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
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.
We should really get away from using hover. Hover doesn't work on mobile and we should be thinking about designs that work on both.
Out of interest why not show one single edit link.
When a user flicks to source mode in the editor make this the default for that user/browser (via cookie/localStorage) on future clicks - i.e. make this a preference.
We already have a way to control which place you go using a preference.
The problem is when people might want to use them sort of interchangeably.
And I agree that the hover isn't great for mobile. Ideas are welcome.
- Trevor
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
We should really get away from using hover. Hover doesn't work on mobile and we should be thinking about designs that work on both.
Out of interest why not show one single edit link.
When a user flicks to source mode in the editor make this the default for that user/browser (via cookie/localStorage) on future clicks - i.e. make this a preference.
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
We already have a way to control which place you go using a preference.
The problem is when people might want to use them sort of interchangeably.
In the feedback I've seen, people have expressed the same wish (to be able to switch between VisualEditor and source editor) but not necessarily only for section editing.
Would it be conceivable to build a toggle between VisualEditor and source editor directly in the VE interface (whether we're editing a section or not)?
It may be a bit more difficult to implement, but on the other hand: * it would solve the section editing dilemma (just open VE and people can switch to edit the source) * it would work on mobile * it would be future-proof and it would give experienced users something they want (the ability to easily switch between the two editing modes), which may lead more of them to adopt VisualEditor.
-- Guillaume Paumier
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:54:38 +0200, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Out of interest why not show one single edit link.
When a user flicks to source mode in the editor make this the default for that user/browser (via cookie/localStorage) on future clicks - i.e. make this a preference.
A preference is how it works right now (I think). And it's bad enough for three bugs to have been created about it (currently main one is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49666 , it links to the others) - please flip through the discussion for a rationale :).
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.
[image: Inline image 1] 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.
[image: Inline image 2] 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 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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
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
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
- 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
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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.
I think the presence of this preference adds weight to the argument we should not clutter the interface by providing the two options on every section edit item. For new people, we can and should be confident that VE is a better experience overall. For power editors, they have the preference.
We didn't build this to meet the needs of existing power editors, and getting them to try editing sections with VE is not nearly as high a priority as ensuring that the default interface for all is clean and simple.
On 06/21/2013 02:28 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
We didn't build this to meet the needs of existing power editors, and getting them to try editing sections with VE is not nearly as high a priority as ensuring that the default interface for all is clean and simple.
The most important counter-point to this is that power users are the ones reporting the bugs, which is very important to keep VE improving. We need an easy way to get to both "edit wikitext section" and "edit VE section" for that day-to-day testing.
However, if you could toggle between edit wikitext and edit VE, that would reduce the need for an upfront choice somewhat (though I don't know if a way to go directly from "currently editing VE section" to "currently editing wikitext section" is feasible.
I also recommend considering my suggestion (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49666#c12) of a preference that allows power users to see both links, while keeping the default just VE.
Matt
I thought the suggestion was that there could be a gadget to turn on both links for those who need them?
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 06/21/2013 02:28 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
We didn't build this to meet the needs of existing power editors, and getting them to try editing sections with VE is not nearly as high a priority as ensuring that the default interface for all is clean and simple.
The most important counter-point to this is that power users are the ones reporting the bugs, which is very important to keep VE improving. We need an easy way to get to both "edit wikitext section" and "edit VE section" for that day-to-day testing.
However, if you could toggle between edit wikitext and edit VE, that would reduce the need for an upfront choice somewhat (though I don't know if a way to go directly from "currently editing VE section" to "currently editing wikitext section" is feasible.
I also recommend considering my suggestion (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49666#c12) of a preference that allows power users to see both links, while keeping the default just VE.
Matt
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 06/24/2013 09:20 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
I thought the suggestion was that there could be a gadget to turn on both links for those who need them?
That's not a full solution for several reasons. To start with, we still don't have global gadgets, or built-in internationalization for them. It's better to resolve this in the extension proper.
Matt Flaschen
(Sorry for going somewhat visceral with this topic but I really like you and I have seen too often these type of discussions appearing as deadlines get close and generating delays, stress and distraction for no significant benefit at the end)
On 06/21/2013 10:58 AM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
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.
Could those advanced users cook a gadget and be done with this problem? A piece of code that does the trick and VisualEditor and MediaWiki teams don't need to bother about.
Trevor,
Thanks for showing those sketches, in all of the options my worry is that it provides the switch from VE to wikitext editor at such a prominent level that it appears they are of equal importance, and of higher importance than the other VE tools
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Sorry for going somewhat visceral with this topic but I really like you and I have seen too often these type of discussions appearing as deadlines get close and generating delays, stress and distraction for no significant benefit at the end)
On 06/21/2013 10:58 AM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
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.
Could those advanced users cook a gadget and be done with this problem? A piece of code that does the trick and VisualEditor and MediaWiki teams don't need to bother about.
-- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**User:Qgilhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 06/21/2013 10:46 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
Out of interest is there any data here to describe why having an edit source link in sections is needed?
+1
fwiw: why do I edit at section level?
* To skip the big bunch of text and templates above. VE makes this need less relevant.
* To get the title of the section automatically as comment for my edit, which in many cases is good enough. If VE would support this I would be happier.
* Years ago someone told me that risks of edit collision are less this way. I still don't know whether this is true or not, but at least feels good. No idea whether VE improves the situation or not.
That's it. If VE would deeal with details you find in sections as good as wikitext (images & captions, small templates, ref & cite...) I would have no good reason to go back to wikitext other than habit.
On 2013-06-21 11:04 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 06/21/2013 10:46 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
Out of interest is there any data here to describe why having an edit source link in sections is needed?
+1
fwiw: why do I edit at section level?
- To skip the big bunch of text and templates above. VE makes this
need less relevant.
+1
- To get the title of the section automatically as comment for my
edit, which in many cases is good enough. If VE would support this I would be happier.
VE does track what changes are made to the DOM. In theory I think it could be made to see if all those fall under a section and pre-fill the section name into the comment area.
- Years ago someone told me that risks of edit collision are less this
way. I still don't know whether this is true or not, but at least feels good. No idea whether VE improves the situation or not.
I'm not sure either. Right now the VE opening up a "section" opens up the whole page. So it "could" actually negate that. But if VE were properly implemented it could actually do that even better than section editing.
VE tracks the changes made. So in theory it could be made so that you could edit a sentence and someone else could edit the paragraph next to it in the same section. And it could save without giving an edit conflict.
That's it. If VE would deeal with details you find in sections as good as wikitext (images & captions, small templates, ref & cite...) I would have no good reason to go back to wikitext other than habit.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
fwiw: why do I edit at section level?
Also: * To load the page faster than it would be loaded if I openned the full article in edit mode (when it has a lot of content).
On 2013-06-21 5:00 PM, Helder . wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
fwiw: why do I edit at section level?
Also:
- To load the page faster than it would be loaded if I openned the
full article in edit mode (when it has a lot of content).
VE will make that point moot in the future. As there are plans to make the Parsoid DOM VE uses what is output into the page instead of loading it separately. So VE will be able to start using what's already been loaded for your reading.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
On 06/21/2013 10:32 AM, Jared Zimmerman 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.
I agree, just like I agree with Steven when he tells the same in similar situations with EE/EEE. In situations of change like this I think ON/OFF are the only options. Push people to ON, leating them one way to go back to OFF. Hear their feedback and work on the issues. If there are more small convenient backdoors people will learn to use them to avoid the problems that should be fixed.
To address the issue of users wanting choice,
Simplifying a lot, I don't think users want choice in a case like this. They want the editing experience to work better than it worked before, and remember "choice" when it doesn't. That, and resistance to change.
Hence, I would put your time keeping going and focusing on great VE rather than thinking how to make elegant and usable another convenient backdoor. "Modify source" at the top of the page is already a (still necessary) backdoor.
Sorry everyone, but I can only sum up your comments here as "you're clearly not editing Wikipedia, and you've clearly not read the bug".
Please take this seriously and put some though into it before rattling on about "too much choice" and "too much chrome" and other useless buzzwords.
On mediawiki.org , clicking Section edit links already fires up VE for me. When this behavior started I quickly figured out that if I really wanted old-style editing, right-click & choose Open Link in New Tab or middle-click would do what I want. Knowing that VE is the future I didn't even think of complaining.
I dunno if this "Open in new tab" workaround is a bug. If you fix it, I'll probably look at the hyperlink for an indication of the section number and manually add §ion=7 to the Edit source URL. If it bothers me enough I'll seek a gadget or piece of JS to fix it (as Quim Gil suggests), while continuing to give VE a fair try. My point is as long as there's some workaround to get to wiki editing of section links it will satisfy a large group of experienced editors who are *supportive* of improving MediaWiki and are willing to adapt to new defaults instead of vehemently complaining. I suspect we might be the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority of experienced editors.
Cheers,
-- =S Page software engineer on E3
On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Jared Zimmerman 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 screenshots in this email aren't legible due to their small size. Please use full-screen screenshots. To avoid breaking the flow of the text, you can put them as attachments.
Matt Flaschen
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?
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.
-K
On 21/06/13 17:40, Trevor Parscal 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
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 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-June/000680.htmlshows), 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. :-)
J.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
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.
In the long term I believe that VE will be the primary editing experience for everyone, and they may occasionally switch to a source mode.
We offered the option because today, large articles still have serious performance issues, so even minor VE-friendly edits, aren't practical when editing those articles.
It's also worth noting that, at least for now, switching between visual and source mode will be expensive on the server and take a bit of time.
I expect we will move more towards this as we go, but it's not viable yet.
- Trevor
Thank you Issara for rephrasing it in a different way. As I mentioned before we can think of it as a way of progressive disclosurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_disclosureof complexity Visual editor has fewer controls and less complexity than the existing Wikitext editor, both in its UI and its presentation of content.
Allowing access, albeit deemphasized to the wikitext editor, only from within the VE environment fits nicely with that goal. Again I'm not suggesting that we remove direct access to the wikitext editor if a preference has been set, but in all other cases the VE does provide an experience that will benefit new and existing users alike while (if implemented) a 1 click switch to the old editing experience.
For me it is about trust and confidence as well as establishing a direction with intention, If we show doubt that the VE is in fact a better experience and provide top level choice between the two editor experiences we are not showing that confidences
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM, 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?
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.
-K
On 21/06/13 17:40, Trevor Parscal 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 listDesign@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I think there are a couple of important points:
* There are still elements that VE can't edit; * There are still pages that render incorrectly in VE; * There are still likely other bugs, roundtrip and performance issues that will frustrate users.
We do want to eventually get all users to use VE, but we need to be realistic that at this point we're launching beta software that has lots of quirks, some known, some unknown. It's awesome already but there's still a long way to go.
That means power users will have _legitimate_ reasons to want to continue to use wikitext for some time; it'll be more efficient in many cases, and sometimes necessary.
I want us to be careful to not message in a way that glosses over such concerns.
I'm personally fine with the preference as an option, but we need to make sure that power users know about it. I can see the concern about a secondary "edit source" option from a UI cleanliness perspective, but again, recognizing that VE is still beta and will be for a while, I think James' argument that this may well be a better way to get power users to continue experimenting with VE (rather than disabling it in the preference) has significant merit. It could be deprecated once VE has built-in source mode switching.
Erik
You're right, VE cannot currently does have significant limitations and people do currently need direct access to the source - and that's why I was also so opposed to hiding the link to edit the source (I think I brought it up in the bug comments, but nothing came of that). Using a popout or similar such obfuscating control for it means that it will be that much harder for those who do have legitime use/need for the current interface to actually find and use it in the meantime, and that is a problem precisely because said interface is needed.
-L
On 21/06/13 21:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think there are a couple of important points:
- There are still elements that VE can't edit;
- There are still pages that render incorrectly in VE;
- There are still likely other bugs, roundtrip and performance issues
that will frustrate users.
We do want to eventually get all users to use VE, but we need to be realistic that at this point we're launching beta software that has lots of quirks, some known, some unknown. It's awesome already but there's still a long way to go.
That means power users will have _legitimate_ reasons to want to continue to use wikitext for some time; it'll be more efficient in many cases, and sometimes necessary.
I want us to be careful to not message in a way that glosses over such concerns.
I'm personally fine with the preference as an option, but we need to make sure that power users know about it. I can see the concern about a secondary "edit source" option from a UI cleanliness perspective, but again, recognizing that VE is still beta and will be for a while, I think James' argument that this may well be a better way to get power users to continue experimenting with VE (rather than disabling it in the preference) has significant merit. It could be deprecated once VE has built-in source mode switching.
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
At this point I don't believe anyone is proposing that we remove the preference that would allow a user to choose which edit environment they go to when they click an edit action on a page.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, VE cannot currently does have significant limitations and people do currently need direct access to the source - and that's why I was also so opposed to hiding the link to edit the source (I think I brought it up in the bug comments, but nothing came of that). Using a popout or similar such obfuscating control for it means that it will be that much harder for those who do have legitime use/need for the current interface to actually find and use it in the meantime, and that is a problem precisely because said interface is needed.
-L
On 21/06/13 21:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think there are a couple of important points:
- There are still elements that VE can't edit;
- There are still pages that render incorrectly in VE;
- There are still likely other bugs, roundtrip and performance issues that
will frustrate users.
We do want to eventually get all users to use VE, but we need to be realistic that at this point we're launching beta software that has lots of quirks, some known, some unknown. It's awesome already but there's still a long way to go.
That means power users will have _legitimate_ reasons to want to continue to use wikitext for some time; it'll be more efficient in many cases, and sometimes necessary.
I want us to be careful to not message in a way that glosses over such concerns.
I'm personally fine with the preference as an option, but we need to make sure that power users know about it. I can see the concern about a secondary "edit source" option from a UI cleanliness perspective, but again, recognizing that VE is still beta and will be for a while, I think James' argument that this may well be a better way to get power users to continue experimenting with VE (rather than disabling it in the preference) has significant merit. It could be deprecated once VE has built-in source mode switching.
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Design mailing listDesign@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Le 2013-06-21 18:40, Trevor Parscal a écrit :
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).
What about a pen icon and a pen icon beetween squared brackets?
Something like this (ASCII-art inside, "/" is a pen icon) :
My title / [[/]]
But to be honnest, I just give the idea as a feedback to the "no icon would really convey what we want here" statament. I like you proposition with text and hover.
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
