Study 'entry page' - you are now leaving content made by Lookit, starting content made by the researcher.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 12
- Forks
- 21
- Avg merge
- 5d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
TL;DR
(Counterpart to #1057)
Narrative
As a platform, we want to be really clear when the content provided by the researcher is taking over from the central Lookit experience - for participants, this should cue me to contact the researcher, not the Lookit platform, if I am unhappy with something that happened in the study.
Feature Request fields
**With this `details` wrapper, you can just use this ticket to record your findings. When you're ready to turn this into an implementation request, delete the scoping label and this wrapper, leaving only the filled out information.**
Acceptance Criteria
A precise description of how/when this issue will be considered closed, e.g.:
- Tests for new feature
- QA on new feature
- Sign off from Kim
Implementation Notes
Leave important notes/suggestions here for implementation (important files, suggested approaches, etc.)
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing counterpart issue #1057 and the existing participant entry-page flow. The issue currently provides no implementation notes or concrete acceptance criteria, so scope, tests, QA expectations, and sign-off would need to be defined before implementation can be considered complete.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- frontend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 18/100