On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2014 17:30, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
That said, we shouldn't be afraid of making changes where we reasonably think they might be a good idea, even without evidence they actually are. You can't have data on everything. I just don't like "Well we are undoubtedly making things better for the reader" used as a counter argument to criticism when we simply don't know what it will do for the average reader.
Yes, it is the sort of statement that probably should not be used without being followed by a link to actual UI testing results.
I should follow up on this and say that no one working on the Beta Feature thinks it's a good idea to try and design typography that only works for people who aren't logged in/don't edit. The design goals listed at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/03/27/typography-refresh/ and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh#Summary_of_changes are pretty universal to all users, as they should be.
I don't really think that when it comes to typography, either type of visitor to Wikimedia sites is more or less important when it comes to listening to feedback. Even if Nathan was right, sometimes it's hard for us to balance the two. What I said in reply to Risker is that I don't think there saying the change is a failure is fair or true, based on the level and kind of feedback we've been getting from both readers *and* editors.