This task is about ensuring the purpose, relationship and behavior of the Reply tool's two modes – currently named Visual and Source – are clearly understood by contributors, across experience levels.
This task is prompted by the following:
- In the most recent usability test we ran with people new to using Wikipedia talk pages (T246190), we observed one test participant being reluctant to click source for fear of the comment they had just written in the tool's visual mode being discarded.
- You can review this moment here: Reply v2.0B (limited access).
- In the most recent usability test we ran with people who have experience using Wikipedia talk pages (T246191), @dialmove remarked:
- "I know that the "Visual" and "Code" keywords respectively correspond to WYSIWYG and ki editors, but I'm not sure that they are a good fit to their purpose in this interface. Descriptions like "Styles" and "plain code" would be more universally understood, I think, and they would better fit the limited expectations of writing a single comment in a thread, as well as the limited tool functions. This is not the full-blown Visual editor of Wikipedia articles." | Source
- An experienced editor, who has the visual editor disabled, expressed they found the presence of the tool's visual mode to be distracting and unexpected considering the aforementioned preference they have set.
- "The presence of the two modes also adds clutter, more distracting than if it were on a special page, that I rarely visit...Users who want the source only don't anticipate any switching, so why not allow them use what they want. Why should we have duplicate things doing the same thing?" | Source