Page MenuHomePhabricator

[FY25-WE.1.2.13] Tone Check concept validation
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Please provide all the following information:

  • Context.

The Editing team is currently working on Peacock Check (T365301) as part of Edit Check, based on a model developed by the Research team (contact: @diego) and now being piloted with the ML product team (contact: @SSalgaonkar-WMF).

The objective of this Check is to detect whenever someone is making changes that would be considered to have a promotional tone. As we arrive closer to a release date (by way of an A/B test (T387918)), we are in need of expertise on user tests to help the product teams understand how ready is the proposed user experience for newcomers.

  • Description.What is your request about?

Our feature lives in the visual editor and would provide in-context feedback appearing while the changes users are making are considered to be non-neutral (i.e. using a promotional tone). Therefore, our main research question is: How do people respond to/receive unexpected feedback about the tone they were writing in?

Screenshot 2025-04-04 at 15.27.38.png (1×1 px, 891 KB)

  • Expected Deliverable. What is the ideal outcome or result of your request?

Hypothesis: If we conduct usability tests of an initial engineered version of Peacock Check with ≥10 newcomers and Junior Contributors and ≥80% of them describe the experience using terms like "helpful," "makes sense," and "clear", then we can be confident the proposed UX has the potential to lower the rate at which the new content edits are reverted on the grounds of WP:WTW (and related policies).

  • Estimated Effort. Please provide an estimate of the amount of work needed to complete this task, if known.

Unmoderated tests in Userlytics, and moderated test with a subset of participants for deeper questions and insights for potential UX refinements.

  • Priority Please indicate a priority of your task and a small description of what it would unlock for you. We ask you to leave this task as “needs triage” since your request will go through a Backlog refinement process where our team will prioritize the work.

I need this task resolved in:

  • 1 month.
  • 3 months.
  • 6 months.
  • Whenever you get to it :-)
  • Other. Do you have any other questions or comments ?

We believe this research can have the potential to be defining for Edit Check UX standards beyond the Peacock Check project – as we are expecting the heuristics stemming from it to be transferable to other checks.

Note Due date is set for May 30, 2025 after conversations between Debra and Peter. The sooner this work can conclude the better it is for Peter and team so if there is a way to deliver earlier, please consider it. --Leila

Details

Due Date
May 30 2025, 12:00 AM

Event Timeline

leila renamed this task from [Request] Peacock Check concept validation to [FY25-WE.1.2.13] Peacock Check concept validation.Apr 11 2025, 12:54 AM
leila triaged this task as High priority.
leila set Due Date to May 30 2025, 12:00 AM.
leila updated the task description. (Show Details)
leila removed a subscriber: Miriam.

after consulting with the Editing team, we've decided to move forward with a short-term and lightweight series of user interviews around this feature, anticipated to be completed within the next 2 weeks. Recruitment and early interviews are expected to begin this week.

after consulting with the Editing team, we've decided to move forward with a short-term and lightweight series of user interviews around this feature, anticipated to be completed within the next 2 weeks. Recruitment and early interviews are expected to begin this week.

+1; thank you for documenting this, @MRaishWMF.

Two interviews completed this week (including two no-shows on Friday); three currently scheduled for Monday/Tuesday of next week. If the 3 scheduled are actively completed, I hope to provide the Editing team with a lightweight report by EOD on Wednesday of next week. One very early observation is that both of the first two participants, when talking about neutrality, associated "emotion" with non-neutrality. That is, statements were described as non-neutral if they clearly expressed what the participants perceived as "emotion."

DKumar-WMF changed the task status from Open to In Progress.May 6 2025, 1:54 PM
DKumar-WMF assigned this task to MRaishWMF.

Update

@MRaishWMF shared the findings from the 5 exploratory interviews with @nayoub and I.

Next steps
The Editing Team will discuss internally about what – if any – additional testing we think needs to happen before we can be confident deploying Peacock Check to production via T387918.

In parallel, we've identified some immediate ways we'll adjust the user experience in an effort to offer people more clarity about 1) what "neutrality" means and 2) who/what is responsible for thinking the tone of what they've written would benefit from reconsideration.

Work on "1)" and "2)" will happen in T390248 + T393740.

In light of the results form the exploratory interviews @MRaishWMF conducted and continuing flow of validating feedback surfaced in synchronous calls (e.g. Editing team/Community Conversations (etherpad), Africa Baraza, CEE APP Call), we do not see a need for more formal testing of the Peacock Check UX prior to starting the A/B experiment (T387918).

As such, we can consider this task resolved 🎉

...thank you Design Research Team!

Aklapper renamed this task from [FY25-WE.1.2.13] Peacock Check concept validation to [FY25-WE.1.2.13] Tone Check concept validation.May 28 2025, 11:43 AM