@AAlhazwani-WMF
The instrumentation currently proposed on this ticket is based on the potential metrics you proposed in the H1 measurement plan for evaluating updates to the function viewer experience.

Can you please review and confirm if all of the interactions identified in the task description are still correct? Are they all still needed to evaluate the impact of planned changes or can this list be refined a little bit?

It might help to think through what questions we are looking to answer with these new events and the decisions they will inform.

In T356026#9507484, @MNeisler wrote:

@AAlhazwani-WMF
The instrumentation currently proposed on this ticket is based on the potential metrics you proposed in the H1 measurement plan for evaluating updates to the function viewer experience.

Can you please review and confirm if all of the interactions identified in the task description are still correct? Are they all still needed to evaluate the impact of planned changes or can this list be refined a little bit?

It might help to think through what questions we are looking to answer with these new events and the decisions they will inform.

yeah, the identified interaction are still correct! generally speaking we're trying to understand what readers and editors do on a function page, so that we can improve the page accordingly. eg. is the content hierarchy off based on user expectations and needs? do editors use the page to navigate somewhere else because the search doesn't work? do translator benefit of the bespoke translation experience, or do they opt for the "Edit source" fallback experience? we would like to understand the priority of these different needs, eg. if 7 out of 10 people visit a function page to translate content we could probably invest more there.

lemme me list these interactions one by one, with the answers we're looking for.

• click edit button next to "About" (pencil icon) vs. "Edit source" in MediaWiki toolbar

we're trying to understand how people edit function definitions after they have been created, especially translations edits. our assumption is that the "About" experience is superior to the "Edit source" experience, especially for translators. if translators still opt for the "Edit source" experience, why is that? is there something missing from the "About" experience. ideally, editors should opt for the "Edit source" experience when and only when they would want to change the input/output type of an already existing function, because this edit it's not possible in the "About" dialog.

• click on an "external link", e.g. "String" or "using + in Javascript", basically learning if people use the function page to go somewhere else

do readers/editors use the function page to go somewhere else? why is that? might it be related to our not-so-performant search? how many of the people who visit the page use it to go on a secondary destination? if we learn that most of the people use the page just to find something else we should investigate why is that and how we might save them from this detour.

• click to create an Implementation ("+" button in the first table)

how many of the people who visit a function page use it to add an implementation or a test? does this happen right after they create a function definition? do they create an implementation before creating a test, or vice versa? based on this information we might change the way the tables are displayed on the page.

• click to connect/disconnect an implementation or test (buttons in the second table)

these buttons are currently hidden in the UI, if the percentage of interaction is very low that might be okay, if not we should figure out a way to make those more accessible.

• click to view content in other languages (34 languages)
• language, learning which are the interface languages that people have set on this page type

insights on these interaction might help us understand how people consume content. do they click on the "34 languages" button because the "About" widget doesn't show content in their language? do they do that do add a new language via the "Add language" button? do they do that because their language UI is not their native language? why aren't they using their native language as language UI? is this because of low translation coverage? is this because they're used to consume such content in english?