Thanks @Tacsipacsi are you referring to the description field or the space below that?
If it's the field, I'm trying to communicate the general amount of space needed for a discussion (for example it's not a line, but probably a paragraph). If it's the later, that's probably a misrepresentation of the space between the content and the footer that I can clean up before I put this on wiki.
Mon, Oct 19
And here's what it might look like on Teahouse:
Sun, Oct 18
Through iteration, I've come to two versions that you can see below. For these explorations I:
Wed, Oct 14
I made a first round of prototypes which I am putting gifs of here for the purpose of documenting the thought process that went into them. That said, I have since chatted with @ppelberg and @Pginer-WMF on them and am going to move forward with another round of iteration. I made the first 3 prototypes trying to gain a better sense of what the following touchpoints might look like:
Ah okay so I was thinking of what kinds of visual design interventions do we want to have. Taking your feedback into consideration, it might be better to think of this as an interface inventory of talk pages. I've added one more question to your list:
Wed, Oct 7
While there is a larger discussion needed about all the interface elements copy on Talk Pages - I'm going to document components that are specific to the New Discussion T243248 workflow.
Wed, Sep 30
@ppelberg - I updated the task description with a few starter questions..
How does this ticket get resolved? cc @JTannerWMF
As I've been building out the prototypes of these workflows, one thing that comes to mind is that the taxonomy scheme feels inconsistent. I believe that we brought this up as part of T257764 already, but it's really becoming evident in two places as I click through the designs:
Tue, Sep 29
+1 to moving forward with this merge.
Fri, Sep 25
Wed, Sep 23
We should probably also consider the empty subject scenario as described here:
Sep 21 2020
+1 to this list, particularly the components that are editor-focused.
Sep 15 2020
When would a user ever encounter a blank text summary field? Is it just the moment that they click into it? Or is it if there is a blank comment and then the user clicks advanced?
Sep 14 2020
👍 on design review
Sep 7 2020
Thanks for adding this SPIKE here. Is there a separate SPIKE for exploring designs for integrating templates or is that part of this ticket? @ppelberg
I did explorations for the purpose of conversation and brainstorming. For this first round, I didn't touch the existing tab/button for new discussions. There are a few touchpoints in the workflow that we need to consider:
Sep 3 2020
I agree with @Amire80 - the issue here is really the word "form". If we were in an universe where the term "template" wasn't such a loaded word, I'd suggest "Basic Template".
Sep 2 2020
Notes from conversation with Ed:
Aug 14 2020
Nice work @matmarex -
One additional thing that @ppelberg @Esanders and I discussed was looking at how Convenient Discussions handled starting a discussion in context and scrolling the user to that position so that they can see where conversations are placed within the page. We want to take a closer look into what is working/not working about this affordance.
The latest round of mockups are to be used for the purpose of pulling together a rough prototype.
Unfortunately, I can't test this as I don't have working bluetooth mouse right now. This task needs to be reassigned.
Aug 13 2020
Curious what @alexhollender is thinking regarding the approach to the borders on the page.
I still think that we should explore linking with "reddit style lines," however, I like where you are heading with this idea @matmarex in that we could somehow treat the comment that the user is replying to.
I can't reproduce this error.
Ahh thanks for clarifying @Tacsipacsi - I think the fact that there are two modes in this fairly light interaction space (a reply) is something that we should continue to look into. Not suggesting removing either of the modes.
Aug 12 2020
Thanks for all of your feedback (and apologies for my slow replying).
Aug 11 2020
Aug 10 2020
+1 nice work @Esanders
Aug 5 2020
It showed up in both versions of the tool consistently. The moment of the test where these comments were made was when we asked the user to take a look at the tool and describe it - so it might not have been an immediate reaction but at first glance the language on the tabs was confusing to a junior contributor. This should be incorporated in the thinking that we do around T259266.
Ahh good point @Esanders Ill add that summary to the requirements.
Thanks @Tacsipacsi and @ppelberg I am going to do another round of iteration that incorporates your feedback and will post here.
I'd like us to still keep A in the mix for the purpose of conversation. I wouldn't want to make this a horrible experience for Senior Contributors and in fact this this might be an opportunity to enhance this experience slightly.
Aug 4 2020
I made a few low fidelity sketches for the purposes of discussion. The challenge here is making a design that is obvious for senior contributors (such as @Dyolf77_WMF and marc) while simultaneously being non-disruptive to junior contributors. For in-context commenting, take a look at figma, otherwise, here are three ways we can go:
Jul 30 2020
Looking good @Esanders. A few tweaks and links to things to figure out in the future.
To clarify the thought process around the tab switching: I observed many junior contributors get a bit lost in the interface when they were searching for the tabs and/or tools. I'd like to attempt to mitigate that issue by ordering the tools and tabs in a hierarchy that mirrors the users reading patterns.
Let's go with V2.1 (toolbar on the left) - in T257281 we learned through testing with junior contributors on usertesting.com that Reply v2.1 was in fact usable. That fact combined with the on-wiki conversations with Senior Contributors describing Reply v2.0 pain points for large viewports indicates that it's just a better experience.
Jul 29 2020
It looks overall good when it's pinned to the corner but when adding a bunch of text it does a weird jump.
- High level findings
Jul 28 2020
Jul 22 2020
I updated the description to include the correct variant definitions.
- Variant b is complete.
Jul 21 2020
- Variant a is complete.
- The second variant (b) is running on usertesting.com
Jul 16 2020
Update: The first variant (a) is running on usertesting.com
Update: for beta, I:
@ppelberg I'm fine if it's not in this ticket, but it should be in a phabricator task.
For the test accounts:
After our conversations, I tweaked the language, added a first step (before they get to Wikipedia) and removed a few less relevant opportunities. Finally, I cleaned up the design and added in the annotation notes so that you can layer in the specific OKR/release information.
Once that's done, I think we are good to close the ticket.
Jul 15 2020
After discussing it with @ppelberg, we aren't going to make the copy changes to the test. We realized that we actually want to see if switching tabs is an obvious and expected step for junior contributors who are in source mode by default. So the protocol is good.
Actually #1 is not an issue (I just didn't realized that you still needed to sign initial comments manually).
I just started making the test accounts on beta and there are a few issues:
I updated the script. I:
- added a step before the user replies to "Make sure that you are in the Reply editor’s visual tab."
- added a question as part of the post-survey written response to follow up on that: "After you switched to (or confirmed that you were in) the visual tab of the reply editor, how did it feel to navigate around the page to write your response?"
Jul 13 2020
@ppelberg I've updated the figma file. I made the following changes:
Jul 10 2020
@ppelberg - I've resolved the comments from the Reply flow and added the New Discussion flow (the SIGNIFICANTLY less complex flow) to figma. Please take a look and add your comments.
Jul 9 2020
Jul 8 2020
Jul 7 2020
Notes from convo with @Esanders:
To have parody with the Reply flows, we should make a complementary journey map for the new discussion user flow.
In Slack @ppelberg and I discussed the following two scenarios:
Jul 6 2020
I've updated the map, included the edits and made some design tweaks. @ppelberg take a look and let me know if you are good with this.
When we have the OKRs finalized, can you map them on the journey map opportunities directly?
Jul 3 2020
- moved the journey map to Figma, so anyone with the link can see and editors have access
- combined the two maps into one
- added senior emotions
- added opportunities.
Jun 30 2020
Thanks for the feedback @ppelberg
Jun 22 2020
Maintain the “double preview” or should we port over some of the features from preview and put that into visual mode?