I agree that presenting this amount of choice to everyone is unwanted and almost definitely unneeded.
If we do have a choice presented to users, it should only be more advanced users, as a concession since they are likely going to need to continue using Wikitext for some time while VE matures and supports more tasks. These are the same users we made the preference to use the source editor for section edit links, and we are hoping to keep the VisualEditor close at hand for these people so they will use it more and more over time.
It's also possible that the best solution is to leave it alone as it is.
On the point of switching between visual and source modes, this is already on our roadmap, but won't make it into the July release.
I've attached some mockups. I made them several months ago, but they show the general idea. The mockups show 2 edit tabs, but really there would be a single edit tab in this design since source is integrated.
You will also notice something we call outline mode. This has to do with the issue of how difficult floated content is to work with and organize in the current "layout" mode - as well as how much the extra gaps we put between some elements to allow text insertion throw the layout off. We are still exploring this concept, please don't get to distracted by it - I just wanted to show that we imagine editors being able to switch between multiple modes easily.
- Trevor
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
I actually completely agree with Steven from the bug report when he says "The dropdown arrow or cog is too much unnecessary choice. The point of section edit links is to enable speedy editing of single sections, so introducing a dropdown is overloading things. Most new editors will appreciate defaulting to VE, and for power users who need edit source, this is where having a preference to change your default to edit source would come in handy"
I also worry putting the word 'source' near 'edit' actually would have a detrimental effect on editing as it suggests you will be editing code.
Also +1 to "By deemphasizing wikitext editor we both send the clear message about our intentions to have VE be the default edit environment. "
Out of interest is there any data here to describe why having an edit source link in sections is needed? I think any decision here should be more data driven. I worry that this issue is given more importance then it needs.
Is this several community members asking for this feature or is there a real problem here?
Here are some questions I'd suggest get answered via data first
- What percentage of users actually hit edit source when in Visual Editor
mode? 2) Are people switching to edit source on certain types of pages e.g. namespaces? (if so maybe the preference might be set for different namespaces) 3) Are people switching to edit source from Visual Editor primarily on sections or is it the same on full page edits? 4) What is the average edit count of an editor switching to source?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:40:58 +0200, Trevor Parscal <
tparscal@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
After discussing a few different options, including showing both links (really cluttered and horribly long in some languages)
There's a mockup of this, too, linking for completeness: http://i.imgur.com/J8v3pts.png /
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/68868/
We have decided that it's probably best to make the edit link show an alternative in a menu on hover. There's a prototype of this (somewhere) that MatmaRex has hacked together (screenshot attached) which is close.
The code for this is here: CSS + JS: http://pastebin.com/pvtAw1ZT + http://pastebin.com/dUpBfiVu - these links will probably expire
soon-ish, so
please copy the code if anybody cares
I have also been considering a horizontal expando - something like http://i.imgur.com/2Ai0evO.png - but I don't really like it myself.
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
If we strongly feel that VE is the future of wikipedia and are making it
the
default editor than we should be consistent at an article or section
level.
The thing that I feel is paralysis of choice, we already have enough
users
that don't understand the concept of editing much less the confidence to
go
edit. I think that Visual Editor goes a long way to help reduce the fear associated with editing. We will be taking a step back if we make the
user
decide between two methods of editing, increasing the steps and cognitive barrier to editing.
I've quickly mocked up 3 options based on a conversation we had in the UX group for placement of a single edit action, that would point to the
default
editor environment for the user. The last one would be better if the left margin on the body copy was a bit wider.
To address the issue of users wanting choice, I would postpone that
choice
rather than making it a barrier into the edit environment.
A quick sketch of access point for opening the wikitext editor from
within
the visual editor environment.
By deemphasizing wikitext editor we both send the clear message about our intentions to have VE be the default edit environment.
Again, in this particular instance I think choice, even though requested
by
some users is antithetical to our overall goals of a seamless experience
for
getting users, especially new users between read and edit environments.
Jared Zimmerman \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
VisualEditor has the option to take over section edit links. We find
this
is probably going to be unpopular for people who want to at least
sometimes
edit wikitext, but don't want to loose them as VisualEditor users. After discussing a few different options, including showing both links (really cluttered and horribly long in some languages) and using icons (no icon would really convey what we want here).
We have decided that it's probably best to make the edit link show an alternative in a menu on hover. There's a prototype of this (somewhere)
that
MatmaRex has hacked together (screenshot attached) which is close. I
mocked
something up that is similar but perhaps a little better looking.
Max brings up a good point about my mockup, which is that it doesn't
quite
fit with other vector-isms. Given that Vector is something we want to evolve, we shouldn't get too caught up in that, but it's something worth considering since deviation from what vector is today should probably
only
be done if it's in the direction of what Vector should be in the future.
I'm hoping that others on the list could perhaps make suggestions, offer ideas, make simple mockups or prototypes and help make this feature as
good
as possible.
We need to have this solved quickly since we are releasing in a couple
of
weeks.
- Trevor
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
