On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride
<z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Many new features (e.g., the improved search
backend) are deployed fairly regularly
without fanfare or objection.
Indeed, change-aversion tends to correlate pretty strongly with impact
on existing workflows [1] and noticeable changes to user experience
and behavior. This is pretty clearly laid out by a Google UX
researcher here:
https://www.gv.com/lib/change-aversion-why-users-hate-what-you-launched-and…
Media Viewer is actually a perfect example of this -- most of the
functionality people expect (get to the File: page, see a summary, see
categories, get the full-size version, get multiple resolutions, see
attribution information, etc.) is there; ...
Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt
correct, sometimes you get resolutions which are silly (especially
svgs at launch, but also slideshows on a file page include a very
large license logo), it takes extra clicks to get to the full-size
version, only some of the categories are shown including otherwise
'hidden' categories, and sometimes the summary isnt shown.
These are a combination of design flaws and blatant bugs which were
known before launch. Has the WMF done a quick estimate on the amount
of time before these basic functions of media viewer are working
correctly? Has the WMF allocated developers to ensure these basic
functions of media viewer work correct? I would be much happier to
support it remaining opt out if WMF could give an estimate on when
this will be completed, rather than reading WMF directors say 'most of
the functionality people expect ... is there'. It's not, except in
the 'proof of concept' mode. Its a long way from being ready to leave
beta, much like Visual Editor was.
--
John Vandenberg