On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Ah, I didn't know about this. Having a quick look now. Comments: - It looks like the UI could do with a bit of work - it took a fair bit of poking around to work out what status a page was in. - Language should be stabilised. I see the terms "reviewed", "sighted", "draft", "stable version", "stable page", "sighted page"...but not "flagged revision". We should use as few terms as possible and use them consistently. - Clicking the +/- shows some escaped HTML code (<revreview-status&qt;) - For that matter "+/-" seems much less obvious to me than a simple "+" - A red padlock, an eyeball, the term "sighted page", and the word "view draft". Whoa. Too much. Way too much. - There's a "draft" tab and an "edit draft" tab. - On the NYC article, I created vandalism but it was "automatically sighted". Clicking the "automatically sighted" text just took me back to the article. - (Heh, that was confusing, I placed a request for admin, and it got approved, all within a minute or two...totally changing my experience of the system) - The admin interface is awkward too, especially having to go through protect and that "flagged revisions can also be [[configured]]" bit... - Having the tabs at the top change depending on the status of the page is confusing. Sometimes you have "page" and "edit". Sometimes you have "stable page", "draft" and "edit draft". Maybe tabs aren't the way to go here. My overall impressions are that this adds a LOT of complexity. The mental model needed to work in this area is counterintuitive and just damn complex. I find the icons in the top right confusing more than anything. Before: You have a page, some previous versions, and a talk page. After: You have lots of versions of a page. There may be a stable page, a sighted page, a reviewed page. Or not. You might be looking at a draft (in which case the stable version is older), or you might be looking at a stable version (vice versa). So, please let's not inflict this on en without making a few decent improvements to the user experience. Steve

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:> There is a page on the wiki collecting comments, please add yours: Done. One thing that makes testing this thing quite difficult is that the experience for admins and non-admins is very different. In particular if you're an admin, every change you make is auto-reviewed. You really need to have two browsers open to do any playing. Steve

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh— it's there. Hmph. I could have sworn it wasn't.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Aude <aude.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: The ones in use are supposed to be imported but some were not. I think the styling of the high visibility flagged revs mv-revisiontag is bad for usability: It's by far one of the most visible thing on a typical articles. While I'm sure that mv-revisiontag is great important to flagged revs developers I don't think it's *that* important to editors and especially readers. It's certainly not more important than the edit and history tabs which it is 1000x more visible than. Perhaps it should be moved down and become a component of the review box at the top of the article, keeping no more than a tab and/or icon at the top of the page?