Page MenuHomePhabricator

Interaction Timeline: Bundle multiple successive edits to the same by the same user
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Problem

It is common for one user to edit the same page multiple times in quick succession. This is often because a user made a minor mistake they want to correct, or they decided to make an additional change. (For a real-world example, see my edits on this article.)

We will want to bundle these on the Timeline both for information density and productivity (e.g. it is not always useful to have to view multiple diffs when 1 could suffice.) However, we will need to take into account how some users can hide harassing comments in successive edits. We'll also want to consider how a user could view the byte change and edit summary for each edit.


Use Case 1: Successive innocuous edits

See the edits that Bananas made on this page history. The three diffs combined show this edit which is comprised of this first edit, this second edit and this third edit. Each diff individually is not interesting, but the combined diff is interesting.

This is how this interaction currently looks on the Timeline.


Use Case 2: Hiding a malicious edit in between innocuous edits

See the edits that Apples made on on this page history. The three diffs combined show this innocuous edit but the middle Apples actually made this neutral edit first followed by this malicious edit which is obfuscated by this cover-up edit.

For this case, we will want to provide a way to view each individual edit separately.

This is how this interaction currently looks on the Timeline.


Use Case 3: Successive edits on the timeline, but not in full history.

We'll also need to think about how we treat successive edits when there are edits by other users to that page. For example, on this page there are three users who are editing, but this Timeline only shows two, and it appears that three of Apples' edits are successive, but they are not — there are intermediate edits by Durian.

Either this doesn't matter, and we can address this in the same design solution as the above use cases, or we ignore this type of situation as "non-successive" and they continue to show on the Timeline as individual boxes.


Acceptance criteria

  • Only bundle edits that were made within one hour. (TBD final time value)

Event Timeline

From a whiteboarding session with @CSindersWMF:

See T179032#3801142 for more details.

TBolliger added a comment.EditedDec 18 2017, 9:17 PM

Moved from T179032#3801142:

From a whiteboarding session with @CSindersWMF about T181566: Interaction Timeline: Bundle multiple successive edits to the same by the same user

Idea #1 would have two states — collapsed and uncollapsed, with the toggle outside the edit cards. When collapsed, the card displays the number of edits and the page name, but not the edit summaries. Clicking on the edit card opens the combined diff of all three edits. We need to decide a default state (collapsed vs. uncollapsed) and could potentially provide users with the option/filter for the default state.

Idea #2 would also have two states — collapsed and uncollapsed. The default behavior is collapsed and the card displays the number of edits and the page name, but not the edit summaries. The link to uncollapse lives inside the edit card. Clicking the link uncollapses the edits, clicking the rest of the card opens the combined diff. We could potentially provide users with the option/filter for the default state.

We'll still need to decide if this covers Use Case #3. I think there's a strong case to be made either way and regardless I do not think Use Case #3 needs its own design.

Hi all, added some bundlesssss.

This is very much a work in progress, still working on these for the new year. But what are your thoughts about how we are grouping information?

The screenshot shows which wires are related (one is the collapsed, and then the corresponding expanded wires).

Thanks, Caroline! 🌈 A few comments/notes:

  • This wireframe introduces a new type of layout with the edit card indented closer to the timeline (due to absence of the timestamp.) In addition to some technical implementation concerns (which can be solved if need-be) I also have a concern that users may think these boxes are of higher significance than just an attempt at condensing some real estate. My personal 2¢ is we should show the first timestamp used. We've already agreed to only bundle edits that are made within 60 minutes.
  • Expanding the card is clear, but how does someone view the combined diff? What are the click hit-targets of the box?
  • This may drop priority again — no need to provide another round of wireframes now.

I don't like that some cards have "expand edits" and others have "expand diff" I shouldn't have to read each one to know what it's going to do.

In reality, the label is unnecessary, clicking the card should preform the action (expanding the diff). It seems weird that sometimes that would instead show more cards.

Although, we could resolve this by giving it a different visual treatment... for instance it could look like there are several cards stacked ontop of each other.

TBolliger removed CSindersWMF as the assignee of this task.Feb 13 2018, 11:24 PM

I have mentioned your interesting idea in a French wikipedia discussion during week 2018 37 :

  • naviguer plus rapidement dans les diff de l'historique des versions d'un article donné ?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Questions_techniques/semaine_37_2018#naviguer_plus_rapidement_dans_les_diff_de_l'historique_des_versions_d'un_article_donn%C3%A9_?