Page MenuHomePhabricator

Improve usability of snak type specifier
Open, LowPublic

Description

A user can specify a value in a statement. A value is normally "custom", but there are also "no value" and "unknown value"

Problems:

  1. The Icon is non-standard
  2. The term »value« may be unclear
  3. When which value needs to be chosen is unclear

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added subscribers: Zppix, Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJul 7 2016, 9:56 AM

Suggestion for tooltip wording (see T139357)

  • "no value" means it can't be (like for children if the person did surely not have children),
  • unknown means its there but we don't know the value
  • custom means just it has a value)
Jan_Dittrich updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 7 2016, 10:01 AM
Jan_Dittrich added a comment.EditedJul 7 2016, 10:10 AM

Design Idea: Since the snag value type is directly concerned with the value, we may combine it with the value input box like:

Charlie_WMDE renamed this task from Improve usability of snag type specifier to Improve usability of snak type specifier.Jul 7 2016, 11:39 AM
Jan_Dittrich moved this task from Incoming to Incoming WD on the WMDE-Design board.Sep 5 2016, 1:28 PM
Restricted Application added a project: Design. · View Herald TranscriptSep 5 2016, 1:28 PM
thiemowmde triaged this task as Low priority.EditedSep 5 2016, 2:22 PM

I totally agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. However:

  • I believe this is something that can not be expressed with a "standard" icon. It's an icon for one reason: We want this button to be as small as possible because it is not needed very often.
  • What bugs me the most is that the two icons are so similar. This was worse before I redesigned them, see https://twitter.com/maettig/status/722360746991071232.
  • I'm open for new labels for the three things. But I did not understood your comment above.
  • Moving the icon to the end does have two issues:
    • There is no input box in two of the three modes.
    • We want to reserve this space for other things, e.g. validation and error indicators.

I'm open for new labels for the three things. But I did not understood your comment above.

Which comment do you refer to? Then I could try to express it better.

T139578#2436612 starts with the promise to give suggestions for alternative wordings, but contains sentences where I can't figure out what is meant as a label and what is meant as a tooltip.

I assume you mean this?

Suggestion for tooltip wording (see T139357)

  • "no value" means it can't be (like for children if the person did surely not have children),
  • "unknown" means its there but we don't know the value
  • "custom" means it has a value

These 3 would be the texts that might appear in a tooltip. They are currently a bit informal (on the other hand, this might not be bad for understanding it)

What is the text that would appear in tooltips? For example, I don't believe it's helpful to repeat the label in the tooltip. Do you mean the italics snippets only? Including the "children" example? The full text is very informal and more like something I would use when explaining the three snak types in person. It's also disputable because we can never be sure if somebody does have children and just never talked about it.

It was meant to have everything after the bullet point.

For example, I don't believe it's helpful to repeat the label in the tooltip.

Good idea, we should get rid of that.

The full text is very informal and more like something I would use when explaining the three snak types in person

If we find a way to make it easy to understand with a less formal way of explaining, let's take that. But it not, I'd suggest using an informal way if it helps the user.

Jan_Dittrich moved this task from Incoming WD to Review on the WMDE-Design board.Sep 27 2016, 6:57 AM
Volker_E moved this task from Incoming to WMDE on the Design board.Jan 5 2017, 5:36 PM
Aklapper removed Jan_Dittrich as the assignee of this task.Jun 19 2020, 4:28 PM

This task has been assigned to the same task owner for more than two years. Resetting task assignee due to inactivity, to decrease task cookie-licking and to get a slightly more realistic overview of plans. Please feel free to assign this task to yourself again if you still realistically work or plan to work on this task - it would be welcome!

For tips how to manage individual work in Phabricator (noisy notifications, lists of task, etc.), see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T228575#6237124 for available options.
(For the records, two emails were sent to assignee addresses before resetting assignees. See T228575 for more info and for potential feedback. Thanks!)