Hi,

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, at 10:12, Risker wrote:

Well, hold on here.

On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of "bugs." I don't think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is the wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than others to ad hoc collaborative processes.

Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and inappropriate.

...

In this case, we have a broad range of issues:

• does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload

another photo

The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to do it?

It does. There is an Edit button at the top, and an Upload button at the left.

...

• does it reflect copyright holders' licenses accurately and effectively

Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less accurate than the Commons/File pages?

...

• does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos

The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the software being used to display more information and detail in the image. If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer problem, it's an image usage problem.

Showing description is important for privacy of subject of photo in some cases. I.e. if I kill a cat for a movie and someone takes a picture, I should be able to tell readers that I'm doing this for a movie. The long description usually does so, if needed. Otherwise the readers might perceive that doing this is my usual activity.

This is probably not the original issue in mind of the first folk who mentioned privacy two paragraphs up there, but that's the first thing I can think of.

Another thing is slideshows. "The Big Pictures" website lets people browse pictures with long descriptions. We have galleries, and MV's left/right arrows. Why not make something in the middle, with both a long description/caption, and these left/right arrows?

...

• does it reflect a "look and feel" that we feel OK about and is consistent

with the rest of the software etc. etc.

What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague suggestions that there is an issue.

MV is inconsistent, because other pages (history, talk) still force a page reload, for instance, and returning from them back to an article isn't as easy as one 'X' button.

...

Fixing one "bug" may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient.

Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had "bugs" or unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants.

Risker/Anne

No comment on this one.

svetlana