Today, @iamjessklein, @Whatamidoing-WMF, and I met to clarify what we are seeking to learn in this first set of conversations we will be having with volunteers at mediawiki.org and other projects (see T296357) about Topic Containers (T269950).

The set of things we are seeking to learn in these conversations as well as the artifacts we will make to discuss with volunteers are below.

What we are seeking to learn?

1. Of the design approaches we are exploring to make it easier for A) Junior Contributors to recognize talk pages and containing conversations and B) Senior Contributors to assess the level of activity on a given talk page, what aspects of them do volunteers find most effective? What do volunteers wish were different about the design approaches? What do volunteers find unexpected about the design approaches?
2. How – if at all – might existing workflows/conventions/gadgets/etc. be impacted by Topic Containers?

Artifacts we will make
The below should all be created for desktop and mobile.

• 1. Screenshot showing talk pages without [ reply ] or [ subscribe ] affordances
• 2. An annotated version of "1." that illustrates the issues with the legacy talk page experience. E.g. People found it difficult to know how to respond. People found it difficult to know how to start a new discussion [on desktop]. People do not recognize talk pages as containing conversations. Etc.
• 3. Screenshot showing talk pages with [ reply ] or [ subscribe ] affordances
• 4. Screenshots showing talk pages with Topic Containers (section title styling, actions (edit, subscribe), metadata (number of comments, date last comment was posted, number of people participating in the discussion), collapsable sections)
  • Ideally, we're able to share at least three Topic Container approaches. Some directions we might explore:
    • Where does metadata about the discussion go within the Topic Container? Is it right justified? Is it beneath the discussion title?
    • Where does [ edit ] shown? Might it go within an overflow menu?
    • In what ways might discussion titles be styled so they obviously appear as distinct from section titles in the main namespace? Type? Background colors?
    • Is the `[ subscribe ] affordance text? Is it an icon?

Note: I've updated the task description to reflect the above.

Update

• @iamjessklein has published the initial Topic Container design concepts on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Talk_Page_Usability_Explorations_-_Community.png
• I've shared the design concepts on mw:Talk Pages Project/Usability and invited volunteers to share what they think about them:
  • Usability Improvements Update: 17 December 2021
  • https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Talk_pages_project/Usability#Feedback:_Topic_Containers_Design_Concepts

Note: we will be sharing these Topic Container design concepts with partner wikis and populations in T297988.

Next step
Per the conversation @iamjessklein and I had offline today, Jess is going to make the adjustments listed below to to the Topic Containers Design Explorations so that people can review the designs more easily:

• ADD collapsible states for each design exploration
• ENSURE each exploration contains:
  • The ability for people to subscribe to a discussion, edit a discussion (read: section), and generate/copy a link to a discussion
  • Information about when the last comment was posted within the discussion, the number of comments posted within the discussion, and the number of people who have posted a comment within a discussion.
• ADD a fourth "Exploration" that aligns with the page navigation changes the Web Team is exploring
• ADJUST the way we present the Topic Container explorations to volunteers so they can review them more easily

The updated designs are available on figma.

• ADD collapsible states for each design exploration

Note: Mobile versions have two pages to consider the topic list and the single topic discussion.

• ENSURE each exploration contains: The ability for people to subscribe to a discussion, edit a discussion (read: section), and generate/copy a link to a discussion
• Information about when the last comment was posted within the discussion, the number of comments posted within the discussion, and the number of people who have posted a comment within a discussion.

ADD a fourth "Exploration" that aligns with the page navigation changes the Web Team is exploring

It turns out that our latest iteration is quite close to the design, so this isn't needed now.

• ADJUST the way we present the Topic Container explorations to volunteers so they can review them more easily

First, should we present multiple options or just 1 option at this round for both mobile and desktop? I recommend that we share 1 approach (version 2 with no icons for both desktop, mobile topic list and discussion page) with community and then iterate on that feedback.

Reasoning: If we are share multiple we are asking testers to compare multiple designs against each other as well as the legacy design. If we share one people will compare it with what exists now and it takes the burden off of them.

In terms of what format to share with the community, we have a few options:

• Option 1: make figma prototypes and share those links
• Option 2: make figma prototypes, screencast them and share as gifs
• Option 3: create a coded prototype and/or browser extension
• Option 4: mark up a graphic with annotations to show explicit changes

While Option 3 will probably be the most effective, probably doing a combination of Option 1 or 2 + 4 is also valid but will require more design time to do all of the localizations by hand. (This is all is relationship in T297988)