On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly regularly without fanfare or objection.
Indeed, change-aversion tends to correlate pretty strongly with impact on existing workflows [1] and noticeable changes to user experience and behavior. This is pretty clearly laid out by a Google UX researcher here: https://www.gv.com/lib/change-aversion-why-users-hate-what-you-launched-and-...
Media Viewer is actually a perfect example of this -- most of the functionality people expect (get to the File: page, see a summary, see categories, get the full-size version, get multiple resolutions, see attribution information, etc.) is there; ...
Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt correct, sometimes you get resolutions which are silly (especially svgs at launch, but also slideshows on a file page include a very large license logo), it takes extra clicks to get to the full-size version, only some of the categories are shown including otherwise 'hidden' categories, and sometimes the summary isnt shown.
These are a combination of design flaws and blatant bugs which were known before launch. Has the WMF done a quick estimate on the amount of time before these basic functions of media viewer are working correctly? Has the WMF allocated developers to ensure these basic functions of media viewer work correct? I would be much happier to support it remaining opt out if WMF could give an estimate on when this will be completed, rather than reading WMF directors say 'most of the functionality people expect ... is there'. It's not, except in the 'proof of concept' mode. Its a long way from being ready to leave beta, much like Visual Editor was.
-- John Vandenberg