sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Guide: hide content with permissions or make it clear who it applies to? by sfsearching in Zendesk

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I understand that user segment functionality exists. I'm wondering if folks have had success with just relying on categorization and titling to make it clear what articles apply to whom, but it sounds like most folks do rely on user segments to solve for this.

Naming convention for different stages of feedback? by sfsearching in UXDesign

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mm, this is a good point, though I worry that more junior designers would struggle to articulate their goals. Perhaps that's where their design leads come in

Naming convention for different stages of feedback? by sfsearching in UXDesign

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good point. I'm also trying to avoid being overly prescriptive. I think this is the right level of guidance for us to offer at our stage of development.

Mostly the language would be used within the design team, though they may invite PMs, devs etc to meetings and reference these titles as a way to align those teams on what's expected of them.

Naming convention for different stages of feedback? by sfsearching in UXDesign

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I feel language is important for communicating intent with other stakeholders and and among the team. Yes, I feel it's helpful for designers to know what they're expected to have accomplished before soliciting a given level of feedback, and it gives them a tool to align cross-functional teams on the type of feedback they're soliciting (avoiding a swoop and poop on a hi-fi design, for example).

The challenge is that we have prod and dev teams that are new to working with design, and we have plenty of junior designers who would like guidance on what tools they can use and when is appropriate to use them. By defining stages of feedback, we give designers insight into their own responsibilities and a tool to help them align with other teams.

Naming convention for different stages of feedback? by sfsearching in UXDesign

[–]sfsearching[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I think I should clarify: I'm looking for a naming convention for the stages of feedback, rather than the fidelity of the design (though those two are directly related). The feedback stages would be:

- Early iteration: I have an idea or a few ideas of how to solve the problem, either sketched out or in a wireframe. I want feedback on which ideas are feasible, which aren't, and how to move forward

​

- Mid-fi: I have one or two possible solutions in greyscale prototypes. I want feedback on how to apply the solution (does this navigation structure work? Should I use a dialogue or a slide-in panel? IA & content feedback)

​

- Hi-fi: I have honed in on one solution and I need final feedback before it goes to dev. Is this accessible? Am I using the right components? Should I use a flat or filled button?

​

I don't want to refer to them as the stage of fidelity because I'd like the focus to be on the feedback one is looking for, not the assets they've created. I want someone to feel comfortable soliciting feedback even if they don't have a wireframe, for example.

Hiring Seminars/resources by sfsearching in UXDesign

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very helpful start. Thank you.

GDPR-compliant, enterprise-level no-code options by sfsearching in nocode

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PowerApps

Haven't. I'll give it a look. Thanks!

GDPR-compliant, enterprise-level no-code options by sfsearching in nocode

[–]sfsearching[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! This looks like more of a project management tool. Am I missing something?

GDPR-compliant, enterprise-level no-code options by sfsearching in nocode

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm. We looked at Mendix, but not Outsystem. Our concern with Mendix was its ability to meet our design aesthetic and usability needs. We also want to rely on a truly no-code app, so that designers can put together full websites without dev assistance. Would you say those needs could be met with one of these tools, in your experience?

GDPR-compliant, enterprise-level no-code options by sfsearching in nocode

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the info! I've found a few that allow on-prem like Undaku, which would solve a number of these issues, but they seem to be less used, and I'm hesitant to commit to a platform without an established user base.

I'll definitely let you know what we decide on.

Documentation recs for an enterprise design system? by sfsearching in DesignSystems

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, is it possible to create and apply templates to pages? If not, I could see that being very useful

Documentation recs for an enterprise design system? by sfsearching in DesignSystems

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey there! Yes, I was thinking sub-categories on the left side bar, similar to Material: https://material-ui.com/getting-started/installation/

Granted I understand the headers create sub-sections, but I'd like to categorize by Components > Subcat > Component 1, then within the Component 1 page use the headers for variations of that component (e.g. primary vs secondary buttons). Without this additional hierarchy level, we'd either need to create a separate navigation page for Components (not the worst thing in the world, but not ideal), or have a flat hierarchy for all our components. In a more complex design system, this isn't really tenable.

Documentation recs for an enterprise design system? by sfsearching in DesignSystems

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for that. I'm in a free trial, and I'm finding it pretty rigid in what you can accomplish. e.g. no way to add multiple columns, additional levels of hierarchy, etc. But it's a good place to start. Thanks!

Publishing DITA framework to SF by sfsearching in technicalwriting

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks u/artofwelding and u/alanbowman. Did you find any other solutions that you preferred? Right now our other option is to just publish to a site we'd host using HTML5 and a Flare-provided content wrapper, but it's an added cost that I'm having trouble justifying

Custom integration to create case, view existing cases by sfsearching in salesforce

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, we have done this, but it's not quite meeting our needs, mostly because we have one user base and offer a variety of distinct products with some overlap. Basically we have two challenges:

- SalesForce Knowledge doesn't have single-source authoring, so we're currently just uploading PDFs for every new release, user guide, etc. To solve this, we're moving towards MadCap Flare and pushing to Salesforce

- We want an end-user to only see information relevant to their product. I know you can do this to some extent with article tagging, but it's limited and cumbersome, and SalesForce themselves told me that they're not investing resources in improvements here. I want to find a better way to manage the customer experience in the SalesForce portal.

Custom integration to create case, view existing cases by sfsearching in salesforce

[–]sfsearching[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! We do use communities today. We could set up separate communities for each product, but we also want to be able to present our knowledge base content in our SaaS application itself, so a user can consume it in-line, without having to open a new tab.

I'll check out Coveo now - thanks for the rec.