*Make it easier to contribute from projects. *— brought this up with the
team working on the mediawiki.ui/oo.ui UX standardization work, great
point, and critical to the success of the projects.
*Make it easy to check the current status.* — Jon is working on this, it
will be the focus of the next mediawiki.ui hack day on the 11th.
*Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman>
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Pau Giner <pginer(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I propose we try this proposal in code, on real
process flows that
actually exists and inform our decisions of what
to change and how to
change it on actual user feedback and testing.
I totally agree with this. However, in my opinion there are some aspects
that we need to support better for this to work in practice:
- *Make it easier to contribute from projects.* With previous
incarnations of Agora I tried to contribute changes: a loading indicator
control (GitHub pull
request<https://github.com/wikimedia/agora/pull/7>that I
later converted into Gerrit
patchset <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/53353/> when the GitHub
repo was deprecated) and a spacing
fix<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/75079/>9/>.
Nothing got merged nor requests for improvement were made. I think this is
due to:
- The fact that this involves merging into core, so it makes it
hard to accept a component that works for a specific project and will
become more generic in the future by iterating.
- The lack of a clear discussion process: Since this involved
different roles and teams it is hard to solve, but we need clarity on who
should contributors ask to reviewing and approve those changes.
- The difficulty to review UI code without context. Even for a
simple change of colour or padding, the person reviewing the change needs
to answers many questions (how dis it look before? how does it look now?,
is it affecting the look of any other component anywhere else in the
system?) which require a lot of work to answer. Make it easy to view the UI
components would facilitate this process (which leads to the next point).
- *Make it easy to check the current status.* If the current state of
the style is embedded into a specific project, or a local installation of
Mediawiki is needed, we are putting too much barriers for most of our users
(think on the steps that a volunteer designer at a Hackathon should do to
view the Agora buttons and suggest a different tone of blue). Ideally we
should be able to provide a single source of truth that can be easily
viewed, shared, and contributed to. The more replication and barriers, the
hardest it will be to put a quick iterative process to work.
Don't take the above as a complaint. Making a process that involves many
teams and roles work fluently is really hard. I just wanted to share some
of the issues I found when tried to go through this process in previous
attempts so that we can learn from previous experiences.
Pau
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jared Zimmerman <jzimmerman(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Great conversation everyone, looking forward to seeing everyone weigh in,
> I don't want to get too far down into the weeds of form design though.
> Let's leave that for the designers of individual features. My hope is that
> we'd have some general principals and a system that is flexible enough to
> implement them. Designing theoretical UI libraries and coming up with
> possible issues with them is something we could probably do until the end
> of time.
>
> I propose we try this proposal in code, on real process flows that
actually exists and inform our decisions of what
to change and how to
change it on actual user feedback and testing.
>
> The subtleties of color and arrangement will change, I have no doubt, but
> let's not get so caught up in the what ifs that we don't actually make
> things.
>
> Sent while mobile
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Friesen <
> daniel(a)nadir-seen-fire.com> wrote:
>
>> Neutral = Grey
>> Destructive = Red
>> Constructive = Green
>> Primary = Blue
>>
>
> Should we start a new thread about this, and keep the conversation on the
> topic of button semantics and the according CSS? :)
>
> For reference:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Agoraswatch.png is
> the current palette.
>
> --
> Steven Walling,
> Product Manager
>
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
>
--
Pau Giner
Interaction Designer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design