Completed-Bugs and Feature requests

DONE (33) I suggest changing "Detail" to "Extended Description". Missing "in parts per million, is this ok? (52) CO2 concentration: Use legend text from my comment (25).

DONE (53) Temperature change: remove "Degrees C" from title of tab.

DONE (54) Sea level rise: remove "(from 2000)" from title of tab.

NA (40) In the upper left corner of this tab, I see links like "Look and Feel", and "Configuration". I assume you mean to remove these from the view ordinary users see, right?

DONE (56) Damage cost: remove "% GDP vs. Baseline" from title of tab.

1. In writing the first time user page, I realized that it would be much easier to explain things if everything now called "Discussion" were called "Debate" and some of these Debates also have Debate summaries. Does anyone object to this change? DROPPED

NA # Proposal page/Actions tab: What is the purpose of the "Save changes" button? When I clicked it, it just erased the changes I had made since the last model run and also removed the Impacts. Should we just eliminate this button?

1. Model Page/Discussion tab: I tried to add a post here and got the message: "You have entered invalid data. Please try again"

DONE # Proposal page/Impacts tab: Captions on Damage Cost accordion tab are very confusing.

DONE - removed name (73) I assume you will import the debates from the Flash version here, right? (It looks like they've been imported, but all the posts are made by "Test test".

DONE # Links in MIT Composite Model description should go the entries for those models on the Models page, not directly to the wiki pages about the models.

1. Proposal page/Impacts tab: The tabs for different impacts (emissions, CO2 concentration, etc.) are now in a different order. I thought the old order was much better.

DONE (55) Mitigation cost:

1. 1. remove "%GDP vs Baseline" from title of tab
   2. other comments same as above. Please check with Rob to be sure the captions are right.
   3. (*cautionary caption seems to be missing altogether.*) The cautionary caption on the Flash version ("Proposals < 450 ppm in 2100 are outside...") is very confusing. needs to be reworded. please check with Rob about rewording. It would be best if you could do a programmatic check and show it only when it's relevant. An ideal wording, for instance, might be something like: "Note: This proposal is outside the range for which these models are valid. The actual mitigation costs are likely to be greater (perhaps significantly so) than the costs shown here." Or, if you could have a "?" icon for more details, you could have a short message in the actual tab, something like "Caution: Outside valid range for models. Costs likely to be higher than shown here. (?)" Then, the ? icon could link to a place that says: "The models for calculating mitigation cost are only valid for carbon concentrations between 450 ppm and (xxx) ppm. This proposal is outside that range so the costs shown here are what they would be for a proposal with carbon concentration of 450 ppm. The actual mitigation costs of this proposal are likely to be higher (perhaps significantly so) than the costs shown here."

1. I created a new proposal, set some parameters, ran model, and then clicked Save Changes. When I looked in the list of Proposals under development, it was nowhere to be found. I was able to Publish a proposal from the Administration tab, but I don't see any way to create a proposal and have it added to the Proposals under development tab. It seems to me that any new proposal should probably be automatically added here as soon as it is created. Is that what you intended? SEEMS TO WORK OK - MAYBE YOU MISSED THE SECOND PAGE OF PLANS?

1. When possible, should put in a programmatic check to only display the warning message on mitigation costs when < 450 ppm.

1. Then the wiki page should be changed to say "The models used here are only valid for carbon concentrations below 450 ppm. This proposal is outside that range so the costs shown here are what they would be for a proposal with CO2 concentration of 450 ppm. The actual mitigation costs of this proposal are likely to be higher than the costs shown here." PLEASE DO THIS

(72) After leaving my machine unattended, I got a message saying "Warning! Due to inactivity, your session has expired. Please save any data you may have entered before refreshing the page." As far as I can tell, the only reason to have this message is to prevent people from impersonating other users by finding unattended sessions on shared (or otherwise accessible) machines. I don't this is likely to be a major problem for us, so at a minimum, I'd suggest that the time-out period that triggers this message should be longer (e.g., several hours?). Or maybe we should just eliminate this message? ((Note: This keeps happening. It is extremely inconvenient when editing the wiki. If you leave the system unattended for a few minutes, you have to relogin, and find the page where you were again.)) SHOULD BE DISABLED, PLEASE VERIFY

(51) Fossil Fuel Emissions: If possible, add "?" icons next to each legend item. When clicked, these icons would bring up another page, or a pop-up or something, that gives detailed captions. For instance, the first item might be "Annual emissions in 10^9 tons of Carbon for developed countries. Developed countries include many of the most developed nations: US, EU (27 countries), Norway and Sweden, Russia and the former Soviet States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia." ((Similar comment applies to next few items)) TM: I see and like the new info buttons. Only change needed is that the links from the Impacts tab need to go to a different page from the definitions for the proposal index page because slightly different text is needed. I created a page you can use for this purpose called "Glossary of impacts". If you're not actually using the "Proposal index definitions" page anywhere else now, I guess you could just replace the contents of that page with what it now on the "Glossary of impacts" page. Note that then we would need to update the list of pages in "NOTE: PAGES WHERE LINKS WILL NEED TO BE FIXED WHEN HOST CHANGES ".

1. This is a picky, aesthetic point, but it seems to me that the buttons on the home page would look better if the last line of each button consisted of only the colored text. That is the last lines of the three buttons, in order, would be "go here", "Proposals", and "Debates". TM: I tried reloading, and even restarting my browser, and I still see the last line of button 2 as "for Proposals" and of button 3 as "the Debates". What I meant was to make them, respectively, just "Proposals" and "Debates".

1. Now that I see the new footer for the home page, it seems to me that it would look better to put both sentences (The Climate Collaboratorium is..." and "Financial support has been provided by...") to the right of the CCI logo. Do you agree?TM: Sorry to be picky about this, but don't you think it would look better if the sentence about "Financial support..." started on a new line?

(31) "Position" should be changed to "Positions". TM: Same thing as above. Even after reloading, I still see "Position."

1. I think we've talked about this before, but the font size in the wiki seems a little too big now. I just checked about half a dozen other website, and all have smaller font than our wiki font. (By the way, the main site font size seems about right to me now.) I HAD REDUCED THE SIZE BEFORE THIS COMMENT WAS MADE. PLEASE VERIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT VIEWING A CACHED VERSION OF THE PAGE BY HOLDING THE "SHIFT" KEY AND RELOADING THE PAGE. TM: Okay, I reloaded, and it seems smaller than before but still larger than the main Collaboratorium and other sites (like Amazon, Yahoo, and Wikipedia). It think it would be better to get it to the size of these other sites. WE ARE NOW BACK AT THE FONT SIZE WE STARTED AT

1. Another picky point, not essential for launch: On the proposal index page, in the default view, in the column headings, it would be nice, if possible, to have the parentheticals be on a second line. For example, one column heading is "CO2 Concentration (ppm in 2100)" and the line break occurs after "in". It would be nicer if it occurred after "Concentration." I realize that, if there are more columns than in the default view, this might cause some column headers to be 3 lines, but I think that would be okay.

1. I think Rob and I agreed that it would be better to put the "First time visitors go here" button as the last button, not the first one. Is this okay with you? If so, can you do it? (I assume it's easy to do, right?)

1. For the "feedback" page, how about making this a wiki page where people can leave comments? That seems more open and public than the private feedback page used now. At a minimum, the wording on the feedback page should be changed to not use "us" in reference to the MIT researchers. PLEASE ADVISE ON TEXT How about: "Please enter any comments or feedback about the Climate Collaboratorium here:" ((Maybe Rob will have a better suggestion, but I think this is okay for now.))

1. I seem to be able to edit other people's discussion entries (e..g., on the Discussion tab for "350 ppm or bust" proposal). Is this what you intended?

(81) Regardless of what we decide about the answer to the question in item (75), we should probably explain that somewhere. For instance, I would suggest having a little link somewhere near the upper right corner of this page that says something like "How are debates edited?" This could link to a page that describes whatever the rules are. Eg., "anyone can change their own posts but not other people's. moderators can change anything." or "only moderators can edit debates. if you want to change something talk about it in the Discussion and moderators will reflect this in the debate." LINK IN PLACE - NEED A GOOD WIKI PAGE. TM: I created draft text on this wiki page: How are debates edited?. Now need to connect the link to this page.

1. I just noticed that the "s" is missing from "Position" on the Model pages (should be "Positions"). I'm assuming this is trivial to fix. If it's not trivial, it can wait.

1. When I log in as "malone", I see a button called "Edit topic" on the Debate page. It seems like this button would let me change topics like "Copenhagen issues". I don't think you meant to give this privilege to all users, did you? CAN'T REPLICATE, PLEASE VERIFY

(80) Shouldn't we do subscriptions in an equivalent way everywhere? And if so, shouldn't we do subscriptions here in the same way we do it for proposals, ie., with a button in the upper right corner of the Debate Summary page, rather than in a column of the Debate Index page? ((It seems that the column went away, but no button was added on the Debate page, so as far as I can tell, there is no way to subscribe to Debates now.)) TM: I see the link, but when I click it I go to a page that says: "Debates is temporarily unavailable."

1. On the "Other members" page, there is a "configure" link at the top left of the page. I don't think you meant for this to be there. TM: When I do successive reloads or Shift-Reloads of the page, it alternates between being blank and showing the correct page. But when it shows the correct page, the "configure" link is still there. Not sure what to make of this.

1. On Proposal index page, something weird is going on with "Select columns". I can't get "Temperature change" to show up as a column, and there are other times when I try to add a column and it doesn't get added. CAN'T REPLICATE, PLEASE PROVIDE A TEST CASE. TM: Login as me, go to Proposal Index / Finalized Proposals. Try to add "Temperature change" as a column.

1. I like the fact that email messages about changes on the site now come from "The Climate Collaboratorium"! But now I'm wondering who is "admin@liferay.com"? Who receives those messages? PLEASE ADVISE REGARDING PREFERRED EMAIL

We need a place for news on the home page. Suggestion: Remove text starting with "Our first goal..." and put News section there. WAITING FOR TEXT

1. Model Index page: For Rob--It seems to me that the descriptions of the models would be better if they were shorter (ie., closer to the length of the Tyndall, IPCC, and Rahmstorf model descriptions, rather than the C-LEARN model description). WAITING FOR TEXT

1. Model page (e.g., for C-LEARN): For Rob--It seems to me that it would better to keep the Further Information sections here very short. For instance, I think just having a link to the web pages that have more details would probably be fine in most cases. WAITING FOR TEXT

(b) For models based on response surfaces, the Short Description should include mention of the original model and also the response surface approach used by MIT. The Evaluation section could say something about evaluations of the original models (if available). It should also say something like this: "The response surface methodology used here to provide a simplified summary of the original model has not yet been evaluated by scientific experts, but we hope this will happen soon. In the meantime, the MIT research team that developed the response surface models (link to team somehow?) says: "The response surface methodology we used is only intended to approximate the results from the original models. Also, in some cases, the assumptions used in the original models differ from those in the models used here, and this may lead to further inaccuracies in the predictions. However, we believe that the results of these models are still accurate enough to be useful in providing a general sense of likely impacts. " WAITING FOR TEXT

(65) I would suggest listing the "CompositeGGICost Model" first. The name should be something like "MIT Composite Model." It's description should include something like "This model combines all the other models shown below. The foundation for this composite model is the C-LEARN model; all the other models start with the outputs from the C-LEARN model." TM: Model has been moved first in list as requested, but description text hasn't been changed. Need input from Rob about whether he agrees with or wants to make further changes to this text. My reasoning was that I wanted to be sure the C-LEARN people felt they were getting enough credit. I think there is some risk that they might think we were just putting a wrapper around their thing and trying to claim credit for it. In when we do demos, many people seem to think that we developed all the models, so I think there is some actual risk that we might get undeserved credit in many people's eyes for Climate Interactive's work. Maybe you can think of a better way to accomplish this goal, but I thought that we could help some by emphasizing the centrality of the C-LEARN model in what we have so far.

1. Some of the links in the "First-time visitors" wiki page include the ssm-balaur:8080 address. These will presumably need to be changed when the site address changes. Also see other pages (listed below) that will need similar changes.

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/How+to+view+and+vote+for+proposals

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/Vote%20on%20comments%20and%20positions

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/How%20to%20create%20new%20proposals

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/Add%20new%20models

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/Current%20task--Copenhagen%20challenge

(71) Is there any reason not to show the full activity log here, instead of just the highlights as currently shown? FIX IS IN - WAITING TO RESTART

1. Proposal page/Impacts tab: The vertical axes of all the graphs have weird labels, like 366.7, 733.3, etc. If possible, it would be much better to use round numbers for the labels (e.g., 300, 400, etc.) TM: These look much better except for the CO2 Concentration graph. The numbers I see there are things like 220, 440, etc. This graph will presumably be important for people, and I think it's important to get it calibrated in ways that will be relatively easy for people to read. For instance, if you can calibrate in increments of 50 (e.g., 300, 350, 400,etc.), that would be great. In case it helps, I notice that the max on the vertical axis now is 1100, but I don't think we have any proposals that go over 1000, so we could probably get away with 1000 as a max. (But this is not necessary; I only mention it in case it helps get the calibration numbers "rounder".) INCREMENTS OF 50 TOO SMALL - SET TO 100. TM: Increments of 100 would be fine, but it's now showing increments of 150 on my system.

1. MIGRATION: At some point we need to make a clean migration of all proposals from the old system to the "Finalized proposals" section of the new system--including votes. At the same time, we should also migrate: (a) all registered users, and (b) any debates not yet migrated that we care about. Also at that time, we should either: redirect from the old site to the new one, or put a notice on the front of the old site saying that it is no longer active and including a link to the new site. (I lean toward the latter.) And delete all users w/o email addresses.
2. Fix sorting bug on columns of Proposal Index.
3. Make max proposals per page to be 50.
4. Add question text at top of Proposal Index.
5. Fix IE display bugs.

PLAN PAGE / ACTIONS TAB / IMPACTS SECTION

(50) When the accordion tabs are expanded, there is a lot of blank white space at the bottom of each tab. If possible, it would be good to get rid of this.

1. Proposal called "80% emission cuts" has a blank Discussion tab. (Nothing at all there)
2. I just tried clicking "create new proposal based on this". It told me that the operation was completed successfully, but then I couldn't find the new proposal anywhere (including in "Proposals under development").

1. I just realized that I previously created a new proposal and then went to look at something else without saving it. Now I can't find it in the proposal lists. I did, however, manage to get to it from the Activity log on my profile. I think most new users would not think about this, however, and would think they had lost the proposal. I think we need to either warn users about this or automatically save the proposals somewhere (maybe in a new tab called "My private proposals" or something like that).

1. "Help" page. I guess we can launch without this, but I think we should put something there very soon. If Rob's videos are ready soon, they would be ideal to put here. Alternatively, or in addition, maybe we could have a wiki page for each Collaboratorium page where people can enter questions and answers (and later users can see earlier questions and answers about the page).

1. Not a big deal at all, but if it's easy, it would be nice for the messages about changes on the site to say who made the changes. If this is just a matter of setting a configuration parameter, it would be nice to do. But if it requires actual programming, it's probably not worth doing.

1. I think most people who are not familiar with the climate change literature will not know what the phrases "Mitigation Cost" and "Damage Cost" mean. So I'm thinking it would be nice to add exproposalatory text just above (better) or just below the graph. I would suggest the following text: (for Mitigation cost) "Costs to prevent climate change", and (for Damage cost) "Costs of damages caused by climate change".

1. As we discussed before, it would be nice for the "Community activities" to include all the detailed activities shown in the individual logs. I think this is especially important at the beginning to give a sense of lots of activity on the site. Someday, when we have a large community, we may want to go back to a more selective log, but I'm not even sure of that.