David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on Oliver Keyes' blog:
http://quominus.org/archives/714
He's coming from the perspective of liaison with newbies. Read the comments.
(I will note that Antoine Musso was right in the previous discussion
that Mantis has a nice, friendly interface. I myself was most
displeased to discover that (a) the code itself is really horrible (b)
it's all but unsupported even to free-software standards.)
Interesting post. Can probably be summed up "technical tool doesn't work
well for non-techies." Film at 11.
Mark H. and I have had previous discussions about generally improving user
feedback tools. The Wikimedia Foundation's approach seems to largely consist
of a giant feedback bar with giant colorful faces (no, seriously:
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MoodBar>).
My notes on a better approach to this problem are here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kvetch>. There are associated bugs
scattered around as well.
You quickly run into an issue of scope, though. What should be flagged as a
user content issue? What's a technical or software issue? What's a legal
issue? And depending on the answer, there may be vastly different areas
where to stick the issues (OTRS, a talk page, a noticeboard, reference desk,
help desk, Bugzilla, etc.). But a generic reusable feedback tool that
doesn't treat our users like retards would be cool.
Even if it just guided the user to the appropriate place. Help wizard,
maybe? Dunno.
MZMcBride