On Nov 12, 2014 9:44 AM, "James Forrester" <jforrester(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On 8 November 2014 22:01, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly i dont think anyone's even tried to improve the conflict
screen.
> There's probably a lot of low hanging fruit
on the usability of edit
> conflicts which could be persued that have nothing to do with the hard,
> real time editing solutions (as cool as those are).
>
> If someone is intrested in trying to improve edit conflicts, id
reccomend
starting
with:
*only showing relavent parts. If your conflict is in a section, and you
were doing a section edit, dont ask user to resolve entire page (this is
particularly painful on VP type pages).
Yes, though this is normally triggered because the section isn't called
what it used to be; if you're appending a new section to the end of the
page I think it works fine.
I think there is some cases where if someone adds a new section while you
are editing the last line of the previously last section, it will conflict.
I guess more research is needed to even enumerate all the common edit
conflicts.
> Furthermore: find some way to present only the conflicted lines (ie what
> conflict markers show in a source control system) in a user friendly
way.
The normal way to solve this UX problem is "three column diff", but that
(a) isn't remotely good for mobile interfaces, and (b) adds Yet Another
Interface which may confuse as much as it assists. We'd need a lot of
painful UX research and a huge amount of developer time here, I feel.
I think you're right if we really want to do it well. But this might be one
of those cases where we can make it suck much less without quite making it
"good", which might be worthwhile in this case. Maybe.
--bawolff