Mon, Mar 16
Just talking through some of the implementation questions with @Esanders and we need to decide how the tab for visual and source and the toolbar buttons will look. The thinking behind this is that what I have in the initial mockups does not comply with OOUI.
I'm running the test on usertesting.com. Here are the changes I've made so far:
Thu, Mar 12
Great. @Esanders and I just made new test page - that has working templates!!! I'll update the test progress on this ticket.
Mar 10 2020
Mar 9 2020
Just updating this ticket with the final annotated mocks for consistency:
Mar 2 2020
We ran a test on usertesting.com on February 21, 2019 - The test recruited 10 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.
Feb 28 2020
Feb 26 2020
Here are the three annotated designs. I will update here if there are any tweaks:
Re: placeholder text saying "Reply to @RockawayBch4vr"
Is the '@' necessary?
my thinking here is that the @ would kind of teach a convention, but agreed, this isn't crucial and probably adds unnecessary complexity.
Should we show it for IPs, e.g. "Reply to 192.168.0.1" / "Reply to @192.168.0.1" ..... Probably, it might be helpful to know you clicked on the right reply button?
Can you say more here @Esanders about the "right button"? I'm not sure if I understand you.
Feb 25 2020
What should really happen here is that the Reply button should appear as disabled (gray) until theres text in the input field.
This way, it shouldn't be tappable until there's content there.
Feb 24 2020
Update: I ran the usability tests without the templates at the top of the page. I did five tests on mobile and five tests on desktop (both web). The next step here is reviewing and synthesizing the tests.
Feb 19 2020
Here are the updated mockups.
- I experimented with ui a bit (but want to take that even further with regards to the toolbar)
- Changed "watch discussion" to page
- removed "eyeball"
- removed preview
Feb 18 2020
Thanks @ppelberg - I've updated the testing protocol so that we will be testing this on usertesting.com mobile and desktop web.
I have the test written and ready to go on usertesting.com and have one question. I'm noticing on the prototype server that the infobox templates aren't visible. Is this something that we can fix before putting the test up? The reason that I am asking for this is so that we can recreate the actual experience as much as possible. cc/ @Esanders @matmarex
Feb 17 2020
Feb 13 2020
Here's what I believe is the flow for someone who edits someone else's comment using full page edit mode:
Thanks @matmarex - yes that's a mistake and the button is similar to the phab eyeball button (but I'm not sold on it yet).
Feb 12 2020
This is good fix and we can probably continue to push it further in the future.
Here is a draft attempt of me blocking out all of the features in the requirements for this ticket. There are probably things that are incorrectly conceived here but the reason to look at this mockup is:
Feb 11 2020
Feb 5 2020
Just dropping the logged in version without for good measure:
Feb 1 2020
this looks better than the current experience +1
Jan 31 2020
Jan 24 2020
Thanks @AronManning I just iterated a bit more (and also considered the localization factor of the copy on the buttons probably doubling or tripling the size). @Esanders and I came up with:
Jan 21 2020
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.
Jan 20 2020
Here, is what I believe to be the final mockup for v1.0 - can I get confirmation on this @ppelberg ?
Jan 16 2020
After getting some more feedback, I did another round of iterations. Essentially, there are 4 deeply related issues:
Jan 15 2020
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?
Jan 13 2020
Here are the article links for each of the target wikis:
Jan 10 2020
Jan 9 2020
I posted a few iterations for preview on Freehand.
Please provide high level feedback here and drop in anecdotal comments there.
Jan 7 2020
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.