On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@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@wikimedia.org> wrote:
See: 


"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@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@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."

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design



_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design




--
Maryana Pinchuk
Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design



_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design




--
Maryana Pinchuk
Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org