I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why only 2.8%
(47 out of
1668)
of your mainspace edits since 2016
are made with Visual Editor. To answer Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with
189/
399 mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236 out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering this discussion about fundraising.
While Visual Editor has its benefits and
I also use it on meta with similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a mailing list won't make it happen.
Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major edits
on meta?
I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?
Dan