On 22 July 2013 11:45, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder users at all, that it's JS footprint is nonexistent, and that the interface changes aren't that bothersome (which, to an extend, are true). Even with all that, what reason is there to purposely deprive users of the choice to completely hide VE if they're sure they have no intention of using it?
Adding a preference to disable VisualEditor in normal user preferences (rather than making it as easy as possible for gadgets to disable if people so chose) would be a lie.
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia thinks is appropriate. This would be a lie. For a similar example, see the removal of the "disable JavaScript" option from Firefox 23.
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia will support. This would be a lie. We have always intended for VisualEditor to be a wiki-level preference, and for this user-level preference to disappear once the need for an opt-in (i.e., the beta roll-out to production wikis) is over.
It would imply that Wikimedia thinks preference bloat is an appropriate way forward for users. This would be a lie. Each added preference adds to the complexity of our interface, increasing even further the choice paralysis and laughable usability of our existing preference system.
It would imply that Wikimedia thinks preference bloat is an appropriate way forward for expenditure of donor funds. This would be a lie. Each added preference adds to the complexity of our software - so increasing the cost and slowness of development and testing, and the difficulty of user support.
It would imply that Wikimedia can get rid of under-used preferences. This would be a lie. We do not have a successful track record of getting rid of preferences, even when used by a handful of our users, even when set away from default mostly by inactive accounts; accepting this form of product debt now on the spurious claim that we'll pay it off later is untrue.
It would imply that getting rid of preference later rather than now would in any way reduce the outcry. This would be a lie. The very few times we have done this, the arguments from those campaigning for retention are generally emotive and not based on the above points - that "it's just a little preference, not harming anyone", that Wikimedia "has enough money for just this one item", or that the preference is the only thing keeping the user from leaving - an argument that almost always is visibly proven untrue after the preference is removed.
Creating such a preference is a lie, and a lie I cannot endorse.
J.