Page MenuHomePhabricator

Wikisource OCR: can we provide a link to the form page within proofread page?
Closed, DeclinedPublic2 Estimated Story Points

Description

As a product manager, I want to know if it is possible to create a link from the proofread page to the form with advanced OCR options, so users can be provided with access advanced tools.

Background: When we began to discuss the work to add Tesseract options to the API (T280213), we talked about the fact that the user may be able to pick some of the options in a form that is being created. For this reason, we discussed potentially adding a link in the proofread page to the form, so that if users want to a more advanced OCR experience can be redirected to the form.

Acceptance Criteria:

  • Determine if we can add a link from the proofread page to the form (similar to how we added a link via "other formats?" to the form page for ebook export project), which would:
    • Have the image name field & language field pre-populated
    • Allow the user to go back to the original proofread page (some sort of "back" button)
  • Share general technical proposal for how this could be done, along with any risks or dependencies to consider
  • This ticket does not include UX work or UX proposal; that will happen separately

BLOCKED BY UI:

  • Need UI to understand flow into the form proofread form

Event Timeline

It's definitely possible (and pretty simple) to add a link with prefilled image URL and language, as well as a backlink (probably as an extra, new, URL parameter).

Some thoughts:

  • There's not (at the moment) any advanced options that would be available there, that won't be available in the wiki UI.
  • The process of clicking through to the form, running the OCR, and then copying and pasting the result back into the Wikisource editing interface, all feels a bit cumbersome — that said, it could be useful when trying out different OCR engines or options. We could even link to a "compare options" page, which could run the same image with different engines or options.
  • Unless we implement user authentication in the tool, there wouldn't be any way for users' settings to be persisted between sessions. We could add authentication, in which case the same settings could be carried over from Wikisource.
ldelench_wmf set the point value for this task to 2.Mon, May 3, 5:27 PM

Thanks for pointing this out, @Samwilson! In response to your points:

  • We probably only want to do this work if more advanced options are available in the form UI. If not, then this doesn't seem to be high-priority for now. Maybe something to look into later or shelf entirely (depending on what we decide to put into the form).
  • Agreed. I didn't like the user flow and mostly saw it as a last resort if certain advanced options would not be easily available otherwise. But, again, not ideal. However, regarding the "compare options" page idea: I remember this being casually tossed around as an idea earlier in the project, and I think it could be cool, but we would need some UX considerations around how this would be experienced for users & community input on its overall value.
  • Good to know. Thanks for sharing this point as well.

Overall, this ticket will probably need further conversation to determine if it's worth us doing.

We have discussed this ticket, and it doesn't make sense for us to move forward since we have other plans for users being able to make selections based on their OCR preference. For this reason, we'll close this ticket.