there, do you see a textual explanation?

>13 knerd.knitter: I should have thought of that!

This just makes me more excited for the full rollout of LT 2.0.

>32 cpg: I am on iPhone at the moment. Hover does not work on the platform (or is not enabled on mine anyway even if they did add it lately and I had missed it) so won’t be able to check until I get to my laptop.

PS: On Windows 10, the hover text appears on the Series page. Not on the Charts and Graphs series one though (although there they look different as well anyway).

Is there anyone for whom hovering over a new icon is giving a textual explanation of what the icon means?

Windows 10, Firefox 99.0.1 (64 bit) -
The Charts & Graphs -> Series page, hover doesn't display meaning.

>35 cpg: I can get it to work on the tag pages fine. Not on the Charts and Graphs pages.

>35 cpg: Yes, I've been able to do it on series pages. Haven't tried tags or the stat graphic pages.

I'm on MacOS 12.3.1 using Safari 15.4

>37 gilroy:

Ah, now it's working for me on a tag page, too.

So far no hover text appears. Went to an author page and a list. Windows 11.? and Chrome, a very late version.

On a talk thread it worked.

>40 Bookmarque: Go to a series. A List and an author page are both old style lists so the change do not apply to them.

Ah thanks Annie!

Talking about the Talk page ones, will the bug that does not show the grey ones in touchstones ever be fixed? As these are new style lists with the new icons, I’d expect the grey ones to make a reappearance?

I love the new symbols. That's great. It's especially nice for people who have trouble distinguishing colors.

It's also doing something on Talk pages in the Touchstones listing. For ease of demonstration here, I'm adding a few touchstones likely to cut across personal libraries (or not), and they will appear in the right-hand bar of this page:
The Hobbit
Romeo and Juliet
The Color Purple
Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (in my library, favorite, wishlist for me)
Lectures on the Essence of Religion (read but unowned, favorite for me)
Gnomon (read but unowned for me)
If This Book Exists, You're in the Wrong Universe (wishlist for me)

So it looks like currently the green check (my library) overrides the heart (wishlist) overrides the reader (read but unowned). What's the pyramid of six dots mean?

>46 paradoxosalpha: Some other non-standard collection. The former gray ones, the colors haven't changed, they just have symbols now

May we please have a key of what the icons represent for where and when the hover doesn't bring up the individual icon's description?

ETA: I was already feeling impatient. What's below might be current. (It's based on Help info from 2010.)

Wishlist: purple, heart shape
Read but Unowned - blue, library symbol (an open book with a circle representing the reader)
Your Library - green, checkmark
Any other collection - gray, dots in a pyramid

When I look at an author page, like Tolkein, I still see all the old checkmark symbols. I see the new ones on the series pages though. I see the old marks on list pages too.

>49 al.vick: Per >13 knerd.knitter: it's only on pages that are LT2.0
Author pages are still LT1.0

>1 conceptDawg: Thank you. But you continue to make an absolute hopeless beginner's mistake in internationalization. You use a string that is used in one place, in a little odd context, in a new, completely different context. Do not re-use strings!

"Cataloged" on the Venue pages in Local means something like "these users have cataloged books from here", and now you re-use the same string for the checkmark that means that a book has been cataloged. The same phrase can and often must be translated differently in different contexts. Please do not re-use strings! Create a new string! Or does PHP do this on its own?

I should have been more specific, but not EVERY instance of the icons has been updated yet. Most LT2 pages use new functions that are all centralized, so they call the same code to create these icons. Much (all?) of our older code kind of just wings it and creates these icons its own way. That's one of the ways we're improving LT as we go along.

The new icons can be seen in most shelf views, both Cover and List view (but not Recs, which use their own completely different shelf view...we'll tackle that later) and lists (small L) within many of the Charts and Graphs sections (Series->All books, Lists->By List, Awards, Characters, Places, Events). Series pages also use them. Touchstones listed in Talk use them.

So they are in lots of places. But they may not be in a particular place that you might single out. We'll get to them all, eventually.

>51 anglemark: We have contextual allowances for translated strings. We can certainly put a tag on one of these to differentiate the context. I don't speak every language on the planet so I'm sure we might miss some things.

I'm not upset, but these are not "absolute hopeless beginner's mistakes." We deal with THOUSANDS of translated strings a day in hundreds of contexts and combinations of string vs. data and the interleaving of the two (including pluralizations, RTL, punctuation within strings, inclusion within attributes and APIs, etc.). We are BOUND to miss some. Fact is, we miss a fair number of them but we try and fix them when they are called to our attention.

I didn't even remember that we used "cataloged" in a different context on Local pages. We have over 12k files of code (not lines of code, FILES). So, yeah. We can't keep every use of every string in soft-tissue memory. :)

In this case, because the general usage of "cataloged" on LT will likely be the one used with these icons—I've cataloged this item—we'll probably want to put a tag on the usage in Local to differentiate it.

Legend
grey: have it in some other collection. ("collection" of dots)
green: have it in 'Your Library' (check)
purple: wishlist (heart)
blue: read but unowned (library symbol)

>54 conceptDawg:

Could you share the "ranking"? Since there's only one symbol for any given title, but several could be true, which are superordinate to which?

>55 paradoxosalpha:
Based on a comment in code (not mine, so I can't be sure):

In case of conflicts, it prefers purple to blue to green to gray.

Thanks!

>51 anglemark: Thank you. But you continue to make an absolute hopeless beginner's mistake in internationalization. You use a string that is used in one place, in a little odd context, in a new, completely different context. Do not re-use strings!

We have a way of marking when a string ought to be translated differently in two different contexts. We try to anticipate those circumstances, and are happy to hear when we don't get it right. But me MUST reused translated strings by default—we can't have every occurrence of a string be considered unique and subject to different re-translation. As it is, we have nearly 12k strings.

>59 paradoxosalpha:
Indeed.

timspalding & ConceptDawg: I apologise for overreacting. That was a couple of years' worth of frustration that blew. I understand that the code is complex and that the translation system isn't a proper translation system but has its limits. Sorry.

Any chance of being able to set custom checkmarks?

I currently use My Library for physical books and a custom collection for e-books, so my deadtree and electronic books shows up with green and grey checkmarks respectively. That's quite adequate for my present needs, but if I were to, say, start cataloguing audiobooks it would be nice to be able to have a distinct checkmark for them without calling that collection Wishlist or Read But Unowned.

(Ideally I guess I'd like to be able to import my own icons, but being able to assign the purple or blue one to any collection would be a good start.)

The pony checkmark I'd like to see is where an unowned short story listed as a stand-alone work is included in an owned anthology.

The recent addition that prompts this is part of John Scalzi's Lock In series. I recently added Tordotcom: Chambers, Scalzi, Wagner which includes Unlocked. In the series listing, that work is shown as unowned. As it's an ebook, I could list the individual novellas as for reading purposes they have been split from the anthology. However, I prefer to log the anthology, not the individual stories.

>62 Maddz: Are you saying you don't have a copy of the short story "Unlocked" as the standalone ebook, only as a part of an anthology you have, and you want the individual story to show as owned the way the anthology does (as in, with an icon)?

I had to reread a few times, because I misread your request the first time. Possibly, no one on the LT team would have the same experience, but confirming your meaning early on seems good.

I am not getting grey marks in the touchstones on this page for books in my "no longer owned" collection. (They are showing on the series & author pages though.) I have new style green & blue marks showing in the touchstones, though.

test: I shall wear midnight

purple is also showing! Still no gray.

Thank you for the non-color-only checkmarks! That is a wonderful accessibility change.

>62 Maddz: I would definitely love checkmarks for books I own/read in omnibus edition, but that's been an RSI for a long time, I think

>64 melannen: The missing grey symbols is a previously-reported bug, here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/327540. I guess it didn't get fixed with this update.

>66 norabelle414: Ah, thanks, I'd missed that bug report somehow.

>63 aspirit: Yes, exactly, but it would need to be a different icon because I don't own the standalone version, just an anthologised version.

>68 Maddz: I believe that's a long-standing RSI that many of us would love to be implemented for any contains/is contained in cases, be it stories or works in omnibuses.

61> I'm not saying we won't/can't do custom icons or collection assignments for these but it certainly isn't on top of my list for the near future. Maybe we can revisit after we clear our docket though.

>70 conceptDawg: So, two weeks then? ;-)

>71 rosalita: Sounds about right to me.

>70 conceptDawg:

OK, thank you

A little late to the party, as I've only just noticed the new checkmarks on a tag page. Sorry.

What does the "catalogued" icon (the pile of balls) mean? >53 conceptDawg: says it means: "I've cataloged this item", which is nicely open-ended. I've got several items where I've got the only copy on LT. I've filled in a few fields on the my copy work page, but sometimes not even a single field of CK, and it's displaying as "catalogued".

I can see that this will be a useful icon if it means "you've got a copy of this work, and it has been catalogued to an acceptable degree". But I think it needs to differentiate between "my copy" and CK catalogue content. And what does it mean: that a certain % of fields have content?

Also, why is the icon only applied in member-defined collections, and not to works in "Your library". Or are you still working on the green version of the icon? Many thanks.

>74 Cynfelyn:

If you're not seeing a green checkmark next to books in Your Library that's a bug.

The grey checkmark means you've got the work and only in collections not associated with another checkmark. It's nothing to do with CK.

>75 AndreasJ: Aha. Another case of two countries seperated by a common language. "checkmark" = tick, and not the range of icons displayed in >3 conceptDawg:. Thanks.

In which case I'd hope to never see a grey tick "checkmark", as I hope I never just slap down an author and title and move on. It'd still be interesting to know what level of cataloguing constitutes "cataloged".

And if it's nothing to do with CK, how about some sort of icon suggesting "this work, that you have a copy of, could usefully use some CK". Or would it be too ubiquitous?

>76 Cynfelyn:

I can’t make heads or tails of your first paragraph.

As for the second and third, the checkmarks are based purely on which collections books are in. It’s nothing do with the thoroughness of the cataloguing.

>74 Cynfelyn: Um, no you are completely misunderstanding the meanings.

Green check as seen in 3 = Is listed in the "Your Library" collection
Gray ball pyramid = is listed in any of your member defined collections, that aren't part of the base ones made by LT.

This has nothing to do with CK or how much detail is in the item.

"Catalogued" simply means you've added it to your Librarything.

I think people are still referring to the icons that used to be checkmarks as checkmarks because no one has come up with a name for them.

ETA: And because the green one is still a checkmark

ETA2: A better name might be collection-membership icon

>79 jjwilson61: A better name might be collection-membership icon

Or just "collection mark."

>74 Cynfelyn:, >76 Cynfelyn:

Not only do the collection marks not indicate anything about the completeness of a catalog record, Common Knowledge is not part of the book record in your catalog. It is part of the work record in the larger body of data that is common to LT as a whole. Although there is an audit trail of who entered any CK info, those details themselves are not tied to the specific copy you have cataloged, and you should often see CK for your books that was entered by other users. Unlike reviews, you can enter CK without cataloging the relevant book in your own account.

>76 Cynfelyn: Yes, the grey icon has nothing to do with how well it is cataloged, only that it is in your catalog and not in any of the other main collections.

For me, the gray icons show up mostly for books that are in my "no longer owned" collection, that I used for books I've discarded but still want to keep a record of. Depending on how you use your catalog, you may never see them at all. Although it looks like you don't use the default Wishlist or Read Not Owned collections, so you will probably see gray marks for any book in your catalog that isn't in the Your Library collection.

Just noticed the new icons (collection icons? status icons?) on a series page. Very cute, thank you.

>56 conceptDawg: I would prefer books that I own (green tick) to be ranked first (so I don't end up buying duplicate copies when I look up my catalogue in a book shop), but I understand that everybody has their own preference. Any chance that we'll be able to customise preference order or at least nominate one category to rank first?

>62 Maddz: (et al) Yes please!

>72 conceptDawg: Which two weeks is the question. Are we there yet?

>84 jasbro: We are nowhere even in the vicinity of there.

>84 jasbro: No, not two weeks. "Two Weeks." Big difference

>86 gilroy: In other words, the 'two weeks' that is some (unspecified) time in the future. We're not there yet.

>86 gilroy: like the difference between mm and Mm ? i.e. a factor 10^9 ?

>87 humouress: Yes

>88 bnielsen: Kinda?

In a way, some of these other requests could be factored into a request for updating the checkmarks:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/342799

Bump

Sorry, but this request isn't going to make the short list for a long time (2022, at least). But feel free to bump it in a few months and we can revisit. It's really more about developer resources than anything else.

Bump (as requested)

* bump *

Status: this is not even on our radar at the moment. But a bump every few months isn't going to hurt either.

>95 conceptDawg: What will it take to get it on the radar?

We have a few big projects taking up all of our time right now. Once things calm down we can start ticking off a lot of these smaller things. It's just a case of limited developer resources.

bump

If you'd like to open a new as a new feature request for custom checkmarks that would be much better. This one is getting lost in this older announcement because it's not in our bug tracking system.

>99 conceptDawg: Thanks for the tip. Is https://www.librarything.com/topic/342799#8084103 a better place to request it?

>100 jasbro: No. Just create a new thread in the Recommended Site Improvements group.

>101 conceptDawg: https://www.librarything.com/topic/349171#n8088181

Thanks.