@psubhashish1:

Steps to reproduce:

1. I am not logged in.
2. I am on a machine which by default inputs latin letters.
3. I go to https://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_Oriya.pdf/7
4. I click "Edit"
5. I end up on https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_Oriya.pdf/7&action=edit

And now I don't know what exactly you are expecting, and why... Please always follow https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug and explain 1) What you expect and why. 2) What happens instead. In separate sections.

Is there any machine-readable information anywhere that Page:Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_Oriya.pdf is in Odia?
I am basically wondering what your expectation is based on that some software could somehow (how?) realize that an Odia input method should be chosen.
But maybe I am not aware of something obvious here. :)

1) What you expect and why:
As the project's primary language is Odia, the input method which is default for Odia on ULS should be enabled instead of Latin appearing by default. The reason being many new contributors might not log in or know how to change it in the very first place. Keeping the default input in the writing system that is used for the project will help.

2) What happens instead:
The input method is Latin by default when it should be Odia.

Number 2 and number 5 are irrelevant in the steps you've written. The issue is not with the content (Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this case). It's about the default input being Latin on the project.

By project I meant a Wikimedia project. I opened Odia Wikisource in private mode (Firefox 76.0.1) as well and the default input is still Latin.

Again: Please provide working steps to reproduce the problem. You can edit the task description by clicking Edit Task.

Updated in the first message in this thread.

the default writing system on ULS should be Arabic and not Latin.

I would disagree here (if I understand correctly): The default input method should be the one defined by your operating system that is running on your device.
It would not be a good user experience if a website silently preselects some input method for you (plus many languages have more than one input method, which one to preselect?) and you suddenly type in a different script and different letters are shown on the screen than the letters on your keyboard that you just pressed without having an idea what is happening.
@psubhashish1: Wouldn't that be totally confusing to a user? (Or do I misunderstand you?)

In T253712#6196130, @Aklapper wrote:

the default writing system on ULS should be Arabic and not Latin.

I would disagree here (if I understand correctly): The default input method should be the one defined by your operating system that is running on your device.
It would not be a good user experience if a website silently preselects some input method for you (plus many languages have more than one input method, which one to preselect?) and you suddenly type in a different script and different letters are shown on the screen than the letters on your keyboard that you just pressed without having an idea what is happening.
@psubhashish1: Wouldn't that be totally confusing to a user? (Or do I misunderstand you?)

What you've written probably is relevant to users of many writing systems. But I must provide some context here. Generally speaking in India, and particularly the Odia-language speakers have EN-IN as their default input. As a result of that Odia Wikipedia often sees new articles, edits in existing articles and discussions from new editors in Latin. The UI of ULS is not intuitive enough for a first-time user to get. For starters, it's a multi-step process (one has to first press, then notice a keyboard appearing in a corner, be curious enough to click on that and figure out that they need to press CTRL+M to enable the input in their writing system). :-) If they are a developer who works in the language-computing domain, it might seem very familiar. If they are a common user, it won't be. Also, I'm curious, why a user would be confused or surprised to see Odia characters in Odia Wikisource or Odia Wikipedia? I can guess that it might be a bit confusing if Odia Wikisource or Odia Wikipedia used five different writing systems. That would have been difficult and probably needed a community consensus to choose one. But that is not the case here. Hope I clarified but happy to provide any specifics that might help here.

Also, I'm curious, why a user would be confused or surprised to see Odia characters in Odia Wikisource or Odia Wikipedia?

I have a device. I set an input method on that device. I press a key on my keyboard. That key has a specific letter associated to it, depending on the input method choosen on my device. On my screen, a totally different letter is shown. Not the one that is associated to the key that I pressed. Would you expect that?

The UI of ULS is not intuitive enough for a first-time user to get.

In my opinion, that should be the actual underlying problem to discuss and solve. Not the "solution" proposed in this ticket.
Also see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem#answer-66378

The XY problem is an interesting perspective -- it helped me look at this whole thing from a different angle. That said, I'd like to ask you something too. When you're saying "I have a device" what is the persona of this person that you're assuming? The persona of an average Odia speaker who would read Wikipedia goes like this:

• Not very tech-savvy so uses the Latin input as it comes by default with the device.
• Hasn't yet figured how to type in Odia or types only occasionally when needed.
• Does not know how to search in Google in Odia.
• Lands on Odia Wikipedia accidentally.

I can imagine that as someone who knows well how to set an input method on a device and being used to using multiple input methods, this might be a bit weird but most common users (except some young users who are technically smart enough to figure on their own) that I encounter do not know how to type in Odia. The XY problem is a very binary way of looking at things because I see the default effect having a deeper impact on common users. A common misconception lies with many users that the internet is all English. I am not saying that we will solve the world's problems and convert all common users into avid contributors just by changing the default input into Odia, but, denying the bias that exists is problematic. We have a serious issue with a) converting readers into contributors, and having more folks over 40 years (only a small % use Odia in their smartphones or computers very recently) old as editors. I wish I could conduct a survey to show you empirical evidence but I am sharing things based on personal interactions.

Probably answer a simple question if you could -- why a project that has its frontend language and script set in Odia have a Latin input as default, esp. when we know that majority of the users have Latin set as their default input only because of the default effect. Also, unlike Chinese or Russian or Japanese, Odia is not used widely for formal work for most native speakers. It's mostly English that people use at workplaces for formal writing.