User Details
- User Since
- Feb 8 2019, 4:51 AM (313 w, 3 d)
- Availability
- Available
- IRC Nick
- ppelberg
- LDAP User
- Unknown
- MediaWiki User
- PPelberg (WMF) [ Global Accounts ]
Sat, Feb 8
Fri, Feb 7
Thank you for reviewing, @HNordeenWMF !
- Could this be done for Mobile Web, iOS, and Android? (So that we can use it for next fiscal to inform both Apps' roadmaps?)
Great spot. Here is what I proposed to Megan (admittedly after updating the task and before seeing this comment!)...how does this sound to you?
- We start with just iOS in service of equipping WE 1.2 with what we need to make decisions in the near-term
- If Megan comes to find she has additional time and/or finds that including Android as well (albeit broken out separately from iOS) wouldn't add too much additional effort, we include Android in this.
- This might be out of scope, but it would be useful for the future: could we add a step for how many published a non-mainspace edit? It might not strictly be in the funnel, but it would be helpful information to know how many people get started right away successfully with the editor in a user page, talk, or sandbox.
OoOo, interesting. This sounds generally useful to know. @MNeisler, I defer to you to decide whether expanding the scope of this analysis to include non-main namepsace edits would impact our ability to deliver this analysis in the next 2-3 weeks alongside the other priorities we have set.
Thu, Feb 6
Wed, Feb 5
Tue, Feb 4
Sat, Feb 1
Fri, Jan 31
Thu, Jan 30
Next steps
Per today's offline discussion:
- 1. David: articulate rough proposal for generic logging of Check actions
- Done in T352092#10510483
- 2. Megan to become clear about ideal instrumentation
- 3. Megan evaluate viability of approach David described in T352092#10510483
- 4. David, Megan, Peter: meet to discuss evaluation ("3.")
Meta: assigning this task over to @zoe, per an offline discussion this week.
Wed, Jan 29
Tue, Jan 28
Nice, @zoe!
Mon, Jan 27
This looks great.
[Question: I'd guess it is per-wiki? Or is it SUL-wide?]
@Quiddity, to confirm: are you asking about the scope of the feature's memory? E.g. does it build a separate memory for the special characters you use on each wiki? Does it build one memory that spans across projects? Something else?
For documentation to link to: I wonder if something (screenshot? short sentence?) could be added to the relevant page(s) on MediaWiki-wiki?
Great spot; how does this look?
Updating task to include impact on rate at which people add references, per suggestion @ATsay-WMF made offline.
Proposed copy. @Quiddity, how does this look to you? Notice anything that could benefit from revision?
Work on this task will resume once we become clear about how the broader "Mid-Edit" moment will present Checks to people while they are typing/acting on the document.
Moving this to Ready for sign off . We're going to revise the generic error message (pictured below)
to exclude the ...using the "Manual" tab above. portion in TICKET (@ppelberg to file and link here).Mmm, understood. Thank you for adding this context, @Mvolz.
Sat, Jan 25
Fri, Jan 24
Thu, Jan 23
@Jdlrobson-WMF, Editing would prefer that we leave this task open per what @DLynch shared in T379444#10490697 and the plan I understood us as having converged on in December 2024 (Slack):
Update
Today, @nayoub shared the following outcomes from the work session he and @DLynch held earlier today...
- We're going to continue refining the sidebar experience David shared in T383955#10469133. Ideally, there will be a Patch Demo that incorporates these UX/UI refinements for team critique/discussion on Wednesday, 29 January.
- Where refining means things like, how we handle multiple Checks being present within the same span of text, how Checks are presented in the pre-publish moment, iterating on the general look and feel, etc.
- We're going to explore an alternative approach in Figma (rather than code) that presents mid-edit feedback via underlining text.
- Note: while we sense an intuitive attraction to the sidebar approach (T383955#10469133), we want to be able to compare it against an alternative approach.