If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a fully
production-ready and usable state. What's getting released here is barely
ready for beta. It's buggy, it's full of unexpected UX issues, it's not
ready to go live on one of the top 10 websites in the world. It's got to be
in really good shape to get there.
Until software is actually ready for widescale use, small and very limited
beta tests are exactly the way to go, followed by maybe slightly larger UAT
pools. Yeah, that takes longer and requires actual work to find willing
testers. Quit taking shortcuts through your volunteers.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey guys,
I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team
to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've
been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in
discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at
the scale of Wikipedia.
I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in
terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's
probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads
privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a
mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we
can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it
when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or
readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic.
Thanks,
Sue
On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by
default (it's easy
to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to
improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the
last few weeks).
Thanks for the reply. :-)
If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on
users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building
cool
new features, they will ideally be
uncontroversial and users will
actively
want to enable them and eventually have them
enabled by default. Many new
features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly
regularly
without fanfare or objection. But I see a common
thread among
unsuccessful
deployments of features such as
ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and
MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger
pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>