Jump to section => Table of contents

[ghost]

Reword the heading from "Jump to section" to "Table of contents"

[hamishwillee]

I don't understand where this will appear. Is it possible to show the rendered before and after of this proposed change?

[ghost]

Here

Actually I don't know how to test like modify in inspector since I'm from a smartphone (this Is because my PRs has 99 commits) 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ideally a PR should be deployed... But i don't know how to do It and if it costs some Cloud cost...
I Just tryed with Heroku and GitHub pages and You can auto deploy a specific branch that is good.
(Side issue... This Is a simple editorial issue of a innerText in english...).

Another issue Is that It says Jump to section but often It jumps to heading...

[ghost]

You can try to checkout t'ha branch (of my fork) of this PR
mdn/yari#2471

And start the project locally reading the readme.

I don't know if It Is updated now 🤔

[hamishwillee]

Not need thanks @mattiapontonio - your screenshot makes sense. So the proposed change is the text - ie

I have a very slight preference for the current "Jump to section" because the word "section" implies to me a jump within the same document.

If this said "table of contents", then perhaps I might consider this a table of site articles.

Others might disagree. @chrisdavidmills

[hamishwillee]

PS Sorry I was slow to respond. I personally "like" the term "Table of contents" more - it was hard to find a good way to explain why objectively the current version is probably better.

[ghost]

Ah You want a section and not a dropdown. Make sense.

P1 -> make a section
P2 -> change the heading

This solves a lot of z-index / issues...

Can We change this in content? We should do the table of contents manually 👷👷‍♀️👷‍♂️🙄🙄🙈

Even that make sense.

[ghost]

Lets try...
https://github.com/mdn/content/edit/main/files/en-us/web/javascript/reference/global_objects/proxy/index.html

[hamishwillee]

@mattiapontonio Just to be clear, I was only commenting on the text "Jump to section" vs "Table of contents". Please don't assume I'm commenting on anything else from the screenshot :-)

That said, I do think it is important for the list of page headings (i.e. the page toc) to be readily accessible - in this case a dropdown that is open by default when you load a page.

This sort of thing is IMO best managed by a product manager - who would define how they want all the page elements to behave.

Upshot "I'm am full of opinions, but I don't want to waste your time working on things without some sort of consensus from the whole content team".

[ghost]

@hamishwillee
Yes 👍.
I can't merge.
I'm a volunteer.

How do you make the list so vertical without dots?

[hamishwillee]

@mattiapontonio I cheated because my image was just to confirm your intent (screenshot of this page then changed the text, took a second screenshot and combined).

But if I had to do this properly - something like https://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_lists_unordered_none

[ghost]

@hamishwillee ok thanks.

[chrisdavidmills]

Others might disagree. @chrisdavidmills

Ah, those classic bikeshed moments ;-) I don't really care that much, as I think any improvement make on this would be prety minor. But here's my 2pence:

1. "Table of contents" feels a bit too generic, like it could be referring to more than just the contents of this article.
2. "Jump to section" is more specific, but it relies on the reader knowing what section means in the context of either an article, or even a sectioning element in the markup (which we don't actually use at this level of granularity). It is not as intuitive.

Which leads me to think is there third option, maybe "Article contents"?

I dunno, doesn't feel great either. As I said, I don't think this is worth spending too much time on.

[ghost]

Should be fun to style a little light border on sections... 🙂 Just to see how it looks.

[hamishwillee]

Article contents would work for me too.
@chrisdavidmills For me it isn't that this kind of thing isn't worth talking about - it's that we have far bigger problems with sidebars on MDN than this.

[chrisdavidmills]

Article contents would work for me too.
@chrisdavidmills For me it isn't that this kind of thing isn't worth talking about - it's that we have far bigger problems with sidebars on MDN than this.

Yup ;-)

[ghost]

Reopen.
P2.

[ghost]

Article contents would work for me too.
@chrisdavidmills For me it isn't that this kind of thing isn't worth talking about - it's that we have far bigger problems with sidebars on MDN than this.

What issue (in URL)?

[peterbe]

Which leads me to think is there third option, maybe "Article contents"?

I like this bikeshed better than "Jump to section" (literal but a bit unusual and thus unnecessarily brain-tickling) and "Table of contents" (not something you'd expect to see in a side bar).

Another option would be to pick "On this page"

[ghost]

expect to see in a side bar

So removing It and leave the sidebar only on the right?

I'm not sure.
I like Node but i don't like Node in mobile
https://nodejs.org/api/http.html#http_http_createserver_options_requestlistener

[ghost]

I will close this.
Please reopen in Yari if needed.