Restructure Proposal Form Sections and Redesign Custom Questions Integration

[mariobehling]

The current Proposal information and Additional Questions handling in the CFP workflow is confusing and inconsistent for both organizers and speakers.

Key issues today:

• Session related fields and speaker related fields are mixed in a single Proposal information section
• The Additional Questions feature is disconnected from CFP > Content > Fields
• Questions created via the Questions form do not appear where organizers expect them to be configured
• On the public submission form, questions appear in a separate Questions section, which feels arbitrary and disconnected from proposal or speaker context
• Question order cannot be controlled reliably

This results in poor information architecture and an unintuitive speaker submission experience.

Scope

This issue addresses:

1. Clear separation and reordering of session and speaker related fields
2. A redesign of how custom questions are assigned and displayed
3. Sorting and persistence of all form questions

1. Split and refine proposal form sections

In the organizer view, split the existing Proposal information into two clearly defined sections.

a) Session Information

This section should contain session specific fields only:

• Title
• Abstract
• Description
• Track
• Language
• Notes
• Recording opt out
• Session image
• Duration
• Additional speakers

b) Speaker Profile

This section should contain speaker specific fields only, with the following order:

1. Profile picture
2. Biography
3. Availability

Availability must be moved from Session Information into the Speaker Profile section.

2. Redesign custom questions integration

Current issue

Organizers currently create additional questions via the Questions form. However:

• These questions do not appear under CFP > Content > Fields
• They show up as a separate Questions section on the public submission form
• The separation is confusing and breaks the logical grouping of information

Example of the current public submission form showing a separate Questions section:

Desired principle

Custom questions should be treated as first class fields that belong to either:

• Session Information, or
• Speaker Profile

They should be configurable in one place and appear in the correct context throughout the workflow.

3. Proposed approaches for custom questions

Option 1 (Preferred from a UX perspective)

• Organizers create questions via the Questions form

• Under CFP > Content > Fields, organizers assign each question to:

  • Session Information, or
  • Speaker Profile

• On the public submission form:

  • Questions appear directly within the respective section
  • The separate Questions section is removed entirely

Option 2 (Closer to current behavior)

• Organizers create questions via the Questions form
• Questions are assigned to sections via CFP > Content > Fields
• The public submission form keeps a separate Questions section
• This section appears before or after the Speaker Profile section, depending on the Target setting configured in the question form

4. Speaker facing behavior

Regardless of the chosen option:

a) Initial proposal submission

Section assigned questions must appear in the correct place when a speaker submits a proposal for the first time.

b) After submission

The same questions must appear consistently in:

• Proposal edit form
• Speaker’s event profile

5. Enable sorting of all form questions

• All fields and custom questions must be sortable via drag and drop

• The defined order must be persisted

• Ordering must be reflected consistently across:

  • Organizer configuration
  • Initial submission form
  • Proposal edit form
  • Speaker event profile

Acceptance Criteria

• Proposal form is split into Session Information and Speaker Profile
• Availability is moved to Speaker Profile and ordered correctly
• Custom questions are assignable to specific sections
• Public submission form reflects the configured structure
• Question order is configurable and persisted
• No orphaned or duplicated Questions sections appear unintentionally
• Existing proposals continue to render correctly after migration