Page MenuHomePhabricator

Placeholder text on Special:Investigate seems unnecessary
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Problem
The placeholder text on Special:Investigate seems unnecessary and adds additional cognitive load without much bennefit

Solution
Remove the placeholder text

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added subscribers: MGChecker, Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptNov 18 2019, 10:29 PM
dbarratt renamed this task from Remove the placeholder text from the form on Special:Investigate to Placeholder text on `Special:Investigate` seems unnecessary.Nov 18 2019, 10:32 PM
dbarratt renamed this task from Placeholder text on `Special:Investigate` seems unnecessary to Placeholder text on Special:Investigate seems unnecessary.
Niharika added a subscriber: Niharika.

@Prtksxna Flagging this for you.

@dbarratt you're right we should try to reduce the cognitive load on the user on this page, especially with the all the tables and highlights that they're about to see. I was thinking of a few ways to do this:

  1. Remove the placeholder text from the Reason input. Most people who come to this page know what they're doing and wouldn't need help filling this out. (per your comment T237034#5672684)
  2. Improve the text of the checkbox label so that we don't need the placeholder text any more. (I'll also explore the options that @Niharika pointed out in T237034#5672832)

Since the user/ip input is complex, and not something we have elsewhere in our system, I am inclined to give the user a bit more guidance here. It is a bit odd that an input could accept both usernames and IPs and I am expecting that there might be some confusion around this. I suggest we keep this for now and take another look at it after some usability testing.

Since the user/ip input is complex, and not something we have elsewhere in our system, I am inclined to give the user a bit more guidance here. It is a bit odd that an input could accept both usernames and IPs and I am expecting that there might be some confusion around this. I suggest we keep this for now and take another look at it after some usability testing.

It's the same thing we have on https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block


The only difference between this field and that one, is that this field allows multiple values. As far as I know, everyone who has access to CheckUser should also have access to Block, so everyone is already familiar with this pattern.

Niharika added a subscriber: cwylo.Nov 21 2019, 1:26 AM

The only difference between this field and that one, is that this field allows multiple values. As far as I know, everyone who has access to CheckUser should also have access to Block, so everyone is already familiar with this pattern.

While this is true, I would not presume everyone using CheckUser does frequent Special:Block too. I'm kinda leaning towards Prateek's point about providing some more guidance here as this UI is pretty different from what they are using currently.
@cwylo Do you have an opinion on this ticket?

Prtksxna added a comment.EditedDec 9 2019, 10:43 AM

I think Special:Block would be better with placeholder text too. Any field that can take two types of inputs is confusing, the one in Special:Investigate can take a combination of both which makes it even more so.

Also, in the tests that @cwylo conducted did mention some confusion around this input — we might need to look at more ways to make this understandable.