Gerard,
I don't think anyone is insisting on the status quo. But we do expect that improvements be, well, better than what they improve. Breaking attribution for our media files, or hiding it by requiring a click, is not an "improvement". The people who created and uploaded that media deserve their credit, and potential reusers need to see the license at once. That is not "junk".
Developing for mobile is nice and should continue, but desktop is far from dead. I don't even try to edit from mobile; I want my real keyboard and monitor, not the crappy on screen one and 3" display.
What is suitable for desktop often isn't for mobile. One size fits all won't work there, nor will "forget the desktop users". We'll have plenty of both for the foreseeable future. On Aug 15, 2014 3:18 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am afraid you do not get the point. The point is that the desktop as we know it is our history. It is like the Dodo; something that is best experienced in the museum to be replaced by something contemporary in the real world. The development of a single UI is what you should consider and expect and it should support any platform.
What the Mediaviewer does is move us away from a cluttered unintelligible page of data junk for those who are not initiated. It is a step towards something intelligible that may be supported on any platform.
Yes, what you hear is people whining about their desktop experience. They want to keep things as it is and, any argument, any approach is fine as far as they are concerned.
Our desktop experience has improved somewhat over the years but it is all the ballast of the past that is keeping us back. It is all the byzantine embellishments that are so "important" to have. But really, when people like myself refuse to edit Wikipedia because the experience is so bad you have lost with me more than is justified by insisting on the status quo.
Ask yourself, who do we do it for and who should be able to edit.
FYI I was involved in Wikipedia before there was a Wikimania. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 August 2014 10:02, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
I believe that the disputes about MediaViewer are mostly about the
desktop
platform's version, as most editors use the desktop platform to edit.
In general terms, I have yet to hear someone say that the Mobile platform is a low development priority. I am familiar with Mobile-l. Mobile development has a long road ahead of it but I feel Mobile is overall
moving
in the right direction. In my experience, Mobile development has good interpersonal harmony among participants, and everyone is hoping to
convert
a portion of mobile app users to new contributors.
Pine On Aug 14, 2014 11:58 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am getting so pissed off.
Let us be realistic. The user experience sucks ... It sucks big time
and
even though the "community" is comfortable with it, it impedes the use
by
the people we do it all for. They are the READERS.. they are not the editors and the least this is done for are the people who are so
indignant
because their experience changes.
When you look at the last year, the biggest changes are driven by the development for mobiles. The projections make it plain this is where
our
customers will be. The existing Wikipedia with its monobook and what
have
you skin will not be seen, used or be relevant to them. Our traffic is transitioning to mobile. Editing starts to happen on mobile and if it
is
not clear to the "community" that future development will be in this direction they live under a rock or they are in denial.
Have a look at a Commons page on a mobile.. It is beyond bad and beyond useful. With the Multimedia viewer it becomes useful. (NB there are
things
in there that are brain dead but that is a different story)
WAKE UP. Our world is changing. Trying to shame the WMF development in
a
different direction is counter productive, ill considered and even destructive. When you are the "community", and when this is new to
you, I
hope you will sit back for a moment and consider this. When this does
not
make a difference to you, there is always the right of departure. In my brutal opinion we have no option but to move towards a more mobile
centred
appreciation. The alternative is stagnation and irrelevance. That does
not
need to happen when we accept that the world changes around us. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 August 2014 17:28, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Re: Erik Möller's remark: "In general, though, let's talk. The
overarching
principle we're not going to budge on is that this process is really not acceptable:
- The UI changes
- A subset of users is upset and organizes a poll/vote
- The poll/vote closes with a request to undo said UI Change and a
request is filed 4) WMF offers compromise or says no 5) A local hack is used to undo said UI change
That's no way to develop software, and that's no way to work
together...."
=========
I could spend 10,000 words on this. I'll try to keep it
(comparatively)
short.
The reason this dysfunctional situation develops, Erik, is because
there
are no steps A, B, C, D, E, F, and G preceding #1 on the list.
As things currently stand, this is the way the software development
process
at WMF seems to me to work:
- Engineers collecting paychecks obviously need something to do.
- Someone comes up with a bright idea that sounds good on paper.
- Engineers decide to make that idea a reality and start work.
- Inadequately tested software, sometimes of dubious utility, is
unilaterally imposed on volunteers.
- If new software is problematic enough, volunteers revolt by any
means
necessary.
- WMF forces changes down throat of volunteers by any means
necessary.
This is truly "no way to develop software" and "no way to work
together."
Here is the way the process SHOULD begin:
- WMF staffers, plural, identify by user names/IP addresses the
10,000
or
so very active volunteers across all projects and database them.
- WMF staffers further divide this group into coherent "types":
content
writers, gnome-type copy editors, structural adapters (template
people,
bot
operators, etc.), quality control workers (NPP, AfD), vandal
fighters,
behavioral administrators (ArbCom, Ani, the various Admin pages), and
drone
bees who do nothing but Facebook-style drama mongering. Multiple
categories
may apply to single individuals and this list is not necessarily exhaustive.
- Once identified, WMF staffers frequently and regularly poll very
active
users in each category about WHAT THEY NEED. Different surveys for different volunteer types.
Software development starts ONLY when a real need is identified.
Software should be introduced on En-WP, De-WP, or Commons ONLY when
it
is
Alpha-grade, debugged and ready to roll. (Test things on the smaller
Wikis
first).
Moreover, there should be some polling mechanism to summarize and
analyze
what the 500 million or whatever readers worldwide feel that they
like
and
feel they are missing. "User experience" changes with primary impact
on
readers rather than volunteers (such as MediaViewer) should be made
with
them in mind first and foremost; editing and structural tools should
be
made to actually assist the active volunteers, not created on a whim.
Sometimes the needs of the Readers and the needs of the Volunteers
are
different, let us frankly say. In no case should WMF assume the views
and
criticism of the latter are insignificant or wrong simply because 500,000,000 > 10,000.
Remember this because according to the same logic: 10,000 > 240.
We all agree that we need a bigger pool of very active volunteers.
Most
readers are never going to be very active volunteers, nor do we want
them
to be, since we need specialized skill sets. Most people using the
editing
software are only going to make one or a very few changes a year and
they
are never going to even "see" the backstage world of Wikipedia. That
is
normal and fine.
We do need expert contributors on esoteric topics and we need solid contributors from the developing world and we need to replenish the
people
doing copy editing and quality control work.
We don't need tools that nobody asked for and nobody wants shoved
down
our
throats just because engineers needed something to do.
240 Paid Staff + 10,000 Serious Volunteers + 500,000,000 Readers and occasional minor contributors
Three groups with differing needs.
Tim Davenport /// "Carrite" on WP /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO Corvallis, OR _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe