@ovasileva given there is a task relating to this in "doing" should this be in the kanbanana board for visibility?

In T151115#4267958, @Jdlrobson wrote:

@ovasileva given there is a task relating to this in "doing" should this be in the kanbanana board for visibility?

That makes sense. Just noting that we're only in the research phase of this project.

Moving out of this column for the time being until we're able to set a schedule for the project

@alexhollender is this epic relevant any more? Is there a newer epic?

@Jdlrobson I don't know of a newer epic. I believe our latest thinking here is to abandon the current jump-to-top feature and replace it with sticky section headers (T197718), which we've determined is a better solution for the general goal of improving in-article navigation. This makes T196641 and T187804 invalid/not worth addressing. It also means we should rename this epic (perhaps Improve in-article navigation).

moving this out of the design column since the design is complete with a prototype available here: https://in-article-navigation.firebaseapp.com/sticky-headers.html

Sidenote: There's a prototype gadget on Enwiki by TheDJ that enables sticky table headers. I've been using and loving it for a couple of years.

To test:

• Use Firefox or Safari
• Go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets
• Enable the gadget named: "Make sure that headers of tables remain in view as long as the table is in view (requires Firefox v59 or Safari)"
• Save
• Open example article, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_in_Danger

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.js
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.css

T216789 suggests expanding all sections by default which adds a new dimension to how we go about solving the in-article navigation problem. Depending on how important we view that need it would be necessary to re-evaluate potential solutions here.

@alexhollender this is for mobile site but has a lot of overlap with T277717. One possible outcome of that ticket is we have a Vue component that can be applied to the mobile site. Could this task be repurposed so that it builds on top of T277717 in some way, or should it be merged into it?

In T151115#7127320, @Jdlrobson wrote:

@alexhollender this is for mobile site but has a lot of overlap with T277717. One possible outcome of that ticket is we have a Vue component that can be applied to the mobile site. Could this task be repurposed so that it builds on top of T277717 in some way, or should it be merged into it?

hm, I think it might make sense to keep this task separate. Perhaps it could be a subtask of T277717, because as you say this task might be enabled by that work, but I think they are quite different so merging them doesn't make sense to me (at least initially). Also I assume additional tasks would be needed (such as adding the sticky header to mobile, repurposing it to meet the needs of this request) even after we complete T277717, before we could deliver on this task.