@Pginer-WMF a small gotcha came up regarding the button label 0 Languages (which goes back to the recurring question of whether the count on the button should be the total number of languages available, or the number of additional languages available) — curious what you think about the following:

Two updates:

In T263693#6832906, @ovasileva wrote:

Looks good! Only note for right now is that the width of the page changes when the sidebar is open/collapsed.

looks good to me 👏

In T259798#6846201, @Edtadros wrote:

@ovasileva please take a look at the following (they are linked in the description as well):

Functionality

AC	Status	Details
1	❓	T259798#6846157

for now let's leave this as-is (i.e. Pass)

In T273502#6853996, @Volker_E wrote:

That's the angle I've been taking @alexhollender, correct. Having those two links, in an overflow menu besides “Create Account” sets them in a hierarchical relation to “Create Account”. So with a newcomer's view: “Why's there a 'Contributions' labelled link when I haven't even created an account yet?!”
This becomes a stronger issue as those links are now put into a hierarchical order while before they were shown in a flat list.

In T273502#6848484, @Volker_E wrote:

I want to bring in one more thing to consider with the additional complexity for newcomers into Wikipedia. Having Talk and Contributions underneath “Create Account” is with the menu approach even more confusing, specifically when Log in would be at the end of the menu.
Would be interesting if clarifying those two links a bit further by an additional label were helpful…

awesome, looks good to me

@Pginer-WMF @ovasileva @Jdlrobson thoughts on the above?

continuing to think about this Login/User tools menu (cc @ovasileva @Volker_E):

Alright, I tested these two options on usertesting.com:

In T273502#6820869, @RHo wrote:

My slight preference is for option #3 since the "Log in" I think makes more sense as the secondary action split under "Create account", but I can see the argument for option #2 as the place for the logged in/logged out user menu items. Would it be possible to test both?

my apologies for not clearly separating the two decisions here:

@ovasileva @Jdlrobson — after @Volker_E and I spoke today we realized that a slightly different button styling should be used here. Apologies from both of us for not bringing this up sooner. cc @RHo @Pginer-WMF

@ovasileva @Jdlrobson: @RHo just pointed out to me that the yellow notice doesn't get added to the user links, it is actually the Talk page link transformed into (or replaced by) the yellow notice. In other words the yellow notice IS a special version of the talk page link. I'm noting this because it might mean that option #2 in the description is more complicated than we thought (since in new vector the Talk link isn't exposed on the page, it's inside the user menu).

after speaking with @ovasileva today we are leaning towards keeping the status quo: two separate buttons. Some notes:

after further considerations I've decided to move forward with the down-arrow icon:

In T266511#6816608, @RHo wrote:

I wonder though if we want to have the floating element "point" to the avatar icon where the Talk page menu item will be placed, as well as updating the copy to make it clear that this tapping the link takes the user to their talk page? It could help reduce potential confusion of the current design which is really a more prominent Talk page link masquerading as a notification element.

adding a stray comment here that came up when we were discussing the Watchlist in the Android App at design review:

[migrated comment]

In T266511#6799987, @RHo wrote:

In T266511#6795944, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

In T266511#6792389, @alexhollender wrote:

@Pginer-WMF interesting question. To clarify: confusing in the sense that someone who is usually logged-in (but is currently logged-out) might mistakenly think they are logged-in? Or confusing in the sense that a logged-out person might think they are logged-in?

I was thinking mostly in the former. On some editing features the need to indicate the logged-out status was surfaced by editors that published something not noticing their session already expired (revealing their IP, not linking it to their user to get notifications fro replies, etc.). This may be related to the fact that unlike other common online services where your session seems to live forever, here your session has a much shorter time.
More generally, the icon next to the button to log-in may be sending a contradicting signal of being logged out (as per the button) and logged in (as per the icon) at the same time. I don't know if thats enough to really get in the way of logging-in, but I think it is worth looking into.

Other questions that come to mind:

• is the userAnonymous icon unfamiliar and therefore distracting?
• might the userAnonymous icon suggest something like "incognito" or "private" mode (which has become more familiar via browsers)?

It is possible that the in-cognito meaning is getting in the way. This seems a fitting context for using the anonymous icon (if an icon is needed). So I'd consider that if the current version does not work, we may want to adjust the icon so that it can be more widely used.

Adding some comments from our discussion earlier this week @alexhollender, I agree that the confusion may partly be related to the userAnonymous icon which can be confused with (a) incognito mode which is not what an unlogged in person is, or possible (b) a specific avatar icon at glance if a normally logged in user gets logged out (Pau's initial point).
Regarding (a), I recall that when we redesigned the icon I had "incognito" in mind, which I realise now is a bit misleading, so would be open to revising (separate thread).

• would it make sense to clarify within the menu that they are not logged-in
  

As I mentioned below, the logged-out experience is sub-optimal (less features but also less private than using a pseudonym). So making users aware and suggesting to create an account can be always helpful.

+1 to having this message. Also adding @Prtksxna who may have more info on messaging and copy for IP editors.

• are these two different enough so as to not be confusing?
  

Note that users won't be seeing these experiences side by side. I think the most relevant analysis would be to pick each case and ask whether a user would figure out their status even if they assumed they are in the opposite case.

• what if we dropped the icon entirely? Looking at Pinterest, they use only a V. Another option might be ...
  

I think this is worth considering too. Talk pages for anonymous users are attached to an IP. There are many caveats and aspects to consider before using it as if this was a regular user account. So I think it makes sense to keep these options less prominent for anonymous users.

I think it would be a good education opportunity that talk and contributions exist for non-logged in users so prefer to have some icon instead of none. Potentially, instead of using an avatar, we could indicate the identity if by IP by using a devices or browser icon:

An iconified version of something like this from Commons

something like this existing browser icon from OOUI

[migrated comment]

In T266511#6796131, @alexhollender wrote:

@Pginer-WMF thank you for your thoughts. I am processing them. In the meantime wanted to post these two options which don't have a "person" icon:

down arrow	three dots

[migrated comment]

In T266511#6795944, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

In T266511#6792389, @alexhollender wrote:

@Pginer-WMF interesting question. To clarify: confusing in the sense that someone who is usually logged-in (but is currently logged-out) might mistakenly think they are logged-in? Or confusing in the sense that a logged-out person might think they are logged-in?

I was thinking mostly in the former. On some editing features the need to indicate the logged-out status was surfaced by editors that published something not noticing their session already expired (revealing their IP, not linking it to their user to get notifications fro replies, etc.). This may be related to the fact that unlike other common online services where your session seems to live forever, here your session has a much shorter time.

More generally, the icon next to the button to log-in may be sending a contradicting signal of being logged out (as per the button) and logged in (as per the icon) at the same time. I don't know if thats enough to really get in the way of logging-in, but I think it is worth looking into.

Other questions that come to mind:

• is the userAnonymous icon unfamiliar and therefore distracting?
• might the userAnonymous icon suggest something like "incognito" or "private" mode (which has become more familiar via browsers)?

It is possible that the in-cognito meaning is getting in the way. This seems a fitting context for using the anonymous icon (if an icon is needed). So I'd consider that if the current version does not work, we may want to adjust the icon so that it can be more widely used.

• would it make sense to clarify within the menu that they are not logged-in
  

As I mentioned below, the logged-out experience is sub-optimal (less features but also less private than using a pseudonym). So making users aware and suggesting to create an account can be always helpful.

• are these two different enough so as to not be confusing?
  

Note that users won't be seeing these experiences side by side. I think the most relevant analysis would be to pick each case and ask whether a user would figure out their status even if they assumed they are in the opposite case.

• what if we dropped the icon entirely? Looking at Pinterest, they use only a V. Another option might be ...
  

I think this is worth considering too. Talk pages for anonymous users are attached to an IP. There are many caveats and aspects to consider before using it as if this was a regular user account. So I think it makes sense to keep these options less prominent for anonymous users.

Although it is quite hard to hear from anonymous users to better understand their workflows for obvious reasons. So I don't think there is much research about al this.

[migrated comment]

In T266511#6792389, @alexhollender wrote:

In T266511#6787291, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

On a separate note. For the logged-out state it feels a bit confusing to see the standard user icon that seems to communicate logged-in. Would make sense to use the anonymous user icon instead?

@Pginer-WMF interesting question. To clarify: confusing in the sense that someone who is usually logged-in (but is currently logged-out) might mistakenly think they are logged-in? Or confusing in the sense that a logged-out person might think they are logged-in?

Other questions that come to mind:

• is the userAnonymous icon unfamiliar and therefore distracting?
• might the userAnonymous icon suggest something like "incognito" or "private" mode (which has become more familiar via browsers)?
• would it make sense to clarify within the menu that they are not logged-in
  
• are these two different enough so as to not be confusing?
  
• what if we dropped the icon entirely? Looking at Pinterest, they use only a V. Another option might be ...
  

[migrated comment]

additional context for the discussion about the special alert that appears next to the bell icon when you have a new messages on your talk page — here is currently how that looks for logged-out IP folks:

@ovasileva putting this in needs QA for you to take a look at. Things to try:

additional context: on mobile there is a "Log in" button within the main menu, and from there you can click the "Join Wikipedia" button. As far as I can tell there is no "Join Wikipedia" available aside from going through the "Log in" button. I wonder if there is any way to compare the data between mobile and desktop to see if it provides any direction for us @ovasileva ?

In T273502#6810932, @RHo wrote:

Hiya, @alexhollender and I discussed this briefly offline last week, and my feeling is that sites that show the two buttons tend to be those that want/need to make it clear that there is an option to create an account/subscribe (NYT, Medium, Guardian, Pinterest), since people are able to use the sites (up to a point) without getting an account. Whereas say for example Amazon, since one needs an account to make that final purchase, they don't need as prominent a CTA to sign up.
Given that we fall firmly in the first category, and since we don't currently have other prompts to create accounts during reading (like for example NYT after someone reads X articles), I think we should stick to having the status quo and keep the separate distinct buttons, which is option #1 out of the mocks shown.

@Pginer-WMF thanks for the information and mockups.

@ovasileva and I chatted about this earlier today and came up with a few alternatives. Also de-scoping anything that would require us re-building the login form...

@ovasileva I've made most of the updates we discussed:

@Jdlrobson looking at https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6a1964b9516fbbb14565d9e0453269c3/w/index.php/Spain?useskinversion=2

@Ladsgroup do these look better?

In T273669#6798642, @Aftabuzzaman wrote:

@alexhollender Could you please confirm/verify that above SVGs are correct? If you need any fixing, Please use above or below SVG to do that.

just remembering that we did have an aspirational idea early on that we would communicate whether or not a page is locked/protected within the Edit button (similar to what we do in Minerva)

In T12347#6793736, @Jdlrobson wrote:

Given we show a locked icon next to edit on mobile that would perhaps be a little confusing when we finally render indicators on mobile.
Paging @alexhollender - how do we plan to visually tell somebody a page is protected on desktop?

@Pginer-WMF thank you for your thoughts. I am processing them. In the meantime wanted to post these two options which don't have a "person" icon:

@Jdlrobson right, thanks for the reminder/clarification that we are not currently displaying the "icon" element on mobile. I've updated the screenshots in the description here and on T273477

@RHo @MMiller_WMF would love to get your input here

In T266511#6787291, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

On a separate note. For the logged-out state it feels a bit confusing to see the standard user icon that seems to communicate logged-in. Would make sense to use the anonymous user icon instead?

In T56730#613088, @Isarra wrote:

Why would most anonymous users even WANT to watch a page? What good would this do them, unless they're already editing it? And if they are already editing it, wouldn't an indicator that they should sign up be better placed somewhere in the editing interface?

@ovasileva @Jdlrobson since https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Hauptseite is using the English version of the Wikivoyage logo, I believe we can close this and use the SVGs in T273477