On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: \o/ The search prototype is great, and so are the improvements to the toolbar, particularly the relation between the TOC and the way the page actions slide out on scrolldown. I can't wait to see this as a beta feature. Some very small things: - I realize the icons are mostly placeholders, but the user contribs one is seriously confusing. It looks like there are two edit buttons when you scroll down. - I think the main edit button at the top should not be the quiet state from mw-ui. There is very little use of color on the skin now, so it's not like we're overwhelming things. We need to stop being afraid to make a few things LOUDER, particularly since in this prototype we're removing some color (like the Vector borders). - The line underneath the page title h1 is a different thickness (and color?) than the other borders. It's mildly annoying. And one bigger thing... The lack of the puzzle globe when scrolling. I know you hate the puzzle globe and so do many of our designers. But it's a key part of our identity, and it's also a really nice large target for "home" on desktop. Thinking of this as a potential future default look, splitting the logo and wordmark on every page like that is a serious change. We should have a larger conversation about it I think internally. Either we do think the globe is an important part of our brand or we don't. If we think it's so unimportant as to remove it on scroll, then that has pretty wide implications for our branding I think. Winter is coming, (I couldn't resist the Game of Thrones reference.) -- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/

Looking good, some feedback… - I think we should explore putting Watch and TOC together, or at least associating them more closely. - tipsy being to the left of, covers the other icons, I'm not sure if we even need it, perhaps we could just rely on regular browser tooltips. - I think that moving the TOC icon over should be animated, currently the snap makes me look up, and is a bit distracting, the opposite of what we want. - I think we can kill the in-line TOC

- You can't currently scroll the TOC flyout - Idea : highlight the current section in the TOC flyout - when language list is not collapsable the left sidebar take a long time to go away

- Placeholder text and user input is not aligned with each other in search box *Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM, May Tee-Galloway &lt;mgalloway(a)wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

not sure I follow… Moving the TOC doesn't affect its structure… Change the process for getting to a subheading, from 1-move-and-click to 2-moves-and-2-clicks I assume by 1-move you mean, scroll past the lead paragraph, then click on a section of the toc? in the prototype, you click (or we could make it hover) which would mean no moves, 1 click, so faster than the current state of things, also we get the bonus of it being available anywhere, not just at the top of an article. * * * * *Jared Zimmerman *\\Director of User Experience \\Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman <https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:45 PM, quiddity &lt;pandiculation(a)gmail.com <mailto:pandiculation@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Jared Zimmerman &lt;jared.zimmerman(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org>> wrote: Looking good, some feedback… * I think we should explore putting Watch and TOC together, or at least associating them more closely. * tipsy being to the left of, covers the other icons, I'm not sure if we even need it, perhaps we could just rely on regular browser tooltips. * I think that moving the TOC icon over should be animated, currently the snap makes me look up, and is a bit distracting, the opposite of what we want. * I think we can kill the in-line TOC That would be problematic. It would: * Make it impossible to get a sense of the article structure, at a glance. (eg. Enwiki's WP:Features article criteria 2b <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FA%3F> and any good FA example.) * Change the process for getting to a subheading, from 1-move-and-click to 2-moves-and-2-clicks * You can't currently scroll the TOC flyout * Idea : highlight the current section in the TOC flyout * when language list is not collapsable the left sidebar take a long time to go away Pau's proposal should solve that. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Beta_Features/New_Features#Better_Interlangu… * Placeholder text and user input is not aligned with each other in search box * * * * *Jared Zimmerman *\\Director of User Experience \\Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 <tel:%2B1%C2%A0415%20609%204043> | : @JaredZimmerman <https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM, May Tee-Galloway &lt;mgalloway(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:mgalloway@wikimedia.org>> wrote: Added my comments on mediawiki. @Steven: No matter how much anyone doesn't like the globe including myself, it's a huge part of Wikipedia's brand like you mentioned and shouldn't be wiped out just for the sake of our personal preference. We should improve and not trash it. Even if we trashed it and replaced with something else, we still need SOMETHING people can relate to in regards to the project. Why do this when people already relate the globe as Wikipedia. Wabi sabi wasabi man. mm On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Steven Walling &lt;swalling(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:swalling@wikimedia.org>> wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Brandon Harris &lt;bharris(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:bharris@wikimedia.org>> wrote: Hello! I’ve been making a thing. It’s actually got a code-name now! No more saying “Vector static header and navigation modification”. LOTS of stuff going on with this update. Notably: * Now asks for a username on load, so as to set things up * All pages are loaded from the API via JSON. So it’s not just the single static page. * Got rid of pretty much every color. * Article actions now dock in the header as you scroll. * Table of Contents is now in the header from the beginning * The sidebar’s border goes away as you scroll past it * Lots of links/actions do what you think they should. Most do not. You can play with it here: http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/ And read more about it here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Winter \o/ The search prototype is great, and so are the improvements to the toolbar, particularly the relation between the TOC and the way the page actions slide out on scrolldown. I can't wait to see this as a beta feature. Some very small things: - I realize the icons are mostly placeholders, but the user contribs one is seriously confusing. It looks like there are two edit buttons when you scroll down. - I think the main edit button at the top should not be the quiet state from mw-ui. There is very little use of color on the skin now, so it's not like we're overwhelming things. We need to stop being afraid to make a few things LOUDER, particularly since in this prototype we're removing some color (like the Vector borders). - The line underneath the page title h1 is a different thickness (and color?) than the other borders. It's mildly annoying. And one bigger thing... The lack of the puzzle globe when scrolling. I know you hate the puzzle globe and so do many of our designers. But it's a key part of our identity, and it's also a really nice large target for "home" on desktop. Thinking of this as a potential future default look, splitting the logo and wordmark on every page like that is a serious change. We should have a larger conversation about it I think internally. Either we do think the globe is an important part of our brand or we don't. If we think it's so unimportant as to remove it on scroll, then that has pretty wide implications for our branding I think. Winter is coming, (I couldn't resist the Game of Thrones reference.) -- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Design@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Design@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Design@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

And one bigger thing... The lack of the puzzle globe when scrolling. I know you hate the puzzle globe and so do many of our designers. But it's a key part of our identity, and it's also a really nice large target for "home" on desktop. Thinking of this as a potential future default look, splitting the logo and wordmark on every page like that is a serious change. We should have a larger conversation about it I think internally. Either we do think the globe is an important part of our brand or we don't. If we think it's so unimportant as to remove it on scroll, then that has pretty wide implications for our branding I think.

I think the main edit button at the top should not be the quiet state from mw-ui. There is very little use of color on the skin now, so it's not like we're overwhelming things. We need to stop being afraid to make a few things LOUDER, particularly since in this prototype we're removing some color (like the Vector borders).

• I think we should explore putting Watch and TOC together, or at least associating them more closely.

• tipsy being to the left of, covers the other icons, I'm not sure if we even need it, perhaps we could just rely on regular browser tooltips.

• I think that moving the TOC icon over should be animated, currently the snap makes me look up, and is a bit distracting, the opposite of what we want.

• I think we can kill the in-line TOC

• You can't currently scroll the TOC flyout

• Idea : highlight the current section in the TOC flyout

• when language list is not collapsable the left sidebar take a long time to go away

• Placeholder text and user input is not aligned with each other in search box

from mw-ui. There is very little use of color on the skin now, so it's not like we're overwhelming things. We need to stop being afraid to make a few things LOUDER, particularly since in this prototype we're removing some color (like the Vector borders). So, I tried it with the main edit being blue and it was *crazy* loud. The most-important thing in the page loud. So I made it quiet and it looked better.

Now, this speaks to the larger problem we’re trying to solve: user awareness of the edit button. We know that Vector’s tab layout has trained people to pretty much ignore the tabs, so they don’t see the edit tab (tab blindness, call it). By pulling the tabs into the main content area, we are working to solve that - to bind the actions directly to the content they affect. Currently the tab blindness causes people to not know they can edit, so we have fewer editors. I think think that making the edit link loud will definitely *increase* overall edits (in fact, I’ll stake my job on it), but I think it will result in a radical increase of *bad* edits as well. Too many “kick the tires” vandalisms, maybe. It’s definitely something we can test, though.

I would question that page level editing is actually "most important call to action on the page"

I would argue that we should prioritize section editing over full page editing, and eventually VE will have section editing, even prior to that it at least has awareness of what section you triggered the edit action from.

Moving them next to the section-title would obviously have an effect, as they're more in-our-face!

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Section_edit_modification#Technica…

Personally, I think this was a flawed test and the results are skewed.

On 01/22/2014 02:04 PM, Steven Walling wrote: Yes to the pencil icon used by Mobile and Flow next to the title! I would even say yes to testing whether a blue pencil helps bringing more edits. A word like "Edit" might be less inviting or even meaningful to newcomers. It's a fairly technical term, and even in e.g. social media it is more related to fixing typos and othr mistakes than to expand, be creative, enjoy. Add translations to the mix. Any word in a page already full of words will have a harder time to shine than a simple pencil icon next to the title that captures everybody's attention. -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

RE: Page actions moving into the header: (This is me collecting my comments from a meeting to this list) As I mentioned in yesterday’s design review, my gut instinct is that moving article actions into the header is the wrong path: * I don’t think they’re needed up there. People already scroll to the top when they need these functions. * I think it conflates those actions with the “personal bar” actions and creates confusion. A primary motivation for Winter is to segregate the following types of actions: Site actions (sidebar chrome), Content actions (page stuff), and Personal actions (user stuff). The search box is a site affordance. The personal actions are obviously thus. Mixing article actions next to the personal actions seems weird to me. * The point of discussion being always available is a valid one - the use case being, “I’m in this section, and I see an error, and I want to talk about it”. However, I don’t necessarily think that dumping the user into the “master” talk page at any point is going to solve that. A long time ago I had the idea to add a “discuss” link next to the section edit links. This would target the specific section and create a new discussion with that title (or find an existing one) and work within that. This is obviously something that can easily be done with Flow (though my original thoughts were with LQT). I’m not sure it works well with Talk. This is something I’ll want to experiment with.