Nice work. I don't have time to review in depth today, will test this out tomorrow. However based on looking just at the screenshots, here are some high-level thoughts:

1. We need to not have a separate "Save global edits" button.
2. If only ever one thing changed, we should not need a prompt.

Those are principles we should aim for, but obviously there's a lot of technical reasoning to work out. For example, in the screenshot, what is actualy being saved? A draft? Would pressing Save on the blue button be the same as pressing "Save Draft"?

Tricky use case: user is working on a draft and is not ready to publish it. But they also made changes to the Header block area. What happens?

A few thoughts to help us work through it:

• I still believe that "save draft" is not something a user should ever have to think of. It should happen automatically and there should not be an explicit save button unless something went wrong. This is the Figma auto-save model.
• If a user is working on a draft and made global edits, perhaps we should hide the "Save Draft" button until the global edits are published.
• Given global edits are being published, perhaps the actual Publish button should be used.

That's a screenshot from #13489 (comment). In it, global changes were made, so there's not a "Save Draft" button, instead there's a "There are unpublished changes" label. The way you publish those is using the Publish button, which then opens the modal.

But perhaps that label needs a little love. Here's a tweaked flow:

Note in the above:

• How there's no save draft button.
• That there's a Publish Changes label.
• That the Page itself, which is a draft, is unchecked by default.

What would happen if you pressed "Publish" in the above screenshot, is that you would:

• Publish the header change
• Get the Save Draft button back, because now you're just editing a draft
• The Publish button would change to say "Publish".

What do you think?

Also, CC: @shaunandrews because I know you have thoughts here as well.

We need to not have a separate "Save global edits" button.

Yes, but some sort of separation like this would make things easier to grasp.

If only ever one thing changed, we should not need a prompt.

What if that one thing is not the actual post you are editing. It'd be confusing if you saved as usual.

I still believe that "save draft" is not something a user should ever have to think of. It should happen automatically and there should not be an explicit save button unless something went wrong. This is the Figma auto-save model.

I agree, and this would simplify our problem here. We would no longer have to think about what the save draft button does in relation to global edits.

If a user is working on a draft and made global edits, perhaps we should hide the "Save Draft" button until the global edits are published.

What if users want to save their post content, but not the other changes yet.

Given global edits are being published, perhaps the actual Publish button should be used.

This creates confusion between publishing global changes in a draft and actually publishing the post.

But perhaps that label needs a little love. Here's a tweaked flow:

This is nice, but a bit confusing. What if I want to save the draft without publishing the global changes? I would have to manually undo all the global changes? How does "Publish Changes" convey to users that they're doing something different to "Publish", what if this is an already published post?

I think that the optimal scenario is to have the auto-save draft like Figma for post content, and then for the global changes, we should either style or iconize the publish button to convey that the modal will open, and this can let them just save or publish just the post content, or we can have another button next to the publish button appear, something along the lines of "Publish Templates".

I think the styling approach might be a bit more elegant. What do you think?

You make some good points, all worth addressing.

By not adding additional buttons, I mean to the toolbar. There literally isn't space:

If we absolutely have to have a separate button to publish changes made to template parts, we have to explore other designs, such as changing the publish button contextually, or making it a split button or something else. But I don't yet fully accept that this is necessary.

Yes, but some sort of separation like this would make things easier to grasp.

This is a balancing act that has to consider how often you make global edits compared to how often you just write a post or a page. One extra button discussed in isolation may seem like a small thing, but it all adds up.

Especially with something as complex as being able to edit MULTIPLE content areas at once, it is crucial that the flow is simple.

By not having an extra button, but instead bundling multiple changes with the Publish flow, we can keep the writing flow simple, yet give both context, information, and control to the user during the publishing act.

This is nice, but a bit confusing. What if I want to save the draft without publishing the global changes? I would have to manually undo all the global changes? How does "Publish Changes" convey to users that they're doing something different to "Publish", what if this is an already published post?

Maybe you're right — maybe we don't touch the save draft button, and all it does is save the post content. No new label indicating unsaved global changes, no extra buttons. But maybe we still change the label of the Publish button, and then show the popup. We might even show an "unread dot" or something, overlaid on the Publish button. Like this maybe?

What is the minimal version of this we can ship today that doesn't impact the non-FSE experience.

For me, it should be something like:

• you just edit a post UI stays like today
• enable FSE, UI stays like today if you just edit a post
• as soon as you edit something global, we can adapt the UI: Show the "Publish Changes"/"Update Changes" like the mockup above and leave the "save draft" button as is. (potentially in a v1, we can remove the "save draft" button entirely from the main UI since all this is still experimental).

This also makes me thing we should hide the "Site Title" block behind the FSE flag for now (the other PR).

as soon as you edit something global, we can adapt the UI: Show the "Publish Changes"/"Update Changes" like the mockup above and leave the "save draft" button as is. (potentially in a v1, we can remove the "save draft" button entirely from the main UI since all this is still experimental).

Even just to test this, I would agree this is a good way to start. It let's us learn more about what the pain points are of saving, before optimizing too far in one direction. It's also quite close to this mockup: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1204802/67269874-cdc5de00-f4b7-11e9-9b7c-ba73ddf2f6d2.png

I was trying to see how many different properties are handled in the Save Global Changes popup, and accidentally stumbled upon the Visibility selector.
Clicking on "Private" triggers a save and (privately) publish after accepting a popup.

In other words, just a warning that the Update/Publish button is not the only one that saves the post. 🙂

Maybe you're right — maybe we don't touch the save draft button, and all it does is save the post content. No new label indicating unsaved global changes, no extra buttons. But maybe we still change the label of the Publish button, and then show the popup. We might even show an "unread dot" or something, overlaid on the Publish button. Like this maybe?

Yep, that's what I think is optimal and that is what I meant by styling or iconizing the publish button when there are global changes. Some sort of "plus" or "more" icon comes to mind.

For me, it should be something like:

That's how this PR works. I just think we should change it from rendering a new button to adding an icon to the publish button like discussed above.

This also makes me thing we should hide the "Site Title" block behind the FSE flag for now (the other PR).

Yeah it is behind the flag.

One thing I just remembered, which is a mistake in the mockups. Any "Publish" action that opens a modal dialog should have the "..." ellipsis at the end. So ● Publish Changes... just like we have Publish.... The ellipsis implies it's the start of a flow.

I'm of the opinion that most of this should just work and be handled "behind the scenes" without requiring users to make a decision or understand the entities and how they are related. Maybe I'm oversimplifying all of this, but I keep running through scenarios:

If I update the contents of a page, update the site title, and then I publish my changes they should all be saved and published.

If I update the contents of a page, update the site title, and then save the page as a draft the changes to the site title should also be saved as a draft.

If I update the site title, but never touch the contents of the page, and then publish my changes the site title should be updated.

If I update the site title, but never touch the contents of the page, and then schedule the page to publish, the changes to the site title should be saved and then published at the scheduled date.

--

Regardless of the above, I wonder why we're exploring a modal UI for showing/confirm changes to entities. We already have the pre-publish confirmation, and I think that would be a better place for showing all entities affected by saving/publishing/scheduling. Having it in the pre-publish confirmation would allow us to show the changes, but users could essentially ignore the various entities and just publish using the logic laid out above.

For a lot of entities it doesn't make sense to draft or schedule. Those scenarios aren't really helpful to users and could create a lot of confusion.

What happens if I schedule different site title updates by scheduling two different posts? I assume the latest one will overwrite the previous one, but that is really confusing. We would need an entire API for this and a UI for warning and surfacing conflicts to users.

Furthermore, it becomes really hard to picture all the different things your save action will be affecting and users could unintentionally edit pages or template parts they didn't mean to.

This is also partly why the modal is decoupled from the pre publish flow, because these entities don't necessarily have a pre publish flow or any flow at all besides saving.

@jasmussen @youknowriad

One thing I just remembered, which is a mistake in the mockups. Any "Publish" action that opens a modal dialog should have the "..." ellipsis at the end. So ● Publish Changes... just like we have Publish.... The ellipsis implies it's the start of a flow.

I just realized that this doesn't address the potentially very common use case of publishing global changes made while editing a draft you don't want to publish yet. This was the reason I opted for a separate button in the first place. Any ideas? We can always make publishing optional in the modal, but then we muddy the meaning of the button.

I think a separate button could work really well. In addition to the button we could have every block that saves outside the post have a special outline indicator to show that it has pending changes, and on hover we could give the option to save just that block.

The global changes save button would then become a quick way of saving all of these special blocks.

Have you thought about how we could build this as part of the block navigation toolbar. Just like the editor canvas, it could also highlight blocks like these and provide a "save all" button at the top.

Here's a doodle:

I just realized that this doesn't address the potentially very common use case of publishing global changes made while editing a draft you don't want to publish yet. This was the reason I opted for a separate button in the first place. Any ideas?

I still think a single button is the way to go. The user won't have to look into different places to find the save button for the thing he wants to save. I feel some of this complexity can be absorbed in the modal directly, maybe instead of having checkboxes per entity, we could have addition buttons next to each entity where it make sense. (For example a "save draft" button next to the post entity...)

I just realized that this doesn't address the potentially very common use case of publishing global changes made while editing a draft you don't want to publish yet. This was the reason I opted for a separate button in the first place. Any ideas?

I tried to address this in the mockup, by way of this bit:

In this one, the About Us page which is in draft form is deliberately unchecked when you press the "Publish Changes" button. Which means when you press the Publish button, the only thing you publish is the change to the Header.

I still think a single button is the way to go. The user won't have to look into different places to find the save button for the thing he wants to save. I feel some of this complexity can be absorbed in the modal directly, maybe instead of having checkboxes per entity, we could have addition buttons next to each entity where it make sense. (For example a "save draft" button next to the post entit

Strongly agree. Not just to keep this PR simple and minimal so we can actually test in master before we optimize down a path we're unsure of, but to keep things simple.

Regardless of the above, I wonder why we're exploring a modal UI for showing/confirm changes to entities. We already have the pre-publish confirmation, and I think that would be a better place for showing all entities affected by saving/publishing/scheduling. Having it in the pre-publish confirmation would allow us to show the changes, but users could essentially ignore the various entities and just publish using the logic laid out above.

@shaunandrews I think this is a very valid point.
If there are site-wide changes, we could force the pre-publish confirmation which could look something like this (disregard the very awkward copy of course):

@jasmussen

Good idea, labelling drafts and having them unchecked by default does the trick.

@Copons

I also think that hooking into the pre publish flow like that is a better idea.

@jasmussen

What do you think about going with that pre publish flow, and adding a button that says, "only publish site-wide changes", to accommodate for people publishing site-wide changes without the drafted post.

What do you think about going with that pre publish flow, and adding a button that says, "only publish site-wide changes", to accommodate for people publishing site-wide changes without the drafted post.

I think it's a pretty decent idea. I would love to see it explored slightly more in mockup form (@shaunandrews have the energy? I don't think we need to see much).

The challenge is that the pre-publish flow is already pretty heavy. That's not to say it isn't the right place for it, and I still personally have a slight preference for the dialog. But the arguments presented hold promise.

Thanks everyone for the reviews and work here.

I guess the next step here would be to consolidate these pre/post publish flows. It would be good to have some design direction/exploration/mockups.