We highlight the next logical step and indicate whether some new content will be created (green) or destroyed (red) as an outcome. Creating and deleting content, even if these actions can be undone seems worth some considerations in an environment where content is public and edited collaboratively by many.

Though this is correct, at times, it is very difficult to put an action into the bucket of "creating" and "progressing" there are grey areas here since we are talking about abstracted concepts and it's difficult to make it binary. it is possible, but difficult. 

That brings me to the users of these concepts. If i am not wrong, there are three parties involved. 
  1. Designers
  2. Developers
  3. Users
For designers, things like progressive and constructive makes sense but a on semantic level. for independent developers without any design help, the distinction between constructive and progressive might make things confusing and complicated. and as far as a I know, users don't perceive their tasks to be progressive or constructive right way. 

Of course, the semantics that were thought before implementing it our buttons this way made sense at the time and i think it still can be justified but it seems like there is a fine line between two which makes it difficult to convey.

If the value coming from having these distinctions is less than the confusion that we are causing then maybe it's time not have these different conventions.






On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Pau Giner <pginer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I think the purpose of colour buttons is to set similar expectations. We highlight the next logical step and indicate whether some new content will be created (green) or destroyed (red) as an outcome. Creating and deleting content, even if these actions can be undone seems worth some considerations in an environment where content is public and edited collaboratively by many.

The create/destroy/other split doesn't match the "dangerousness" of the actions well, though. The typical way for a non-admin user to make a mess is via page move (which usually cannot be reverted without admin rights) and merge-type actions (wikidata item merge, or adding an interwiki link on Wikipedia that causes different concepts to be merged). The most dangerous actions with admin rights are probably user blocking and page history merge. None of those are constructive or destructive in the sense the UI uses those terms.

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