Page MenuHomePhabricator

Moderation actions should not be gray
Open, MediumPublic


The moderation actions (except Hide) are gray (until hover, but that's not much consolation). This is confusing (@He7d3r thought it was disabled, which is quite reasonable).

It should either be red (as a mw-ui-destructive action) or blue before hover.

This would make the history busier. Maybe we can think of a better alternative, but I think the current design is problematic.

Screenshot-5.png (768×1 px, 261 KB)

Event Timeline

Mattflaschen-WMF raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Mattflaschen-WMF updated the task description. (Show Details)

An alternative for the delete action is to use the same format as we have on normal history pages: a checkbox for each entry, and a button to "Change visibility of selected revisions".

EBernhardson subscribed.

This is in regards to the history pages, easiest would be to make them all mw-ui-destructive, but that might confuse users who expect it to mean the page does not exist.

Pau to the rescue!

I'd recommend just making the links normal-blue, and the hover-color the normal-blue.

Are we talking about this menu?

Screen_Shot_2015-04-20_at_16.41.44.png (504×468 px, 28 KB)

If that is the case, I think the main problem is not the color, but the fact that it does not react to the cursor hover to indicate interaction. I checked with @violetto and for menus, the expected style for hover is to use a grey background (#CCC).

However, I don't get the reference to "This would make the history busier." So it is not clear if I'm looking to the right thing. Some more details on the context for the issue (e.g. how to reproduce, screenshots, etc.) would be really helpful.

@Pginer-WMF nope, we're talking about the links that are currently grey (with a red-mouseover), for admins and oversighters, in history pages, eg

Screenshot-5.png (768×1 px, 261 KB)

However, I don't get the reference to "This would make the history busier."

If all the links were mw-ui-destructive color (not currently the case), the history would have a lot of red text, and be visually busy.

"all the links" above being just all the moderation links

Thanks @Quiddity for the details.
I can see two problems by showing them initially as red:

  • As @Mattflaschen mentioned it will be crowding the page, and drawing too much attention to some action which may not be the primary action for the history list.
  • It also highlights the inconsistency with other types of red links (missing user pages and talk pages).

Having said that, I agree there is a consistency problem with the levels of prominence of the different actions in the page. After talking with @violetto, here are is a recommendation to make the colors more aligned with the guidelines:

  • Disabled actions should be in very light grey (#CCC).
  • Secondary actions can be represented in a darker grey (#555) initially and change to any other color on hover if their meaning requires to (e.g., red for data destruction).
  • Links can remain as they are for navigation elements with no side effects.

The result would look like:

action-colors.png (480×2 px, 257 KB)

What is proposed above would move the color scheme closer to our guidelines, but all the listings could benefit from some deeper design changes to make the information clearer. But that may be part of a different ticket.

@Quiddity Not sure if this is still an issue with our work on aligning core to overhauled WCAG level AA conforming colors in core and therein also in shared.css.

@Quiddity Not sure if this is still an issue with our work on aligning core to overhauled WCAG level AA conforming colors in core and therein also in shared.css.

The current styling hasn't changed since the original bug report/screenshot. The delete links are still medium grey text. - webinspector says

.mw-ui-anchor .mw-ui-destructive .mw-ui-quiet {color: #54595d;}

More generally (and probably belongs in a different task, as Pau said above)...
The fundamental problem is disagreement about whether [all, or most, or some] links should be a single blue color. E.g. Pau's comment from 2015 proposes/demonstrates changing additional links from blue to grey (prev, topic, and hide) - for clearer indication of primary vs secondary links and a less overwhelming interface (i.e. making it easier to find specific links, because they are specifically identifiable by color as well as text and location). Versus other people who propose making [most/all] links the same standard blue - for consistency and easy recognizability.

Personally, I've been using the wikimedia sites with the current colors for so long that those colors look "normal" to me. I also encounter way too many interfaces (throughout the internet) that use bold text as a link (or similar), which is intensely confusing, and makes us distrust all emphasized text because we then have to mouseover everything in order to determine which pieces are actual links.
Hence I slightly lean towards the conservative end of "all text links should be blue, and should underline upon mouseover".
However, I also empathize/agree that many of our special pages (and similar link-dense pages) are overwhelming for anyone except power-editors, so I support all attempts to examine how they could potentially be improved.
I've made a demo page which might help: [EDIT moved to permanent (non-sandbox) location]