@KHammerstein we never actually discussed about having large cards in the read more section an individual article.

There are a few issues that need worked out here before we can move forward:

1. The style of these cards is much to similar in style to the card itself. This makes them seem as important (and possibly part of) the main content of the article… instead of ancillary content - which is what we should be communicating
2. The amount of information on the card seems like a lot. Unlike previews, the user hasn't communicated that they are looking for more information. So I am not sure we should be showing them this level of detail.
3. The actual cards are large/visual. A large more visual presentation of read more was actually a/b tested against the simple list and found to be less effective.

We have to find a way to communicate to users the this is different content from the main article by making the design different. The design of the items should make them clear that these are subordinate to the article currently being read. Can you put together something that makes these less prominent?

Let me know if you would like to discus any of the points above.

@Fjalapeno

1. Good point, I've heard this from others too and will work on the visual design to make these distinct.
2. This is the same style of card in the explore feed, and both styles are meant to show you related to articles to what you've read. The information is shown to encourage you to explore, even though you haven't been intentionally looking for it. Do you think those in the explore feed have too much info also?
3. I didn't realize. Can you link me to the a/b test?

We can go with the smaller titles that just have image + title if it works better.

@KHammerstein

2. I think it works well on the feed. The user are looking for something interesting here. So I think the extra information is warranted and makes sense.

3. I don't know where the numbers are unfortunately… this was a while back before I was doing PM - I just remember hearing it and being a little surprised. Dan Garry had ran this experiment on Android - you may be able to ask him.

@KHammerstein I think the alternate designs are better! The only change I would make would be to include the save icon as well.

In my opinion a user should be able to save anything they are looking at without having to "open it" first. This will encourage more users to save things for later - and remove friction throughout the UI.

Is this still valid? Seems like some of this was subsumed in the "feed reskin" task, but not other parts?

Use Language icon that is already there in xcode
and here are the rest of the icons.

We also need to update the table of contents to add this section and make the styling distinct from content sections. See M117: Contents for a visual mock up.

We also need to update the table of contents to add this section and make the styling distinct from content sections. See M117: Contents for a visual mock up.

@Nirzar @KHammerstein

Please provide consistently sized icons. The icons from above are inconsistently sized:

similar pages: 23x23

warnings: 28x24

edit history: 27x25

language: 28x24

Here you go, all of them on 30x30 canvas. it should work now :)

Great work on moving all this to the footer. It makes a really big difference in top-of-article design, and looks so much more mobiley.

I tend to agree we should be using smaller cards for related articles, but in general so glad this got done.