Repository navigation
Finish partner-configurable field labels and contextual help #74
Description
Remaining RC1 work
Illinois partners requested a reusable way to customize field labels, contextual help text, and resource links by jurisdiction. Vermont testing additionally found confusing upload/document labels and court terms. The objective is plain-language assistance at the specific decision, not a wall of global explanations.
Foundation already shipped
- #244 enabled links in jurisdiction help text.
- #286 added configurable informational guidance for selected courts, categories, case types, and filing types on workflow pages.
- Earlier fixes to category/type selection, confidentiality controls, and organize-document copy are tracked in Case Category / Case Type / Filing Type should probably be addressed together on the same screen #134, Improve confidentiality choices for Illinois filings #155 and Vermont Organize documents copy: use complaint example and explain optional certified/courtesy copies #169.
These pieces do not by themselves demonstrate that an Illinois partner can override a given input's label and help without changing a template. This issue now tracks that remaining configuration and chosen initial fields rather than rebuilding existing page guidance.
Acceptance criteria
- Confirm with Illinois/Vermont partners an initial prioritized list of confusing individual fields (screenshot annotations are welcome); pick a manageable RC1 set.
- Provide a documented, jurisdiction-scoped way to override a field's visible label, help text, and authoritative resource link, supporting text inputs, selects/radios, and filing-type choices where applicable. Ensure labels remain tied to controls for screen readers and errors.
- Apply the pattern to the prioritized fields in the Upload / Confirm / Organize documents / People paths. In particular, explain separate vs combined PDFs, valid filenames, main vs supporting documents, and court filing component versus a document attachment without pretending file splitting exists.
- Use real court/partner-reviewed language and applicable link destinations rather than inventing legal rules. Different courts/filing types can receive different guidance where necessary.
- Preserve default behavior for jurisdictions without overrides and test with desktop/mobile, keyboard, screen-reader labels, and translated or absent help.
Related / excluded
- Vermont: obtain court approval and publish document confidentiality help #235 owns Vermont-specific Confidential legal wording.
- Find filing intent, document checklist, and guided interviews or blank forms #228 owns intent-based document-checklist and interview/PDF discovery.
- General jurisdiction guidance already merged in Add configurable informational guidance for courts and filing types #286 is not a remaining task.
The original Illinois/Vermont feedback, including partner discussion of which screenshots to annotate, remains in the issue comments.
Activity
nonprofittechy commentedon Aug 28, 2026
Illinois requested that jurisdiction partners be able to customize not only help text/resources but also the user-facing field label for essentially any input. Please treat per-field label overrides, help copy, and resource links as reusable jurisdiction configuration. Conditional county/court warnings are split into #198.
nonprofittechy commentedon Aug 28, 2026
@mnewsted — tagging for visibility on this Illinois feedback item.
nonprofittechy commentedon Sep 25, 2026
Vermont feedback — Kris, September 24, 2026: upload and document-label guidance
Kris tested a Small Claims Answer package as an inexperienced e-filer, having accidentally selected Start a new case. This adds concrete acceptance criteria to the existing help-text work; it does not replace the Illinois requirements above.
What the current code already does
Static review of
mainatc2fd52b2d437e64644b7878a6c2c7dd9c3770c34(not a reproduction of the deployed test session):Additional acceptance criteria
small_claims_answer.pdfif valid for the supported workflow.Implementation suggestion
Reuse the existing
ui_textregistry/state overrides for jurisdiction-dependent instructions and gettext for shared copy, placing the help next to each decision. This can be a copy/template change without altering filing codes or payload semantics.Separate owners: PDF flattening/preparation is #113; early fee-waiver upload instructions and the later payment choice are #79; form-name-to-filing-type discovery, including “Document” versus “Other,” is #94.
nonprofittechy commentedon Oct 1, 2026
@mnewsted can the ILAO/AOIC team identify at least a tentative (80%?) list of where you want to add explanations? A good way could be to add markup to screenshots of the current interface. I'm not really sure how best to tackle this one right now.
mnewsted commentedon Oct 1, 2026
@nonprofittechy sounds good. is any time good to start documenting this? just want to make sure we're identifying places/elements on a stable candidate. thanks!
nonprofittechy commentedon Oct 1, 2026
Some things might move around, but I think I can limit need for any re-work on this on your part regardless. If you let me know exactly what kind of changes you want, even if it's not a comprehensive list, at least I'll know where to let you customize things. And I'll try to build patterns out from there.
For that reason, you don't have to get it 100% right at this point. I'm just not quite sure where to start yet. I promise you'll have a chance for another pass at it if things change and you decide to request more customization controls than the first version.
[Edit: in other words, I think you could start this now]
[-]Add help text per text field for all inputs and selections[/-][+]Finish partner-configurable field labels and contextual help[/+]nonprofittechy commentedon Oct 13, 2026
What partner input would help us move this forward?
Illinois and Vermont partners: We can start with a short, imperfect first list now. You do not need to wait for the interface to be final, document every field, or write polished text before responding. Even 3–5 high-impact examples will tell us where to build the reusable customization controls.
For each confusing field or question, please share:
Example of a useful response: “Vermont → Organize documents → ‘Court filing component.’ A first-time filer does not know how this differs from an attachment. Please add plain-language guidance and an example for filing a Small Claims Answer; the exact text still needs court review.”
Easiest next step: Reply here with the top 3–5 screenshots/fields (or link a shared document). We'll turn that into a proposed first implementation and return it for another partner review; additions can come later. The development team will handle the configurable field-label/help mechanism—partners need not edit YAML or GitHub code. See the Vermont examples already documented above for possible starting points.