On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Mark Holmquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 05:07:11PM -0700, Fabrice Florin wrote:
>> A. Simple 'Edit? button: (5)
>> Provide an ?Edit? tool above the fold, so that advanced users can quickly go
>> to the Commons description page to edit it. Restrict this to logged-in users
>> only?
>> ? Pros: gives editors a much-needed edit tool, in a compact format that
>> is easy to understand (pencil icon), making it easier for them to do their
>> work
>> ? Cons: readers could get confused by this tool, which takes them to a
>> completely different site (so we may want to not show it to them at all).
>
> One thing I'm not totally clear on - is this a link to the edit page,
> or to the description page? The former would be hard technically, but
> the latter would be less useful for power users (maybe?)
This link would go to the file description page, as described above — not the
edit page with wikitext, which would be overwhelming for most users.
Even a power user can get more value from seeing the description page first, so
they have more context.
The pencil icon is intended here as a metaphor to let you know that if you want
to edit this file’s information, you have to go to its file repository.
Someday, we may be able to edit fields directly in the Media Viewer, but it
seems best to wait until we have implemented structured data on Commons. :)
>
>> C. 'More details on Commons?: (7)
>> Provide a call to action inviting new users to check more details on
>> Commons, explaining what it is and how to get there. Shown below the fold,
>> after key details.
>> ? Pros: Clarifies what Commons is and why users might want to go there:
>> to get more details and share free media. Larger panel makes it easier to
>> find.
>> ? Cons: Below the fold position means many users will not see it.
>> Consider using it in combination with Options A or B above?
>
> The problem I have with this is that it's really Commons centric. I have
> seen enough Commons-centric crap go into UploadWizard that I'm really
> cautious about this now, and this smells funny to me.
>
> In particular, the text that is in the mockup doesn't seem to come from
> anywhere API-accessible, so we would either need to add another field to
> the siteinfo API ("subtitle for this wiki on remote sites using it as a
> repository for images..." verbose) or hard-code it in for Commons (see
> above), which both sound unappealing.
>
> --
> Mark Holmquist
> Software Engineer, Multimedia
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [email protected]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist
>
On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Jean-Frédéric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> In particular, the text that is in the mockup doesn't seem to come from
> anywhere API-accessible, so we would either need to add another field to
> the siteinfo API ("subtitle for this wiki on remote sites using it as a
> repository for images..." verbose) or hard-code it in for Commons (see
> above), which both sound unappealing.
>
> Isn’t it possible to use <Shared-repo-name-shared> (the way
> <Sharedupload-desc-here> does)?
>
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Shared-repo-name-shared>
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here>
>
> --
> Jean-Frédéric
> ______________________
Thanks, Jean-Fréderic!
If it is too inconvenient to provide this subtitle for each file repository, we
could either leave the second line blank, or use the same generic phrase
already used by that site, like:
‘More details on English Wikipedia
The free encyclopedia'
But I think that Pau’s proposal addresses effectively some of the concerns that
he heard from users during this recent usability study, with key findings
summarized below:
• Access to Commons. It is not clear how to get more metadata. Even for users
that appreciate detailed EXIF metadata, “Learn more on commons” link was not
communicating that they could get this information. Some users figured out that
the license link was leading to the details page, but that was a confusing
experience.
• A more clear call to action to view more details is needed (example). The
details page and the media viewer overlap in content needs to be clarified for
the user (we can even label this as “more technical details” to reinforce the
different purpose of both).
So I think it’s worth it to go the extra mile to try to explain this link a bit
more.
> _______________________________________________
> Multimedia mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
