Change Details

T323145 produced a [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) [i] for using the visual editor's existing "transaction" system for visually highlighting: 1. What – if any – new content the software "thinks" was added during an edit //and// 2. Where within an existing article the software "thinks" the new content it detects was added This demo will help the Editing Team decide what – if any – changes we think ought to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added ultimately, whether we think there is a need for us to consider an alternative technical approach to doing what "1." and "2." describe above (e.g. by using the visual diff "engine" instead, as T324736 describes). === Decisions to be made - [ ] 1. What – if any – changes does the Editing Team think //need// to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added - [ ] 2. Will the Editing Team iterate on the approach T323145 produced to implement the changes they will have converged on in "1."? Will they instead pursue another approach (e.g. T324736)? === Requirements The software should only draw peoples' attention to content that warrants their focus so that they come to trust in – and be responsive to – the prompts the software is surfacing to them. Where "warrants their focus" in this context means: - Content they explicitly added during the edit session they're currently in - Content the majority of Senior Contributors would agree would benefit from being referenced Where "warrants their focus" in this context does NOT mean: - Content they did not add - Changes that Senior Contributors would agree would be confusing/not make sense to reference (blank lines, spaces, formatting changes, moving existing content around via copy and paste, etc.) === Revisions //This section will contain the revisions the Editing Team thinks need to be made to how and when the visual editor draws peoples' attention to the content they've just added in order to be helpful to people.// === Done - [ ] The Editing Team has documented the revisions they think need to be made to the [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) - [ ] Answers to all `Decisions to be made` are documented --- i. T323145#8519309

T323145 produced a [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) [i] for using the visual editor's existing "transaction" system for visually highlighting: 1. What – if any – new content the software "thinks" was added during an edit //and// 2. Where within an existing article the software "thinks" the new content it detects was added This demo will help the Editing Team decide what – if any – changes we think ought to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added ultimately, whether we think there is a need for us to consider an alternative technical approach to doing what "1." and "2." describe above (e.g. by using the visual diff "engine" instead, as T324736 describes). === Decisions to be made - [ ] 1. What – if any – changes does the Editing Team think //need// to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added - [ ] 2. Will the Editing Team iterate on the approach T323145 produced to implement the changes they will have converged on in "1."? Will they instead pursue another approach (e.g. T324736)? === Requirements The software should only draw peoples' attention to content that warrants their focus so that they come to trust in – and be responsive to – the prompts the software is surfacing to them. Where "warrants their focus" in this context means: - Content they explicitly added during the edit session they're currently in - Content the majority of Senior Contributors would agree would benefit from being referenced Where "warrants their focus" in this context does NOT mean: - Content they did not add - Changes that Senior Contributors would agree would be confusing/not make sense to reference (blank lines, spaces, formatting changes, moving existing content around via copy and paste, etc.) === Review |CASE|DESCRIPTION|EXPECTED|ACTUAL|NOTES|RESULTING ACTION(S) |---|---|---|---|---|--- |1.|New blank line(s)| No highlight| ❗️Highlight| New blank lines //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |2.|Formatting existing content|No highlight|✅ No highlight| |--- |3.|Moving existing content (cut + paste) |No highlight|❗️Highlight| Pasted content //unexpectedly// highlighted| Known limitation of transaction approach |4.|Moving existing content (copy + paste) |No highlight|❗️Highlight| Pasted content //unexpectedly// highlighted|Known limitation of transaction approach |5.|Adding an image|No highlight| ❗️Highlight| Image //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |6.|Adding a template|No highlight|❗️Highlight| Template //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |7.|Adding new sentence(s) (beg. existing paragraph)|Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- |8.|Adding new sentence(s) (middle existing paragraph)|Highlight|✅ Highlight| Highlight "leaked" onto a character in the sentence that follows the once I added/inserted.|--- |9.| Adding new sentence(s) (end existing paragraph)| Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- |10.| Adding a new section| Highlight| ✅ Highlight| |--- |11.| Adding a new paragraph in existing section| Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- === Done - [ ] The Editing Team has documented the revisions they think need to be made to the [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) - [ ] Answers to all `Decisions to be made` are documented --- i. T323145#8519309

T323145 produced a [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) [i] for using the visual editor's existing "transaction" system for visually highlighting: 1. What – if any – new content the software "thinks" was added during an edit //and// 2. Where within an existing article the software "thinks" the new content it detects was added This demo will help the Editing Team decide what – if any – changes we think ought to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added ultimately, whether we think there is a need for us to consider an alternative technical approach to doing what "1." and "2." describe above (e.g. by using the visual diff "engine" instead, as T324736 describes). === Decisions to be made - [ ] 1. What – if any – changes does the Editing Team think //need// to be made to how and when the visual editor draws a person's attention to the content they've just added - [ ] 2. Will the Editing Team iterate on the approach T323145 produced to implement the changes they will have converged on in "1."? Will they instead pursue another approach (e.g. T324736)? === Requirements The software should only draw peoples' attention to content that warrants their focus so that they come to trust in – and be responsive to – the prompts the software is surfacing to them. Where "warrants their focus" in this context means: - Content they explicitly added during the edit session they're currently in - Content the majority of Senior Contributors would agree would benefit from being referenced Where "warrants their focus" in this context does NOT mean: - Content they did not add - Changes that Senior Contributors would agree would be confusing/not make sense to reference (blank lines, spaces, formatting changes, moving existing content around via copy and paste, etc.) === Revisionsew |CASE|DESCRIPTION|EXPECTED|ACTUAL|NOTES|RESULTING ACTION(S) |---|---|---|---|---|--- |1.|New blank line(s)| No highlight| ❗️Highlight| New blank lines //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |2.|Formatting existing content|No highlight|✅ No highlight| |--- |3.|Moving existing content (cut + paste) |No highlight|❗️Highlight| Pasted content //unexpectedly// highlighted| Known limitation of transaction approach |4.|Moving existing content (copy + paste) |No highlight|❗️Highlight| Pasted content //unexpectedly// highlighted|Known limitation of transaction approach |5.|Adding an image|No highlight| ❗️Highlight| Image //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |6.|Adding a template|No highlight|❗️Highlight| Template //unexpectedly// highlighted| !!Non-issue for now; revisit in T324730!! |7.|Adding new sentence(s) (beg. existing paragraph)|Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- |8.|Adding new sentence(s) (middle existing paragraph)|Highlight|✅ Highlight| Highlight "leaked" onto a character in the sentence that follows the once I added/inserted.|--- //This section will contain the revisions the Editing Team thinks need to be made to how and when the visual editor draws peoples' attention to the content they've just added in order to be helpful to people.//|9.| Adding new sentence(s) (end existing paragraph)| Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- |10.| Adding a new section| Highlight| ✅ Highlight| |--- |11.| Adding a new paragraph in existing section| Highlight|✅ Highlight| |--- === Done - [ ] The Editing Team has documented the revisions they think need to be made to the [demo](https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/f0b9975c04/wiki/Douglas_Adams?veaction=edit) - [ ] Answers to all `Decisions to be made` are documented --- i. T323145#8519309