Page MenuHomePhabricator

Feedback/input/suggestions for Performance inspector
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

I've been working on the new extension Performance inspector that will be the one stop to get performance metrics of an article. The current version collects information from mw.loader.inspect(), the newpp report (as viewable in view source) and collect and check the sizes of each image for an article. It's pluggable so we can add more information in the future.

We have put it on beta and would love to have feedback about the extension and suggestions how we should move it into production (which wiki should we start with etc).

You can find the link in the Tools section on beta:

performanceinspectorlink.png (1×2 px, 1 MB)

Event Timeline

Hi @Peter, thank you for looping us. Do you have a rough timeline in mind, as in ASAP, during the next quarter, o something in between?

2c (first time I'm seeing this).
This looks like a very advanced tool with a quite narrow audience; I'm guessing it will be useful to people who try to optimize page contents, template developers, ...? (I would have expected to find it linked from/embedded into the Page information tool. It seems it can only be launched from the article page, BTW. You probably want to fix the text to "The page has".)

The Image size part seems to clearly state what people should be expecting from the provided data, and what to do if a problem is flagged.
For everything else, I'm guessing it's just meant to provide numbers: it's also quite obscure as no reference point is available so non-techies can't go like "uh, this value doesn't look right today, I should probably tell someone about it".

Hi @Qgil preferable asap, sorry for missing that.

@Elitre yes more feedback please, it's perfect. the position of the link and how you should invoke is one of the things I haven't feel 100% comfortable with. The information is really techie and maybe standout too much? I see your point with showing the information in the context of page information, the thing is that to get hold of the information that the inspector shows, the article needs to be viewed.

Hi @Qgil preferable asap, sorry for missing that.

We will try to give you an answer by the end of our team meeting on Tuesday 6. It's not that we have a bench with community liaisons sitting and waiting to play ball, but we will try to do our best. :)

Meanwhile, you might get more feedback like Erica's (thank you!).

Qgil added a subscriber: Quiddity.

@Quiddity has provided more feedback in the tasks listed above.

My gut feeling is that addressing the issues identified will pretty much put you in a releasable state. Being such a focused feature for advanced editors, an announcement in Tech News (and wikitech-l?) should suffice for communication.

I too have a few comments.

1: There is some advice given in the UI, like 'Images that are too big will be flagged with a warning. You should try to make the images smaller by compressing them and make sure they have the right DPI'. Be VERY careful with that kind of advice, as editors tend to follow it religiously, without consideration of technical or even social consequences. It's part of why we have the don't worry about performance Wikipedia guideline
2: "The page have 2 images" is not proper English I think...
3: I'd also love to see the page's Navigation Timing information revealed in this tool btw.

use as you please :)

Hey @TheDJ thanks for the feedback!

  1. ... It's part of why we have the don't worry about performance Wikipedia guideline

Yes I agree. We warn if an image is larger than 1 mb. You will not get a warning for smaller images (even though you probably should). We can change the limit if we feel that there's a better number.

  1. ....

Thanks will fix that.

3: I'd also love to see the page's Navigation Timing information revealed in this tool btw.

Me and @ori discussed it before (it was there earlier) and we felt that it was too techie and nothing you as an editor could do about the numbers (or almost nothing). But I agree it would sweet to just have an easy way to see them.

Change 309367 had a related patch set uploaded (by Phedenskog):
Changing have to has for a page.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/309367

@Qgil just wanted to check if you had time to talk about the inspector in the meeting the 6th?

Change 309367 merged by jenkins-bot:
Changing have to has for a page.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/309367

(I would have expected to find it linked from/embedded into the Page information tool. It seems it can only be launched from the article page, BTW.

This is being discussed at T129322: How to invoke the performance inspector?. I think this is a blocker for a Wikimedia deployment.

Like @Elitre, I am missing documentation for users at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PerformanceInspector . Why would users enable this inspector? What would they do with the information it provides? Is it a tool to provide more data when i.e. reporting performance bugs or is there more to it? How to interpret the data provided, what is good/bad?

What outreach have you done about this Performance Inspector beyond Phabricator? wikitech-l? I would start there to gather more feedback from the inner circle.

Then when the problems above have been solved and the inspector is ready to be deployed in Wikimedia, a User-notice for Tech News would just do.

If user documentation was created though, it would live at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:PerformanceInspector , I think.

Good, I've started to add more explanations for the metrics at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PerformanceInspector (or should that be at Help:PerformanceInspector?) and will continue later today, also wants @ori feedback there.

About T129322: I can change to what we feel is best, but who has the final call or how should I drive that forward?

About T129322: I can change to what we feel is best, but who has the final call or how should I drive that forward?

I don't know who has the final call, but I know it is not our team (Technical Collaboration). :)

Since this is a feature ultimately targeted to editors, I would check with a product manager there i.e. @Jdforrester-WMF for an opinion.

Good, I've started to add more explanations for the metrics at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PerformanceInspector (or should that be at Help:PerformanceInspector?)

Nice. Yes, ideally; Extension:PerformanceInspector should mostly contain instructions for sysadmins installing the extension and developers modifying it.

About T129322: I can change to what we feel is best, but who has the final call or how should I drive that forward?

Happy to give suggestions; theoretically I have final call as an editor-facing feature but I'm more interested in shipping and getting feedback from users. ;-) Will follow-up there.

I think Community-Relations-Support gave feedback/input/suggestions already. @Peter, do you need anything else from us?

Peter claimed this task.

@Qgil No I got what I needed thanks! Lets close it.

Johan subscribed.

(But please, do add the user-notice tag or ping me once this is available on any of the content wikis or Meta/MediaWiki.org so we can let people know.)