| Jan_Dittrich | |
| Jul 7 2016, 8:56 AM |
| F4248153: customvalue.png | |
| Jul 7 2016, 9:06 AM |
If the value type is set to a non-custom value, we should provide information of what "unknown" and "no value" mean. This can be done by adding a title attribute to the HTML element around the text.
Wording:
No Value: "It is assumed that this value can't exists"
Unknown value: "It is assumed that this value exists, but we don't know it"
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Jdlrobson | T78430 [Epic] Getting Wikidata to render nicely on mobile web | |||
| Open | None | T158181 Aim for workflow equivalence for MediaWiki on desktop and mobile web | |||
| Open | None | T95878 [Story] Make Wikidata editable on mobile web | |||
| Open | None | T95649 Create and document a stable framework for extending the Wikibase UI | |||
| Stalled | None | T40968 Keyboard-navigability of the repo UI | |||
| Open | None | T54136 [Epic] Redesign Item UI for Wikidata repo | |||
| Invalid | None | T147837 [Epic] Collection of actionable UX Bugs on Wikidata | |||
| Open | None | T139356 Provide in-context help or hints to users | |||
| Open | None | T139571 add title attribute to non-custom-value signifier |
Do you have wording suggestions? I have a hard time coming up with something that doesn't say exactly what is already there.
No Value: "It is assumed that this value can't exists"
Unknown value: "It is assumed that this value exists, we we don't know it"
Sounds good. Typo fix:
No Value: "It is assumed that this value can't exists"
Unknown value: "It is assumed that this value exists, but we don't know it"
One minor, a few major problems:
I'm not sure how to fix the last problem. IMO I think we can be more verbose in the title attribute than as the original suggestions.
"An editor believes"--but it may be many editors in agreement about "no value".
"The community believes that this property does not have a value for this entity."
I think it would be good to work in something about sourcing in that case, so maybe,
"The community believes, based on the sources [not sure how to phrase that], that this property does not have a value for this entity."
Of course, there may be no explicit sourcing on the item (or it may be in the form of External IDs rather than the reference statements), so maybe that takes us the wrong direction.
And that may be too verbose. :D
But plainly, someone at some point added the statement...
This makes sense to me as a case against the passive sentence. Since that someone was an editor, "An editor believes" would match; While "the community" allows an grammatically active sentence construct, it seems to ma as nondescript as the passive construction.
Of course, there may be no explicit sourcing on the item (or it may be in the form of External IDs rather than the reference statements), so maybe that takes us the wrong direction.
Yes – I like the idea of emphasizing sources, however, it would basically state that we always have sources for it, even if the user can not see them :)
Ok then we are at the following?
No Value: "The community believes, based on the reference, that this property does not have a value for this entity."
Unknown value: "It is assumed that this value exists, but we don't know it."
I was doing it once for no value and then I assumed you would pick up on using the same general text for unknown value.
Right, but does it really matter that an editor added it? Generally the UI design for the MediaWiki suites tends away from pointing that out (though I can think of some exceptions e.g. "last edited by X on Y date" here and there"). Passive is slightly better in the case where you and I don't really matter having added a claim.
The community at large also has to believe the statement is true (verifiable, rather?), else another editor would remove the statement.
I'm not picky about this, just bringing it to attention.
Of course, there may be no explicit sourcing on the item (or it may be in the form of External IDs rather than the reference statements), so maybe that takes us the wrong direction.
Yes – I like the idea of emphasizing sources, however, it would basically state that we always have sources for it, even if the user can not see them :)
Yes, that doesn't help much. :D
Latest iteration:
No Value: "The community believes, based on the reference, that this property does not have a value for this entity."
Unknown value: "The community believes, based on the reference, that this property does have a value for this entity, but it is not know (yet)."