On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Pau Giner pginer@wikimedia.org wrote:
This looks good, thanks for the update.
I have some comments about the sections that appear below the article title: • Is the "article" section really needed initially? Even if the article is the option selected by default, I think that presenting a choice between "article", "discussion" and "history" puts them conceptually at the same level when they are not.
I disagree here; I think the article, its discussion, and its history *are* at the same level of importance.
But: not having the button there felt weird when you’d move to other views and it would magically appear. This was something that was causing confusion among users (having links disappear and reappear) so I standardized on it always having things visible.
• Would it make sense to anticipate content? Using "3 discussions" instead of the generic "Discussion" as label, and using "Updated today" instead of the generic "history" label can help to anticipate the expected data behind those links. There is a drawback of not having uniform labelling but keeping the same icons can alleviate that issue.
The problem is that some articles are going to literally have thousands of discussion topics. Further, we’re not going to be able to easily get that number until everything is Flow-enabled (can’t do quick counts on wikitext), so there’s no way to use it.
I’d prefer to avoid using non-static metadata as a button/tab/navigation link mixed in with static labels.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate