Currently the field Summary is in section Revision so from this layout I understand that for each change users should give that change a Name and a Summary.
The issues I see:
- Two fields are unusual and IMO a single field would be sufficient
- While editing both fields are not cleared so in practice you end up not updating those which renders the history useless (think of git would use a default commit message if you don't change it explicitly). This is the main issue I experience.
- The history shows the Summary but not the Name. So what is the Name good for?
- In the search for a document the default field is Summary. IMO this doesn't make sense if the Summary is specific per revision while the user is searching for a document
I suggest the following solution:
- Move Summary out of section Revision.
- So we use Name for Revisions only and ideally rename that field to Changes
- Show Name/Changes in the History instead of Summary
- Change the UI so that user must enter a Name/Changes when changing a document revision and can not simply keep its content of the previous revision
What do you think?
Currently the field Summary is in section Revision so from this layout I understand that for each change users should give that change a Name and a Summary.
The issues I see:
I suggest the following solution:
What do you think?