I disagree here; I think the article, its discussion, and its history *are* at the same level of importance.
I was thinking about it more in terms of dependencies between concepts. I see "History" as "history *of the article*", and "discussion" as "discussion *about the article*". So the fact that those links were inside the article was enough from my point of view to communicate the relationship (without the explicit "article" option).
From what you comment, I can see that this generates the need for a
different way to present the way back to the article, which may introduce more complexity for "history" and "discussion" views and has its challenges too.
The problem is that some articles are going to literally have thousands of
discussion topics.
I think that if it is worth it, we can deal with that. For example, we can reduce the scope to a time period (e.g., "100 discussions today"). The question is: is it worth it? I don't know the answer. I'm suggesting that if we identify that users are especially interested on some particular states of conversations/history (recent change, big changes, whether you participated...) we could try to anticipate those when they are relevant for our users.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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 itshistory *are* at the same level of importance.
But: not having the button there felt weird when you'd move toother 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 havethousands 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 abutton/tab/navigation link mixed in with static labels.
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design