Update: 10-April

• The task description now reflects the conclusions @iamjessklein and I came to during our meeting today

Journey map details
Below are the people, their goals and the components of these goals @iamjessklein and I have come to think the journey map(s) ought to represent:

Goals

• As a Junior Contributor, I would like someone to fulfill the request for feedback/help/guidance/advice/etc. I've made on a talk page.
• As a Senior Contributor, I would like to be able to quickly and efficiently offer Junior Contributors feedback/help/guidance/advice/etc. on talk pages.

Steps

• In order for me, a Junior Contributor, to have the request for feedback/help/guidance/advice/etc. I've made on a talk page fulfilled, the following need to happen/be true:
  • I need to know it's possible to communicate with others on Wikipedia
  • I need to have something to ask/request
  • I need to be motivated to make this ask/request
  • I need to know where to go on Wikipedia to make this particular ask/request
  • I need to know how to make this ask/request in a way others are able to see
  • I need to know how to make this ask/request in a way others are able to understand
  • I need to be confident I made this ask/request correctly (e.g. in the right place, in the right way)
  • I need to be know how I will find out when someone has responded
  • I need to know how to respond to the people who have answered me in a way they will see and understand

• In order for me, a Senior Contributor, to be able to quickly and efficiently offer Junior Contributors feedback/help/guidance/advice/etc. on talk pages, the following need to happen/be true:
  • I need to be aware my input is needed and/or could be valuable to another person
  • I need to understand what is being requested
  • I need to be able to share my input in a way myself and others can understand
  • I need to be able to share my input in a way others will notice

Nice, @iamjessklein; the steps within the current journey map are looking good.

Question
Considering we are trying to model interactions between people [i][ii], I wonder: how might we represent these journey maps in such a way that it is clear that this is a "conversation" in that one person's actions directly affect the other's and that they are working towards the same/similar goals (e.g. making an edit the right way)?

I've represented the above question, in a bit more detail, within the Invision surface (?): OWC x Journey Maps.

i. Primary use case: A Senior Contributor sharing guidance with a Junior Contributor to help them edit/shape content the "Wikipedia way."
ii. Secondary use case: Two Senior Contributors working together to improve an article in ways that might not have been possible had they not talked.

The Junior Contributors' and Senior Contributors' journeys are getting related..good progress, @iamjessklein.

I added some thoughts to the freehand (OWC x Journey Maps) and summarized them below.

Thoughts

• Can you include an outcome for the Junior and Senior Contributor in each journey?
• Can you represent what the Senior Contributors' experience is like for each step in the journey?

Meta

• At this point, I think it's good we get the framework of the journey in a good place and then we can make sure it's "colored in" a way we like.

Thanks for the feedback @ppelberg

Yes, I can update those two items. I responded directly in Invision about my thoughts on what the outcome is - but please let me know if I got that right.

I've:

• moved the journey map to Figma, so anyone with the link can see and editors have access
• combined the two maps into one
• added senior emotions
• added opportunities.

@ppelberg take a look. You have editing rights now - feel free to move things around/ add text/ add comments.

In T247763#6276094, @iamjessklein wrote:

I've:

• moved the journey map to Figma, so anyone with the link can see and editors have access
• combined the two maps into one
• added senior emotions
• added opportunities.

@ppelberg take a look. You have editing rights now - feel free to move things around/ add text/ add comments.

Great – thanks, @iamjessklein. Comments below. Before that, tho: I think the map for this particular story is in a great place.

Next steps
As for what's next, I think it's the following:

• 1. You review the entirety of the map in its current form to make sure it looks good to you considering the edits I've made. Those edits are explained in more detail below.
• 2. You respond to the comments I've included within the Figma canvas so we can make sure we're on the same page.

...once "1." and "2." are done, I think this should be good to go.

Comments...

OVERALL

• The way you've integrated the Junior and Senior Contributor experiences is great; it's clear this is a conversation among two people whose actions affect each other's experiences.

JOURNEY FRAMING

• I added some language to the introductory story to make it a bit more specific. See: "Junior Contributor adds a fact to an article and cites Twitter as the source."

EMOTIONS

• Tweaked some of the language and added some additional blocks.[i] E.g. "This person did the “right” thing because I said something...I should do this again."

OPPORTUNITITES

• A couple of the "OPPORTUNITIES" led me to wonder what problems/challenges they were meant to address; I've added clarifying questions about these within the file in green.[ii]
• I've added some additional "OPPORTUNITIES" as grey boxes (e..g "add a lightweight interaction to express gratitude...").

i. You may be able to identify these as the blocks whose text extends beyond their boundaries.
ii. Unfortunately, I added those comments as text within the surface before realizing there was a commenting feature. Next time...

I've updated the map, included the edits and made some design tweaks. @ppelberg take a look and let me know if you are good with this.
When we have the OKRs finalized, can you map them on the journey map opportunities directly?

To have parody with the Reply flows, we should make a complementary journey map for the new discussion user flow.
In Slack @ppelberg and I discussed the following two scenarios:

1. The Junior Contributor wanting to make an edit to an article, not knowing how, writing on the article's talk page seeking input from people invested in the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lombard_Street_(San_Francisco)#AB-1605)

2. The Junior Contributor writing on the user talk page of the person who recently changed/deleted/reverted the edit they just made (e.g. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Arroser#Pertinence_de_Twitter_comme_source) (edited)

In terms of which one to prioritize, I'm leaning towards #1 as it focuses on the article talk page (compared to the reply which we focused on the user talk page) and also #2 feels like it might have a ton of peripheral issues that we are going to want to support but aren't in that space yet in terms of having the tool infrastructure in place to build on top of.

In T247763#6283093, @iamjessklein wrote:

I've updated the map, included the edits and made some design tweaks. @ppelberg take a look and let me know if you are good with this.

Excellent.

✅ "STEPS" and "GOAL" rows: these look done to me.

◻️ "EMOTIONS" row: there are some comments for you here: OWC x Journey Maps.

◻️ "OPPORTUNITIES" row: these look good; only thing left is for me to make sure the finalized OKR are reflected in this section.

When we have the OKRs finalized, can you map them on the journey map opportunities directly?

Good call and for sure. See above.

Meta: I'd value us continuing to use Figma. I particularly like that you can create a design and we can collaborate/comment on it all within the same file.

In T247763#6285666, @iamjessklein wrote:

To have parody with the Reply flows, we should make a complementary journey map for the new discussion user flow.
In Slack @ppelberg and I discussed the following two scenarios:

1. The Junior Contributor wanting to make an edit to an article, not knowing how, writing on the article's talk page seeking input from people invested in the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lombard_Street_(San_Francisco)#AB-1605)

2. The Junior Contributor writing on the user talk page of the person who recently changed/deleted/reverted the edit they just made (e.g. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Arroser#Pertinence_de_Twitter_comme_source) (edited)

In terms of which one to prioritize, I'm leaning towards #1 as it focuses on the article talk page (compared to the reply which we focused on the user talk page)...

+1, @iamjessklein. Let's focus on story #1: The Junior Contributor wanting to make an edit to an article, not knowing how, writing on the article's talk page seeking input from people invested in the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lombard_Street_(San_Francisco)#AB-1605 )

I've represented the above in the task description by adding the two "journeys" we are working on to the "Journeys" section.

@iamjessklein I responded to the comments you posted on the journey map and made some edits to the "OPPORTUNITIES" language so it's in sync with our OKR doc; let's close this journey map out when we talk tomorrow.

@ppelberg - I've resolved the comments from the Reply flow and added the New Discussion flow (the SIGNIFICANTLY less complex flow) to figma. Please take a look and add your comments.

@ppelberg I've updated the figma file. I made the following changes:

• extended the user flow to include the interactions around the junior contributor making the edit
• emotions related to that
• clarifying notes about discovery of the talk page edit and the location for where the senior contributor would contact the junior (article vs. user talk page)

In T247763#6301698, @iamjessklein wrote:

@ppelberg I've updated the figma file. I made the following changes:

• extended the user flow to include the interactions around the junior contributor making the edit
• emotions related to that
• clarifying notes about discovery of the talk page edit and the location for where the senior contributor would contact the junior (article vs. user talk page)

Thanks, Jess. I've reviewed the Figma file and done the following:

• ADDED questions for you to answer; I've added these as "comments" within the canvas.
• MODIFIED the language within the OPPORTUNITIES section to help them better match to the OKRs we have set. //An example: I changed the language FROM "make the new discussion button more discoverable." TO "Jr. Contributors can confidently and successfully start a new conversation."

Thanks, @ppelberg !

After our conversations, I tweaked the language, added a first step (before they get to Wikipedia) and removed a few less relevant opportunities. Finally, I cleaned up the design and added in the annotation notes so that you can layer in the specific OKR/release information.
Once that's done, I think we are good to close the ticket.

This appears to be waiting on @ppelberg

In T247763#6323699, @JTannerWMF wrote:

This appears to be waiting on @ppelberg

On it.

In T247763#6312691, @iamjessklein wrote:

Thanks, @ppelberg !

After our conversations, I tweaked the language, added a first step (before they get to Wikipedia) and removed a few less relevant opportunities. Finally, I cleaned up the design and added in the annotation notes so that you can layer in the specific OKR/release information.
Once that's done, I think we are good to close the ticket.

The journey maps looks great, @iamjessklein – nice work! I've reviewed both maps and added in the tools/features/releases associated with each "opportunity."

Resulting action: I've updated the "Journeys " section of the task description to include links to both journey maps (technically they're in the same Figma canvas, I know).