I agree that presenting this amount of choice to everyone is unwanted and almost definitely unneeded.

If we do have a choice presented to users, it should only be more advanced users, as a concession since they are likely going to need to continue using Wikitext for some time while VE matures and supports more tasks. These are the same users we made the preference to use the source editor for section edit links, and we are hoping to keep the VisualEditor close at hand for these people so they will use it more and more over time.

It's also possible that the best solution is to leave it alone as it is.

On the point of switching between visual and source modes, this is already on our roadmap, but won't make it into the July release.

I've attached some mockups. I made them several months ago, but they show the general idea. The mockups show 2 edit tabs, but really there would be a single edit tab in this design since source is integrated.

You will also notice something we call outline mode. This has to do with the issue of how difficult floated content is to work with and organize in the current "layout" mode - as well as how much the extra gaps we put between some elements to allow text insertion throw the layout off. We are still exploring this concept, please don't get to distracted by it - I just wanted to show that we imagine editors being able to switch between multiple modes easily.

- Trevor

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jon Robson <jrobson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I actually completely agree with Steven from the bug report when he
says "The dropdown arrow or cog is too much unnecessary choice. The
point of section edit links is to enable speedy editing of single
sections, so introducing a dropdown is overloading things. Most new
editors will appreciate defaulting to VE, and for power users who need
edit source, this is where having a preference to change your default
to edit source would come in handy"

I also worry putting the word 'source' near 'edit' actually would have
a detrimental effect on editing as it suggests you will be editing
code.

Also +1  to "By deemphasizing wikitext editor we both send the clear
message about our intentions to have VE be the default edit
environment. "

Out of interest is there any data here to describe why having an edit
source link in sections is needed? I think any decision here should be
more data driven. I worry that this issue is given more importance
then it needs.

Is this several community members asking for this feature or is there
a real problem here?

Here are some questions I'd suggest get answered via data first
1) What percentage of users actually hit edit source when in Visual Editor mode?
2) Are people switching to edit source on certain types of pages e.g.
namespaces?
 (if so maybe the preference might be set for different namespaces)
3) Are people switching to edit source from Visual Editor primarily on
sections or is it the same on full page edits?
4) What is the average edit count of an editor switching to source?

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński <matma.rex@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:40:58 +0200, Trevor Parscal <tparscal@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> After
>> discussing a few different options, including showing both links (really
>> cluttered and horribly long in some languages)
>
>
> There's a mockup of this, too, linking for completeness:
> http://i.imgur.com/J8v3pts.png / https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/68868/
>
>
>
>> We have decided that it's probably best to make the edit link show an
>> alternative in a menu on hover. There's a prototype of this (somewhere)
>> that MatmaRex has hacked together (screenshot attached) which is close.
>
>
> The code for this is here: CSS + JS: http://pastebin.com/pvtAw1ZT +
> http://pastebin.com/dUpBfiVu - these links will probably expire soon-ish, so
> please copy the code if anybody cares
>
>
> ----
>
> I have also been considering a horizontal expando - something like
> http://i.imgur.com/2Ai0evO.png - but I don't really like it myself.
>
>
>
> --
> Matma Rex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jared Zimmerman
<jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> If we strongly feel that VE is the future of wikipedia and are making it the
> default editor than we should be consistent at an article or section level.
>
> The thing that I feel is paralysis of choice, we already have enough users
> that don't understand the concept of editing much less the confidence to go
> edit. I think that Visual Editor goes a long way to help reduce the fear
> associated with editing.  We will be taking a step back if we make the user
> decide between two methods of editing, increasing the steps and cognitive
> barrier to editing.
>
> I've quickly mocked up 3 options based on a conversation we had in the UX
> group for placement of a single edit action, that would point to the default
> editor environment for the user. The last one would be better if the left
> margin on the body copy was a bit wider.
>
>
> To address the issue of users wanting choice, I would postpone that choice
> rather than making it a barrier into the edit environment.
>
> A quick sketch of access point for opening the wikitext editor from within
> the visual editor environment.
>
> By deemphasizing wikitext editor we both send the clear message about our
> intentions to have VE be the default edit environment.
>
> Again, in this particular instance I think choice, even though requested by
> some users is antithetical to our overall goals of a seamless experience for
> getting users, especially new users between read and edit environments.
>
>
>
>
> Jared Zimmerman  \\  Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation
> M : +1 415 609 4043 |   :  @JaredZimmerman
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Trevor Parscal <tparscal@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> VisualEditor has the option to take over section edit links. We find this
>> is probably going to be unpopular for people who want to at least sometimes
>> edit wikitext, but don't want to loose them as VisualEditor users. After
>> discussing a few different options, including showing both links (really
>> cluttered and horribly long in some languages) and using icons (no icon
>> would really convey what we want here).
>>
>> We have decided that it's probably best to make the edit link show an
>> alternative in a menu on hover. There's a prototype of this (somewhere) that
>> MatmaRex has hacked together (screenshot attached) which is close. I mocked
>> something up that is similar but perhaps a little better looking.
>>
>> Max brings up a good point about my mockup, which is that it doesn't quite
>> fit with other vector-isms. Given that Vector is something we want to
>> evolve, we shouldn't get too caught up in that, but it's something worth
>> considering since deviation from what vector is today should probably only
>> be done if it's in the direction of what Vector should be in the future.
>>
>> I'm hoping that others on the list could perhaps make suggestions, offer
>> ideas, make simple mockups or prototypes and help make this feature as good
>> as possible.
>>
>> We need to have this solved quickly since we are releasing in a couple of
>> weeks.
>>
>> - Trevor
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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