On 21 June 2013 12:17, Isarra Yos <zhorishna@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps we're asking the wrong question here.

There are two options, and how they are presented either results in problems with clutter, or with clarity, but both options are for the same action of editing the page/section. So why present the options until the user clicks on the link for editing at all?

​I think taking an existing one-click option and turning it into a mixed one-click/two-click workflow (which is what we'll do with "edit" or "v" > "edit source") is poor. However, it clearly establishes primacy of operations (the one that's easiest to do is the one we encourage you to do more).

Switch that so you always have to do two clicks - "edit" > "edit" (?!) or "edit" > "edit source" - feels like we've lost that indication of primacy, we've expanded the cognitive work of section editing into a constant choice, we've disrupted an existing workflow that our users are familiar with in a way that doesn't benefit them or us, and we've exposed a lot of new users to something they don't want and won't be able to use.

I dislike our initial option (despite it being my idea), because encouraging power users to switch an option to always edit sections in wikitext deprives them of VisualEditor for a major segment of their edits, reduces the field of users and expertise being brought to bear on VisualEditor's faults, quirks and absences, and creates "yet another preference" for us to support.

Now at that point it could go with a dropdown presenting the choices, but let's look at how this sort of thing, with two or more edit modes, is usually done across existing platforms: Click the link/button, and generally it opens up to the visual editor by default. From there, the source mode is a tab or option that can then be switched between as needed, with the visual editor also doubling as a preview if the user is working mostly in source.

Wordpress is a good example. Their visual editor itself makes me want to cry, but the interface is clearly navigable and such. It's basically what I expected with this when I first heard of it as well.

​Sure. This is a concept we're interested in exploring (as Trevor's e-mail of 17:58 shows), but it has some serious (show-stopper?) UX issues related to users not having Javascript, having only archaïc support, being bandwidth- or system-limited, or having a browser that actively breaks when using the VisualEditor​ - do we let them / force them to "edit" with VisualEditor, but only able to use the wikitext mode inside it? However, this isn't particularly related to the problem at hand, and we should discuss that in slower time. :-)

James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

jforrester@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester