There's a easy, clearly accessible, one-click option for disabling
MediaViewer, Todd. Scroll to the bottom of the screen. Click "disable".
Done - it automatically changes your preference.
Risker/Anne
On 11 July 2014 02:44, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Risker,
I'm actually not going to disagree with you in principle. I ultimately see
Media Viewer being used by a good number of users, and said as much from
the start. But I also warned that a bulldozer approach was going to cause
massive blowback, especially after the previous debacles (VE and ACTRIAL
come to mind for me). And well, here we are, with another repeat of the VE
situation. That greatly eroded trust in WMF, especially its dev teams and
PMs, and that's nowhere even close to rebuilt yet. Now that lack of trust
is being confirmed and entrenched.
WMF needs to step very lightly with deployments that will affect editors,
and treat the volunteer community as an ally rather than adversary. If that
doesn't happen, these showdowns will keep happening.
Part of that is pure arrogance. A significant part of the reason the Vector
switch worked is because there was an easy, clearly accessible, one-click
option that said "Do not want, disable this!". If that'd been the case
here, I would have clicked that and forgotten about it. Instead, I had to
dig for an hour to find how to disable the thing, after being surprised by
a totally unexpected change. But now we hear things like "We made Vector
opt-out too easy!"
Media Viewer probably does have its place, once it is fully functional and
free of major bugs. I might even turn it on at that point. But shoving it
down people's throats will only serve to further place the WMF's flagship
project and the WMF at odds. That is not, I can't imagine, a desirable
situation by anyone's estimation. WMF needs a far better deployment
strategy than "YOU ARE GETTING IT, LIKE IT OR NOT, AND THAT IS
FINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!" If the WMF's strategy for when the core community and
dev team disagree is "We're right, you're wrong, pipe down", these
situations will increase in frequency and intensity. I want to stop that
before it reaches a real boiling point, and it could've this time if
someone had actually gotten desysopped.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with
you, Todd, there were 14,681
users on English Wikipedia alone who had enabled MediaViewer using the
Beta
Features preference before it became the default.
That's a huge number
of
people who were all using it every time they
clicked on an image in the
weeks and months beforehand, and every one of them had to make a
conscious
decision to turn it on. The 64 users who want it
disabled as default
pale
in comparison to the number of people who were
actively using it
beforehand.
I've asked for some better statistical information because I don't think
the Limn graphs that have been referred to in the discussion of the RFC
are
really accurate; it's my understanding that
about 1600 registered
accounts
have opted out of MV in total (this should be a
linear graph of the
cumulative total, not a "daily number of people who opted out" graph
which
is what we seem to see now). As well, somewhere
in the neighbourhood of
500 "logged out" users a day are disabling it - this needs to be a daily
number, not a cumulative one, because logged-out disabling is linked to
the
individual browser session; those who aren't
logged in don't have the
chance to set preferences. There are between 4 and 5 *million* clicks on
image thumbnails every day on enwiki, with only around 500 of those
viewing
the images disabling the MediaViewer (excluding
logged-in users who have
turned it off in their preferences).
I suspect that at the end of the day, MediaViewer is going to be more
like
the switch to Vector skin: there will be plenty
of people who choose to
disable for reasons that work for them, but the overwhelming majority of
users will be entirely fine with the default. It's having nowhere near
the impact that VisualEditor had when first enabled as default; in the
first 48 hours there were hundreds of "how do you turn this off" queries
and complaints about functionality, not to mention pretty much automatic
reverting of edits done by IPs because there were so many VE-related
problems associated with them. We're not at that level at all here. I
agree with John Vandenberg's comments that a clear roadmap and
prioritized
list of next steps is probably required for
MediaViewer.
Risker/Anne
On 11 July 2014 00:56, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a
fully
> production-ready and usable state.
What's getting released here is
barely
> ready for beta. It's buggy, it's
full of unexpected UX issues, it's not
> ready to go live on one of the top 10 websites in the world. It's got
to
be
in really good shape to get there.
Until software is actually ready for widescale use, small and very
limited
beta tests are exactly the way to go, followed by
maybe slightly larger
UAT
pools. Yeah, that takes longer and requires
actual work to find willing
testers. Quit taking shortcuts through your volunteers.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey guys,
I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product
team
> to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I
would've
> > been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small
opt-in
> > discussions are the best way to do
product development -- certainly
not
at
> the scale of Wikipedia.
>
> I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than
overreaching
in
> terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing.
It's
probably
best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own
heads
> privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking
on
> a
> > mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David
Gerard
we
> can talk anecdotally about what our friends
tell us. But I don't like
it
> > when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or
users,
> or
> > readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sue
> > On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Erik Moeller wrote:
> > > >In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's
easy
> >
>to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to
> > >improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in
the
> > > >last few weeks).
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply. :-)
> > >
> > > If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing
features
> on
> > > users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're
building
> > cool
> > > new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will
> > actively
> > > want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default.
Many
> new
> > > features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly
> > regularly
> > > without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among
> > unsuccessful
> > > deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor,
and
> MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved,
of course, but the
larger
> pattern is a fault in the process, I think.
I wonder how we address
this.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>