If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a fully production-ready and usable state. What's getting released here is barely ready for beta. It's buggy, it's full of unexpected UX issues, it's not ready to go live on one of the top 10 websites in the world. It's got to be in really good shape to get there.
Until software is actually ready for widescale use, small and very limited beta tests are exactly the way to go, followed by maybe slightly larger UAT pools. Yeah, that takes longer and requires actual work to find willing testers. Quit taking shortcuts through your volunteers. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hey guys, > > I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team > to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've > been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in > discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at > the scale of Wikipedia. > > I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in > terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's > probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads > privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a > mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we > can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it > when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or > readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic. > > Thanks, > Sue > On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > Erik Moeller wrote: > > >In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy > > >to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to > > >improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the > > >last few weeks). > > > > Thanks for the reply. :-) > > > > If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on > > users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building > cool > > new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will > actively > > want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default. Many new > > features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly > regularly > > without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among > unsuccessful > > deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and > > MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger > > pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this. > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
