Adding previous and next links for moving between articles

[zeke]

In https://github.com/github/help-docs/pull/11410 we introduced breadcrumbs. Under the hood, the breadcrumbs are generated by a currentTree object that captures the entire hierarchy of the site, relative to the page you're currently viewing. We can use this new tree to infer what pages precede and follow a given article.

Let's consider adding [Previous] and [Next] links below each article, where appropriate. We'll have to iron out the details of when these links should and should NOT be displayed:

• should these links be displayed for articles that don't have a parent map topic?
• does an article at the end of a map topic link to the next map topic?
• does an article at the beginning of a map topic link to the previous map topic?
• does an article at the end of the last map topic have a [next] link?
• etc

cc @github/product-docs-engineering @github/product-docs-content-strategy

[emilyistoofunky]

Let's consider adding [Previous] and [Next] links below each article, where appropriate.

🙌 ⚡️

should these links be displayed for articles that don't have a parent map topic?

👍 Yes, I think so! Some categories don't have map topics and the previous and next buttons would still be useful as we still display the content in a somewhat linear order.

The only category without map topics where the buttons might not make as much sense is probably in the "Site policy" category, although I don't think it will hurt anything to have them displayed there.

does an article at the end of a map topic link to the next map topic?
does an article at the beginning of a map topic link to the previous map topic?

Great questions - I think so! 👍

does an article at the end of the last map topic have a [next] link?

In this case, I think not, since the next link would go to the next category and those aren't as closely linked as map topics within a category. Also, the next category will be shown in the sidebar.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Comment with a status update or this will be closed in 14 days

[zeke]

Still relevant.

[jwargo]

@sezhan1229 Can you help us out with a design for this? We'll need to have that ready when we begin implementation on this.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity.

[janiceilene]

@chiedo @emilyistoofunky Is this still relevant or should we close it out?

[emilyistoofunky]

I think this may be part of the learning track designs - @chiedo do you know?

[chiedo]

Yeah we can close this one out! We've got it tracked elsewhere.