Calendar Implementation

[marcguyer]

We currently have a basic/usable calendar but it could be improved substantially both in style and functionality. Here are some thoughts to consider:

1. Less of the summary should be shown, or hidden via overflow:elipsis.
2. Pagination could be introduced -- I'm not sure there will ever be enough entries...
3. Remove items that are in the past (on site build)
4. A tiny summary version (somewhat like the TOC sidebar on content pages)
5. Less imagery
6. Use of FA icons to indicate the type of entry, or just the word "show:" or "special event:". Or use the show genre taxonomy in some way.

@bppwrite/owners any additional thoughts on this?

[mattbatman]

Keep in mind thatoverflow:elipsis is only honored when the content is on a single line. The decision here shouldn't be the implementation, but how much of a summary should actually be shown.

[marcguyer]

Keep in mind that overflow:elipsis is only honored when the content is on a single line.

I thought it was if there was any overflow -- simply if the parent container was too small to accommodate the content. Anyway, I was just trying to think of a way to reduce the size of the summary but maybe the summary shouldn't be there at all. Probably just date, title/subtitle and content type (show/event) is all that is necessary. Maybe director or playwright or both...

[mattbatman]

Here are some similar, iterative mock-ups.

[ChadDR]

I like the calendar that has the thumbnail on the left-hand side the most. It gives all the info needed without being too much. I think the table of contents from the previous option would be a nice added touch too.

[marcguyer]

Here's @ChadDR's comment about the calendar:

My biggest concern at this point is the show/calendar page. The shows link should, I think, lead me to a “season at a glance” view so that I can see all of my options. I don’t want to end up at a calendar and have to scroll down a mile before I can see everything playing. That being said, I also like having a calendar option for the viewer. And I like the football example you showed me before which would allow someone to scroll through and get what they need. Currently, I feel like we have a hybrid of both and it’s serving neither purpose. Does that make sense?

The calendar has been improved accordingly, please take a look and comment.

A "season at a glance" can be something different. In fact, we already have that but it's not linked to and it would need some additional styling if we want to make a nav item for it (making it more prominent. The current version of the season page is here:

http://bppwrite.github.io/series/2016-2017/

Comments about that?

[ChadDR]

My issue is still that I don’t think “shows” should lead to a calendar. If I click on “shows” then I want to be able to see what shows are playing. Maybe that’s fixed by having the “at a glance” in the top right corner of the calendar as in some examples. But I think it might also be good to land at an “at a glance” page first and then link to a calendar. Thoughts?

[mattbatman]

My issue is still that I don’t think “shows” should lead to a calendar.

I generally agree. You would expect information to be organized by and oriented-towards the shows when you click on "shows," as opposed to time.

Instead of using our table of contents design off to the right, maybe we use more of a horizontal nav across the top that shows a card for each show with just a small poster image and the title of the show below it, one-by-one, left-to-right. It'd need to be vertical-oriented for small screens. Under the "hero image" on this page, they use custom icons and dates as an abbreviated show nav. I can mock something up for our site.

I'll also mock what an independent shows page could look like. We may ultimately either want separate a separate "shows" and "calendar" page, or as Chad also mentioned, a single page for both with a toggle-able view.

[marcguyer]

I think it would be a good idea to somehow combine the concepts of current season and calendar. I think that's essentially what @mattbatman has proposed with the idea of a card for each show. I've never liked having them as 2 distinct pages. FWIW, the analytics indicate that the "shows" page was more useful in the trailing month:

• "shows" got 1031 page views with 633 being unique (61%)
• "calendar" got 370 page views with 279 being unique (70%)

That means that more than twice as many people chose "shows" over "calendar" and a larger proportion of those chose to revisit "shows" than those who chose to revisit "calendar". This might be skewed somewhat simply because "shows" comes before "calendar" in the nav. I think that effect is probably negligible. In short, this data could mean that "shows" is initially thought to be a better choice by visitors and those who initially chose "calendar" learned that it wasn't the best choice and didn't revisit the page.

IMO, a card for each show/event is all that is necessary. We can list as little or as much detail as we want. For example, consider showing the genre, playwright(s), directors(s), clearly indicating when it's a show vs an event, and even a text summary (perhaps only in larger media widths). Maybe even the "slot" (e.g., Reva Shiner Comedy Award Winner, Off-Broadway / On-Ninth, etc).

We can even indicate in some way which show/event is playing now or coming up so that it's easy for someone to find that (even link directly to that section). I think that's probably something people often are looking for when they visit the site but that's just a guess.

Aside, this concept of a card, as a convention, is something I think would also be beneficial for #16. Maybe an abbreviated version of it for lists like all comedies or shows directed by XXX, for example. This sort of stuff becomes even more useful when the history project #17 is completed.

[mattbatman]

The design pattern of a card, I think, generally isn't used with portrait-oriented images, which is what we have for posters, and why we don't have one, yet.

There could be multiple cards for multiple purposes, but in general, I don't think we'd want to shove a lot of details on a card. The more detail that goes on a card, the harder it is to read or scan. I think the idea should be to really to include as little information as necessary to help a user decide if they'd be interested in that show or event.

[ChadDR]

I agree that there doesn’t need to be anything more on the card other than the title and the date range (so they know the general timeline) or at least the month(s) of performances.

[mattbatman]

Something like this, I think, is closer to what we need.