Page MenuHomePhabricator

Better highlight a linked post on Structured discussions
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Problem

At the moment, a post linked on SD is highlighted by a green border. That border apparently confuses come people who don't understand that meaning.

Proposed design
  • Use the same color #c8ccd1 used by block quotes in articles on mobile frontend:
  • Add some more space (padding-left: 2em) between the cited post and the left border

Example from Hamlet:

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added a project: Collaboration-Team-Triage. · View Herald TranscriptApr 23 2018, 9:29 AM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald Transcript
Restricted Application added a project: Growth-Team. · View Herald TranscriptSep 14 2018, 12:49 PM
SBisson added a subscriber: SBisson.Oct 2 2018, 1:16 PM

This is not a citation but a conversation with one post highlighted. The main use case is a notification like "Someone replied to topic X", when you click on it you go to the topic X page with the reply highlighted.

This is what the proposed fix looks like.

Before

After

This is what it could look like using yellow to represent the "highlight" paradigm if we really want it to stand out.

Trizek-WMF added a subscriber: RHo.EditedOct 2 2018, 1:55 PM

@RHo, your proposal looks too much like a quote. Shoudn't we keep that grey line for quotes (T94644#3598902 and T205978) and have the highlight in blue instead?

RHo added a comment.Oct 2 2018, 2:34 PM

@RHo, your proposal looks too much like a quote. Shoudn't we keep that grey line for quotes (T94644#3598902 and T205978) and have the highlight in blue instead?

Hi @Trizek-WMF - yes, it is my intention that this looks more like a quote since it is quoting from the linked discussion. The part that is important is that one can reply and thank on that particular discussion. I think making the line green or blue would be the cause of confusion since it may incorrectly signal that the entire block of text is clickable when it is not.

I think making the line green or blue would be the cause of confusion since it may incorrectly signal that the entire block of text is clickable when it is not.

I'm not sure to understand.

SBisson added a comment.EditedOct 2 2018, 3:23 PM

I think of quoting as copying a passage of text from one source to another in order to refer to it. This is not what it's about here. This is about highlighting a specific comment inside a discussion in order to draw attention to it. In fact, this is the same thing as linking to phab with T192762#4634025

On SD, people lack of a good quoting tool (T94644) in the meaning of copying some stuff from other discussions or replies. Now, they are creative on finding the best way to quote (an example with two different approaches, using colons or angle brackets).

This is not the goal of that task, but I'm worrying about a confusion between an already used design for quotes used for a highlight. What if we address later that need of a quoting system? What would be the design then? Shouldn't we support consistency?

RHo added a comment.EditedOct 2 2018, 3:41 PM

I actually agree that this is to draw attention to it, but the difference is that I consider the quote style as a way of drawing attention to the comment. This is why the styling is using the similar grey left border in phab, but without the grey background.
Going back to the original reason for the ticket about the "green line being confusing", my hypothesis is that having an colored line (green or blue) is what is confusing, since it makes it seem as though you can click on that entire block to take action or go somewhere, when it does not.

The reason I do not want to add the gray background is that it may be quite heavy for long comments, and also may be look like a discussion heading.

RHo added a comment.Oct 2 2018, 4:07 PM

Of course consistency is desired. But perhaps I am underestimating the subtleties of the need to highlighting a comment which in Wikipedia is using the blockquote style, as compared with its use on Talk pages where highlighting is different to need for inline-quoting (where tapping on the block actually takes users back to the original comment) as desired in T94644.

At this point, think more information is needed defining what is "confusing" about the current green highlight on this task before making any change, or would recommend closing. Else we could work on this together with the related quote task.

On SD, people lack of a good quoting tool (T94644) in the meaning of copying some stuff from other discussions or replies. Now, they are creative on finding the best way to quote (an example with two different approaches, using colons or angle brackets).
This is not the goal of that task, but I'm worrying about a confusion between an already used design for quotes used for a highlight. What if we address later that need of a quoting system? What would be the design then? Shouldn't we support consistency?

Well, we are in a new case. AFACT, there are no highlight existing for an anchored element on all wikis. We are creating something new.
I think we should go for something that looks like a known highlight. The yellow-ish background seems to be used for that (on GDocs, on Phab, probably on Facebook...).

RHo added a comment.Oct 2 2018, 4:18 PM

Sure, but what specific feedback is there that the current design is not highlight-y enough and why? I think putting forward any other highlight option is spurious without more info.

Well, we are in a new case. AFACT, there are no highlight existing for an anchored element on all wikis. We are creating something new.
I think we should go for something that looks like a known highlight. The yellow-ish background seems to be used for that (on GDocs, on Phab, probably on Facebook...).

From what I've understood from the feedback I've heard, that mostly due to the fact that the green highlight is not something people often see, and it collapses with the text.

RHo moved this task from Incoming to Stalled/More Info Needed on the Design board.Oct 2 2018, 4:37 PM
RHo edited projects, added Growth-Team; removed Growth-Team (Current Sprint).
RHo moved this task from Inbox to Needs Discussion/Analysis on the Growth-Team board.

Not a prio, moving back to consider with more info.

SBisson changed the subtype of this task from "Task" to "Feature Request".Oct 16 2018, 1:06 PM
SBisson changed the subtype of this task from "Feature Request" to "Task".Oct 16 2018, 6:41 PM