Page MenuHomePhabricator

Design user experience for creating discussions on non-existent (red linked) talk pages
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

This task represents the work involving with designing the experiences people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled will have when they attempt to start a new discussion on a talk page, across namespaces, that has not yet been created yet.

Background

As discussed by @matmarex and @DannyS712 on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/DiscussionTools/+/623117, adding new discussions to non-existent pages is a case that will need special handling.

Currently, all links to such pages (red links) will append &action=edit which, when clicked, will take people straight into the full page source editor.[i]

Trouble is, as previous usability tests of the full-page source editor in this context have proven (T243251#5933544), Junior Contributors are likely to be confused by this experience. Specifically, Junior Contributor usability test participants:

  • Did not sign the new discussions they posted
  • Expressed being uncertain about whether they were taking the right steps to start a new discussion
  • Had difficulty locating the new discussion they had just published to a talk page

Use cases

We see there being three distinct use cases/categories of talk pages to design for:

NamespaceAccount stateSubject page stateTalk page deletion log entriesTicket
User talk (3)Logged inExistsNo talk page deletion/protection/move log entriesT274831
User talkLogged outExistsNo talk page deletion log entriesT287779
Your *own* talk pageLogged inExistsNo talk page deletion log entriesT277329
Your *own* talk pageLogged outExistsNo talk page deletion log entriesT288556
All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)---ExistsNo talk page deletion log entriesT274832
User talk (no account exists)Logged inDoes not existNo talk page deletion log entriesTicket needed
User talkLogged outDoes not existNo talk page deletion log entriesTicket needed
All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)---Does not existNo talk page deletion log entriesTicket needed
User talk (3)Logged inExistsAt least 1 deletion log entry
User talkLogged outExistsAt least 1 deletion log entry
Your *own* talk pageLogged inExistsAt least 1 deletion log entry
Your *own* talk pageLogged outExistsAt least 1 deletion log entry
All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)---ExistsAt least 1 deletion log entry
User talk (no account exists)Logged inDoes not existAt least 1 deletion log entry
User talkLogged outDoes not existAt least 1 deletion log entry
All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)---Does not existAt least 1 deletion log entry

Requirements

  • Full-page editing: All empty state designs need to include affordances for opening the full-page source editing interface
    • The full-page source editing interface (e.g. 2010 wikitext editor or 2017 wikitext editor) people see in this context, should be the same full-page source editing interface they see in other contexts (e.g. editing an article, editing a talk page that's already been created, etc.)
  • Availability: only people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled should be impacted by this new empty state experience. Read: people who do not have the New Discussion Tool enabled should see no changes in the experiences they have when clicking on a [red] link to a talk page that does not currently exist.
  • Points of entry: the empty state experiences we are designing should impact the following workflows/points of entry for people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled:
    • 1. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that already exists
    • 2. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that does NOT yet exist
      • E.g. Clicking on a red-linked talk page that appears in the signature of a newcomer who's posted on a community help page, for example.
    • 3. They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL contains ?action=edit. We will not be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.
    • 4. They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL does NOT contain ?action=edit. We will not be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.

Open questions

  • 1. Does it make most sense to consider the scope of this task as being limited to what happens when people click the New section / Add topic affordance on non-existent talk pages? Meaning: the visual appearance of the empty page itself would be considered separately in T252902.
    • We'll consider the experience holistically and then breakout the work needed to realize this experience after having done so. See: T270323#6767558.

i.

ru.wikien.wiki
image.png (1×1 px, 175 KB)
image.png (1×1 px, 151 KB)

Related Objects

Event Timeline

Notes/outcomes from 20-Jan team meeting

  • 1. Does it make most sense to consider the scope of this task as being limited to what happens when people click the New section / Add topic affordance on non-existent talk pages? Meaning: the visual appearance of the empty page itself would be considered separately in T252902.

We all came to think it would be best to consider the not-yet-created talk page experience holistically. [i] From there, we can determine how we might implement the component parts to realize the "whole."

To determine how we ought to prioritize the above, we came to see it as important to know how prevalent non-existent talk pages are. The work to find this out will happen in this ticket: T272657.


i. "Holistically" = from how people will experience the talk page appears in read mode through adding a new topic that will, in effect, create the page.

ppelberg updated the task description. (Show Details)
ppelberg added a subscriber: iamjessklein.

Task description update

@DLynch: this morning you asked a version of, "Who should be impacted by the empty state experiences we're implementing in T274831, T277329, and T274832?"

Answer: The empty state experiences we're implementing in T274831, T277329, and T274832 should only impact people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled.


The above is represented within the list item titled Availability in the task description's ===Availability section.

@ppelberg Please decide on an initial approach. Here are the options:

Options

  1. Take people to the designed experience
  2. Helper text with NDT open
  3. Go directly to NDT without helper text

Context: we realized that redlinks were taking us directly to the create-page source editor, and DT wasn't taking over those pages at all. We wondered how the empty state should apply to this. (With "maybe people expect following a redlink to immediately give them an editor" as a consideration.)

@ppelberg Please decide on an initial approach. Here are the options:

Options

  1. Take people to the designed experience
  2. Helper text with NDT open
  3. Go directly to NDT without helper text

Decision
@DLynch, to start let's take approach #1: take people clicking a red-linked talk page to the "designed experience" with the NDT *not* open.

Rationale
I assume the "designed experience" will be more effective at helping Junior Contributors understand the purpose of the talk page they will have just landed on.

Acknowledgements
In taking the "design experience" approach, I acknowledge that there is a risk that some Senior Contributors seeking to add a template, rather than start a new conversation, on an empty talk page may find the "designed experience" slows them down. If this proves to be the case, we can iterate on the implementation at that point.

I've added the newly-created for the logged out user talk empty state experience to the task description.

Note: as previously discussed, until T287779 is implemented, talk pages for logged out / anon users will receive the same design specified in T274831 + T277329.

cc @DLynch