I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that the current talk page system needs to be improved. However, there's been little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement. I have been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like the system was developed backwards: essential functions for effective discussion that already exist and are used on a daily basis were not included in the initial designs, while the design incorporated plenty of bells and whistles that were considered desirable (although the reasons for desirability weren't necessarily universally held or particularly clear). This has resulted in a huge amount of re-engineering to incorporate (some of the) needed functions , and a lot of downplaying of the feedback given because the feedback has conflicted with the "bells and whistles" of the original design. There is also the fact that it would add another completely different user interface to the editing process, which increases barriers for existing users but even more so for new users.
In other words, the issues with Flow are so deeply rooted in its core design and philosophy that it may not be possible to come up with a product that is actually useful on the projects we have to replace the discussion system we have. It seems that the Flow team has assembled the ingredients to make a chocolate cake with the hope that it will be a suitable replacement for vegetable stew.
Risker/Anne
On 5 September 2014 13:29, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a bigger debacle:
- Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially
as possible to make sure Flow is ready for primetime?
- Is the community preparing itself for a major change, not only in
interface, but to some degree in wiki-philosophy about how discussions are conducted- not to mention the notion that, while wiki software can do almost anything involving asynchronous online communication, it can't do everything as well as other interfaces?
I think Flow will be particularly challenging. I deployed Liquid Threads on another site. I liked the threaded interface, as did others. But overall it was roundly rejected because it was harder to search (I only found out you have to add the namespace to the searchable namespace in LocalSettings.php later), and it invasively took over all discussion pages, among other headache. Problems like these could easily be addressed before a rollout, but they should be addressed as early as possible. It is notable, however, that the more our users used it, the more they seemed to like it.
What can we do to make the Flow rollout as smooth as starting '''now'''?
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: FLOW?
Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful of places, and is still in active deployment.
But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than a new method alongside the old. A long, long overdue and desperately needed replacement -- but a replacement nonetheless.
That also explains the very deliberate development and feedback loop.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe