On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation Maryana. I've always
been confused about these
changes, especially since they have frequently been referred to as
"experiments" (see blog post for example), and because we've gone back and
forth on the implementation without really understanding why. If I'm
confused about it, I'm sure the community is even more confused. I also
didn't know that
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Humanizing_features
existed (it isn't linked from anywhere). It seems to basically be a
brainstorming page from 2013. Do you think it would make more sense for
developers to write documentation about UI features they implement (this
model is often followed by small projects like WikiLove) or for design
and/or PM and/or community liaison to write such documentation (this model
is often followed by larger projects such as Echo and Visual Editor)?
Either way, I think we definitely need more documentation and should start
creating more cards for it in our sprint planning.
I think since documentation is the kind of thing that tends to slip through
the cracks, it probably makes sense for some combination of the Rule of
Three to take effect to make sure everyone does their due diligence with
respect to documentation: for big new projects/initiatives, devs should
make sure technical docs are up to date on
mw.org, CLs + PMs should create
a space on meta or local wikis for a FAQ/high-level overview of the what
and why, and designers should add a few mocks and help flesh out any UX or
visual design related sections as needed.
That said, I still think it's going to be up to the team to decide what
kind of changes merit this (non-trivial) amount of effort/time and when
it's appropriate (e.g., a major overhaul of all the icons and design of the
lead section of articles like the one we're playing with in alpha now
certainly does need this level of documentation before it goes to stable,
but probably not until it's closer to launch). And not every change is
going to be worth it.
Kaldari
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Maryana Pinchuk <mpinchuk(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
See:
* *http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/09/25/humanizing-wikipedia-editing-mobile-experiments/
<http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/09/25/humanizing-wikipedia-editing-mobile-experiments/>*
*
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Humanizing_features
"Experiment" is a terrible misnomer for this project. AFAIK, there was no
specific hypothesis or set of metrics that the team was measuring around
the time the strapline was launched; this was simply an attempt to update
the design and make it look a little more, for lack of a better word,
human. I would look at any work in this area as an ongoing visual design
iteration (including the current work in alpha to move the strapline down),
not an "experiment," unless there is a specific set of metrics we're
trying
to move one way or another.
In general, we need to start getting a lot better about bucketing our
work into these types of user-facing categories ("experiment" versus
"ongoing design iterations") and creating shared understanding both within
the teams and in the community about what that means. Both kinds of work
are totally valid and necessary – we don't have the time or resources to
test every change we want to make, and for some things, we just need to
trust ourselves and do what we think is right for our users, even if we
can't measure exactly how it will impact the system. When we do have a
specific hypothesis about how a change will impact the system for the
better and some metrics we can measure to prove or disprove it – and only
then! – we should call it an experiment. A healthy mix of both types of
projects is necessary for ensuring that we're both being
rigorous/data-informed AND not getting caught in analysis paralysis to make
simple, quick, obvious changes.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
This experiment desperately needs documentation
(both on
mediawiki.org
and Meta:Research).
Moushira, would you be able to help coordinate such documentation so
that we are more clearly communicating with the community about these
changes? (Even I can't keep up with what we are doing with the last
modified bar in mobile and why.) You might need to talk with some of the
designers about the rationale for the changes. Maryana may also be able to
provide some insights.
Kaldari
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jon Robson <jrobson(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I'm still not convinced this is a good idea
and this village pump post
[1] seems to show its now just me (although there is also one of the
opposite mindset).
Please do consider this in the redesign which has now been promoted to
beta.
"Before in the mobile edition of Wikipedia, it showed at the top the
hours or days since last revision and the user name. Now the username is
not there. Bring it back and even consider it for the full desktop version.
That is how we encourage people to update this site and not think some
editorial board does it."
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bring_back…
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
--
Maryana Pinchuk
Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
--
Maryana Pinchuk
Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org