This is an interesting discussion. Let's continue it more as if we were sharing a table with pencils or dinner plates, aiming to get together to the best conclusions we can produce -- less as if we were in a tribunal or a senate trying to see how is more right.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Kairy for explaining more. I still don't know what happened. If something was merged or coded, please link patches. If something was decided, please link the decision.

I think what happened is that there are different approaches (desktop, mobile web, mobile app, and a world out there) and Kaity and others are trying to find the right approach.

Kaity Hammerstein, 25/03/2015 22:20:

Here is a screenshot of the mobile web interface, and a screenshot of
the app interface. In the app, it is much easier to quickly determine
the meaning of the article.

I'd say the contrary: for instance the app doesn't show a warning present on the page, which makes it harder to understand the real meaning (value, status) of the page.

Ok, this is a good point. But Kaity's is also a good point (the amount of objects before getting to the information is not particularly useful either). Maybe a clickable "!" icon in the right location could bring back the accuracy while keeping the clean design?

In your screenshots, apart from everything being so hard to read because of the flashy colours which made me blind for a second, the first thing I notice is the space taken by the search bar and the silly text flow around images (and tables).

This is your opinion and your wording, but let's see.

The mobile app approach clearly bets on promoting the first image when available, which makes sense for devices with shiny color screens like most mobile devices with web browsers nowadays, makes sense for a movement that puts an emphasis on free media beyond text, and makes sense for 2015 and a tradition of online and printed publishing. It is a bet with some risks, but imho a more interesting bet than continuing with the just too grey (again imho) and uniform mobile web UI.

About the 'hard to read' the mockup doesn't have a darker gradient under the title text, but the mobile app does have it, and after dozens of random articles, I would say the problem is well solved. 'space taken by the search bar' looks like a smaller problem that allows fine tuning if needed.

About 'silly text flow', I don't see why flowing text is silly in a constrained surface. It seems to be eating space of only the first line of text, and it looks like an idea worth testing instead of dismissing beforehand. Also very important, you may or may not be aware that calling 'silly' something might be perceived just like calling 'silly' the person(s) who worked on that something. There is no need for this, we are all trying to contribute our best.

If your point is that a certain number of pixels in heights can be saved in favour of text, it's not clear to me why focus on the smallest item first. I suggest to
a) compare apples to apples (i.e. your screenshot includes a location bar which is not relevant in a comparison to the app),
b) identify which are the biggest wins possible and at what cost,

Kaity's point as described previously is "what readers see when they first arrive at an article". Therefore, as far as I understand her comments, this is not about saving pixels in heights to squeeze more text, but about providing a natural path for the reader (background illustration - title - content), removing the many obstacles we have now, and pushing them down or to the side.

c) communicate your findings clearly (e.g. in a phabricator report).

Yes, I agree that discussing work in editable tasks that can link to mockups, subtasks, plans, etc, are better than discussing work in mailing lists.

PS: I agree with Nemo and bawolff that the current wording of "Last edited by..." highlights the elements that are perhaps less relevant. Still, the purpose of that object is correct (telling to the readers that such articles have been created by people like them). Have other text alternatives been considered? What about something like "Created by NN volunteers or more".