Change Details

This task represents the work involving with designing the experiences people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled will have when they attempt to start a new discussion on a talk page, across namespaces, that has not yet been created yet. === Background As discussed by @matmarex and @DannyS712 on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/DiscussionTools/+/623117, adding new discussions to non-existent pages is a case that will need special handling. Currently, all links to such pages (red links) will append `&action=edit` which, when clicked, will take people straight into the full page source editor.[i] Trouble is, as previous usability tests of the full-page source editor in this context have proven (T243251#5933544), Junior Contributors are likely to be confused by this experience. Specifically, Junior Contributor usability test participants: - Did not sign the new discussions they posted - Expressed being uncertain about whether they were taking the right steps to start a new discussion - Had difficulty locating the new discussion they had just published to a talk page === Use cases We see there being three distinct use cases/categories of talk pages to design for: |Namespace|Account state|Ticket |---|---|--- |User talk (3)| Logged in| T274831 |User talk | Logged out|T287779 |Your *own* talk page |Logged in|T277329| |Your *own* talk page |Logged out|T288556| | All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)|---| T274832 === Requirements - **Full-page editing:** All empty state designs need to include affordances for opening the full-page `source` editing interface -- The full-page `source` editing interface (e.g. 2010 wikitext editor or 2017 wikitext editor) people see in this context, should be the same full-page `source` editing interface they see in other contexts (e.g. editing an article, editing a talk page that's already been created, etc.) - **Availability:** only people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled should be impacted by this new empty state experience. //Read: people who do not have the New Discussion Tool enabled should see no changes in the experiences they have when clicking on a [red] link to a talk page that does not currently exist.// - **Points of entry:** the empty state experiences we are designing should impact the following workflows/points of entry for people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled: -- 1. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that //already// exists -- 2. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that does //NOT// yet exist --- //E.g. Clicking on a red-linked talk page that appears in the signature of a newcomer who's posted on a community help page, for example.// -- 3. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL contains `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// -- 4. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL does NOT contain `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// === Open questions - [x] 1. Does it make most sense to consider the scope of this task as being limited to what happens when people click the `New section` / `Add topic` affordance on non-existent talk pages? //Meaning: the visual appearance of the empty page itself would be considered separately in T252902.// -- We'll consider the experience holistically and then breakout the work needed to realize this experience after having done so. //See: T270323#6767558.// --- i. |ru.wiki|en.wiki |---|--- |{F31907497}|{F31907515}

This task represents the work involving with designing the experiences people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled will have when they attempt to start a new discussion on a talk page, across namespaces, that has not yet been created yet. === Background As discussed by @matmarex and @DannyS712 on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/DiscussionTools/+/623117, adding new discussions to non-existent pages is a case that will need special handling. Currently, all links to such pages (red links) will append `&action=edit` which, when clicked, will take people straight into the full page source editor.[i] Trouble is, as previous usability tests of the full-page source editor in this context have proven (T243251#5933544), Junior Contributors are likely to be confused by this experience. Specifically, Junior Contributor usability test participants: - Did not sign the new discussions they posted - Expressed being uncertain about whether they were taking the right steps to start a new discussion - Had difficulty locating the new discussion they had just published to a talk page === Use cases We see there being three distinct use cases/categories of talk pages to design for: |Namespace|Account state|Subject page state|Ticket |---|---|--- |User talk (3)| Logged in|Exists| T274831 |User talk | Logged out|Exists|T287779 |Your *own* talk page |Logged in|Exists|T277329| |Your *own* talk page |Logged out|Exists|T288556| | All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)|---| Exists|T274832 |User talk (no account exists)| Logged in|Does not exist| //Ticket needed// |User talk | Logged out|Does not exist|//Ticket needed// | All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)|---| Does not exist|//Ticket needed// === Requirements - **Full-page editing:** All empty state designs need to include affordances for opening the full-page `source` editing interface -- The full-page `source` editing interface (e.g. 2010 wikitext editor or 2017 wikitext editor) people see in this context, should be the same full-page `source` editing interface they see in other contexts (e.g. editing an article, editing a talk page that's already been created, etc.) - **Availability:** only people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled should be impacted by this new empty state experience. //Read: people who do not have the New Discussion Tool enabled should see no changes in the experiences they have when clicking on a [red] link to a talk page that does not currently exist.// - **Points of entry:** the empty state experiences we are designing should impact the following workflows/points of entry for people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled: -- 1. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that //already// exists -- 2. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that does //NOT// yet exist --- //E.g. Clicking on a red-linked talk page that appears in the signature of a newcomer who's posted on a community help page, for example.// -- 3. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL contains `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// -- 4. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL does NOT contain `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// === Open questions - [x] 1. Does it make most sense to consider the scope of this task as being limited to what happens when people click the `New section` / `Add topic` affordance on non-existent talk pages? //Meaning: the visual appearance of the empty page itself would be considered separately in T252902.// -- We'll consider the experience holistically and then breakout the work needed to realize this experience after having done so. //See: T270323#6767558.// --- i. |ru.wiki|en.wiki |---|--- |{F31907497}|{F31907515}

This task represents the work involving with designing the experiences people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled will have when they attempt to start a new discussion on a talk page, across namespaces, that has not yet been created yet. === Background As discussed by @matmarex and @DannyS712 on https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/DiscussionTools/+/623117, adding new discussions to non-existent pages is a case that will need special handling. Currently, all links to such pages (red links) will append `&action=edit` which, when clicked, will take people straight into the full page source editor.[i] Trouble is, as previous usability tests of the full-page source editor in this context have proven (T243251#5933544), Junior Contributors are likely to be confused by this experience. Specifically, Junior Contributor usability test participants: - Did not sign the new discussions they posted - Expressed being uncertain about whether they were taking the right steps to start a new discussion - Had difficulty locating the new discussion they had just published to a talk page === Use cases We see there being three distinct use cases/categories of talk pages to design for: |Namespace|Account state|Subject page state|Ticket |---|---|--- |User talk (3)| Logged in|Exists| T274831 |User talk | Logged out|Exists|T287779 |Your *own* talk page |Logged in|Exists|T277329| |Your *own* talk page |Logged out|Exists|T288556| | All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)|---| T274832Exists|T274832 |User talk (no account exists)| Logged in|Does not exist| //Ticket needed// |User talk | Logged out|Does not exist|//Ticket needed// | All other talk (1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 101, 119, 711, 829)|---| Does not exist|//Ticket needed// === Requirements - **Full-page editing:** All empty state designs need to include affordances for opening the full-page `source` editing interface -- The full-page `source` editing interface (e.g. 2010 wikitext editor or 2017 wikitext editor) people see in this context, should be the same full-page `source` editing interface they see in other contexts (e.g. editing an article, editing a talk page that's already been created, etc.) - **Availability:** only people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled should be impacted by this new empty state experience. //Read: people who do not have the New Discussion Tool enabled should see no changes in the experiences they have when clicking on a [red] link to a talk page that does not currently exist.// - **Points of entry:** the empty state experiences we are designing should impact the following workflows/points of entry for people who have the New Discussion Tool enabled: -- 1. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that //already// exists -- 2. They click on a red linked talk page that is "adjoined" to an article/user/project/etc. page that does //NOT// yet exist --- //E.g. Clicking on a red-linked talk page that appears in the signature of a newcomer who's posted on a community help page, for example.// -- 3. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL contains `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// -- 4. ~~They manually enter and navigate to the URL of the not-yet-created talk page; this URL does NOT contain `?action=edit`.~~ //We will //not// be addressing this point of entry as part of this initial version. This work will instead happen in T283644.// === Open questions - [x] 1. Does it make most sense to consider the scope of this task as being limited to what happens when people click the `New section` / `Add topic` affordance on non-existent talk pages? //Meaning: the visual appearance of the empty page itself would be considered separately in T252902.// -- We'll consider the experience holistically and then breakout the work needed to realize this experience after having done so. //See: T270323#6767558.// --- i. |ru.wiki|en.wiki |---|--- |{F31907497}|{F31907515}