After discussing a few different options, including showing both links (really cluttered and horribly long in some languages)

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.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

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.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:40:58 +0200, Trevor Parscal <tparscal(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: There's a mockup of this, too, linking for completeness: http://i.imgur.com/J8v3pts.png / https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/68868/ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: tparscal(a)wikimedia.org> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/68868/ soon-ish, so On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jared Zimmerman <jared.zimmerman(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: the level. users go user default choice within by for this sometimes that mocked quite only good of _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

On 06/21/2013 10:46 AM, Jon Robson wrote: +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.

(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: 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:Qgil<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/… ______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/design<https://lists.wiki…

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.

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(a)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 -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

fwiw: why do I edit at section level?

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.

I thought the suggestion was that there could be a gadget to turn on both links for those who need them?

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design