Tue, Jan 21
After thinking about it more, I think that this mockup is the direction that we should go in. My thinking is that (ideally) a user needs to read the message before they start writing a response because if they do choose to log in, they will most likely lose their reply.
Thanks @ppelberg - I've made the correction
@AronManning - You've made a good point regarding proximity to content, so I made an iteration with a re-positioned warning message (it's also resized as is the input and preview).
Again, I'm not sure what we are legally required to do here, so this would need more review.
Mon, Jan 20
Here, is what I believe to be the final mockup for v1.0 - can I get confirmation on this @ppelberg ?
Thu, Jan 16
After getting some more feedback, I did another round of iterations. Essentially, there are 4 deeply related issues:
Wed, Jan 15
I updated all of the target wikis with content.
@Whatamidoing-WMF can you scan to make sure there's nothing obviously wrong with the formatting etc?
Mon, Jan 13
Here are the article links for each of the target wikis:
Fri, Jan 10
Thu, Jan 9
I posted a few iterations for preview on Freehand.
Please provide high level feedback here and drop in anecdotal comments there.
Tue, Jan 7
Dec 23 2019
@ppelberg I would add to our on-wiki report a recommendation for investigate options for rethinking the design of the revision history page at some point in the future as this testing round (and the 2 control tests) showed that people struggled to make sense of that space. It's important because this is the last touchpoint in the process of adding a contribution for many experienced contributors (and possibly the first touch point for experienced content consumers).
- I just re-read and edited out that comment about the edit summary comment, that was left over from a prior phab ticket copy that I had incorrectly pasted over.
Two questions for you:
- 1. Are there improvements to this workflow, and the test itself, you think we ought to consider making? A few that came to mind after watching the tests and reviewing your analysis below.
- 2. "3/5 participants wrote an edit summary." <-- what is meant here considering the prototype does not give contributors the opportunity to customize/affect the edit summary?
Dec 17 2019
Dec 16 2019
I ran a test on usertesting.com on December 11, 2019 - [PT 1-5] The test recruited 5 random, technically - advanced web users. Participants were directed to an article page set up on the prototype server . The detailed findings can be found on limited access test log.
Dec 12 2019
I launched the tests on usertesting.com. The idea is that these tests will be identical to the control test conditions T239175 except that they are using the new link with the v1 prototype on it.
@Whatamidoing-WMF this is the current state (no changes - no reply button) and is a mix of mobile and desktop web users.
Dec 9 2019
@ppelberg these two control tests are concluded. I am reassigning this ticket over to you - to make sure that the findings go on wiki.
I ran the second test on usertesting.com on November 28, 2019 - [CT 6-10] This is a control test. We tested a discussion page on beta. In contrast to the first test, this test had pages filled with lots of comments from other users. The detailed findings can be found on limited access test log.
Dec 4 2019
Update: v2 of the control test is running. I will post the findings here.
The next step here is to publish the second iteration of the control test on usertesting.com (with lots of comments populating the discussion) and to then log and synthesize the findings here.
I ran the first test on usertesting.com on November 27, 2019 - [CT 1-5] This is a control test. We tested a discussion page on beta that had no prompts, just discussion topics to reply to. The detailed findings can be found on limited access test log.
- 5 tests were conducted
- 2 participants were female ;3 participants were male
- 4 participants were desktop web users; 1 participant was a mobile web user
- All 5 participants were screened to ensure that they were technically advanced web users who have used Wikipedia in some capacity.
- 2/5 participants were ESL taking the test in English.
Nov 22 2019
This looks good to me. Keeping the scope light and focusing on mobile here's my feedback:
Nov 6 2019
Nov 5 2019
Nov 4 2019
re localization: @Esanders is it possible to have the check icon by default and then tweak for outliers?
Let's move forward with the proposal that @Volker_E has put forth. It's clean and achieves our goal of reducing complexity.
I started to draft out the test protocol.
I tested it this morning:
Oct 31 2019
I've updated the ticket description with the mockups and final links. I'm moving this over to pm review.
Oct 29 2019
Here is the final design brief for OWC.
The deck covers the following:
Oct 28 2019
Oct 24 2019
Yesterday I received a few bits of feedback which I've integrated into the latest flow that is up on freehand.
Oct 23 2019
I created a first draft of mobile and desktop mockups for v1.0. I will share these at the mid-sprint show and tell and at the design review. Please add meta comments here and anecdotal feedback on Invision.
Oct 21 2019
+1 to "images and media" - the language is a bit more humane
Oct 17 2019
To start off this work. I made a userflow of the existing workflow. The goal of this for us is to review and make sure that we agree that this is the workflow that we are improving this sprint. Please thumbs up or down and comment on this ticket @ppelberg @Esanders
Oct 2 2019
Sep 19 2019
Right. Since the Editing Team has switched priorities to Talk pages, this
has been put in the freezer for a bit.
Sep 10 2019
Sep 9 2019
Sep 6 2019
What would it look like if we:
Sep 4 2019
I haven't thought these through 100% but since @Esanders pre-empted the conversation over in T208738, here are a few mockups that I've been tinkering with. These show a few specific attempts at highlighting edit vs read mode:
Sep 3 2019
This work is being done in conjunction with T229030.
I have done a comparative review in the slide deck about the proposed changes to the look and feel of the toolbar.
Aug 31 2019
I added the following remaining open questions to the team notes document:
Updated the flow here and on Freehand.
Aug 30 2019
I agree and think this should be at a minimum in all the mobile dialogs (I'm less sure about desktop but can loop back and check).
To make sure this doesn't break anything, I will bring it up in the style guide meeting next week.