Remove "important board members" image constraint #3919
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This feature was added in #754 (counterpart in Whitehall: alphagov/whitehall#4162). Neither PR really explains/justifies the feature: it appears to have been added as a workaround for a specific organisation, where they'd neglected to add an image for one of their board members. Instead of adding an image for them, this feature was added to impose an artificial limit on the number of images to display on the page. This has since caused numerous support tickets for the publishing team, with publishers struggling to understand why board member photos are missing from the org page. The limit, tucked away in the organisation settings, is not well known and is not intuitive. We've decided to remove the feature, removing complexity from both Whitehall and Collections. It should result in fewer support tickets for the team, and be a net positive for organisations in terms of an easier-to-understand system. If we find there is a requirement to re-introduce something like this in future, we can approach it more holistically. For now, the simplest thing is to remove the feature, as we suspect it's not widely used. Trello: https://trello.com/c/mz0WLkIR/3282-remove-display-management-team-images-feature
ryanb-gds
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Sister PR: alphagov/whitehall#9765
This feature was added in #754 (counterpart in Whitehall: alphagov/whitehall#4162). Neither PR really explains/justifies the feature: it appears to have been added as a workaround for a specific organisation, where they'd neglected to add an image for one of their board members. Instead of adding an image for them, this feature was added to impose an artificial limit on the number of images to display on the page.
This has since caused numerous support tickets for the publishing team, with publishers struggling to understand why board member photos are missing from the org page. The limit, tucked away in the organisation settings, is not well known and is not intuitive.
We've decided to remove the feature, removing complexity from both Whitehall and Collections. It should result in fewer support tickets for the team, and be a net positive for organisations in terms of an easier-to-understand system. If we find there is a requirement to re-introduce something like this in future, we can approach it more holistically. For now, the simplest thing is to remove the feature, as we suspect it's not widely used.
Trello: https://trello.com/c/mz0WLkIR/3282-remove-display-management-team-images-feature
Screenshots
Before (manually updated to limit of 5 in Integration):
After (deployed branch to Integration, which now ignores the limit):
NB, cabinet-office is the org that was used as an example in PR #754. Interesting to note it no longer uses the image limit, and it has a missing image for a person, which no longer appears to be contentious.
Follow these steps if you are doing a Rails upgrade.