Gerard, I believe that the disputes about MediaViewer are mostly about the desktop platform's version, as most editors use the desktop platform to edit.
In general terms, I have yet to hear someone say that the Mobile platform is a low development priority. I am familiar with Mobile-l. Mobile development has a long road ahead of it but I feel Mobile is overall moving in the right direction. In my experience, Mobile development has good interpersonal harmony among participants, and everyone is hoping to convert a portion of mobile app users to new contributors. Pine On Aug 14, 2014 11:58 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > I am getting so pissed off. > > Let us be realistic. The user experience sucks ... It sucks big time and > even though the "community" is comfortable with it, it impedes the use by > the people we do it all for. They are the READERS.. they are not the > editors and the least this is done for are the people who are so indignant > because their experience changes. > > When you look at the last year, the biggest changes are driven by the > development for mobiles. The projections make it plain this is where our > customers will be. The existing Wikipedia with its monobook and what have > you skin will not be seen, used or be relevant to them. Our traffic is > transitioning to mobile. Editing starts to happen on mobile and if it is > not clear to the "community" that future development will be in this > direction they live under a rock or they are in denial. > > Have a look at a Commons page on a mobile.. It is beyond bad and beyond > useful. With the Multimedia viewer it becomes useful. (NB there are things > in there that are brain dead but that is a different story) > > WAKE UP. Our world is changing. Trying to shame the WMF development in a > different direction is counter productive, ill considered and even > destructive. When you are the "community", and when this is new to you, I > hope you will sit back for a moment and consider this. When this does not > make a difference to you, there is always the right of departure. In my > brutal opinion we have no option but to move towards a more mobile centred > appreciation. The alternative is stagnation and irrelevance. That does not > need to happen when we accept that the world changes around us. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 14 August 2014 17:28, Tim Davenport <shoehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Re: Erik Möller's remark: "In general, though, let's talk. The > overarching > > principle we're not > > going to budge on is that this process is really not acceptable: > > > > 1) The UI changes > > 2) A subset of users is upset and organizes a poll/vote > > 3) The poll/vote closes with a request to undo said UI Change and a > > request is filed > > 4) WMF offers compromise or says no > > 5) A local hack is used to undo said UI change > > > > That's no way to develop software, and that's no way to work > together...." > > > > ========= > > > > I could spend 10,000 words on this. I'll try to keep it (comparatively) > > short. > > > > > > The reason this dysfunctional situation develops, Erik, is because there > > are no steps A, B, C, D, E, F, and G preceding #1 on the list. > > > > As things currently stand, this is the way the software development > process > > at WMF seems to me to work: > > > > * Engineers collecting paychecks obviously need something to do. > > * Someone comes up with a bright idea that sounds good on paper. > > * Engineers decide to make that idea a reality and start work. > > * Inadequately tested software, sometimes of dubious utility, is > > unilaterally imposed on volunteers. > > * If new software is problematic enough, volunteers revolt by any means > > necessary. > > * WMF forces changes down throat of volunteers by any means necessary. > > > > This is truly "no way to develop software" and "no way to work together." > > > > ----- > > > > Here is the way the process SHOULD begin: > > > > * WMF staffers, plural, identify by user names/IP addresses the 10,000 or > > so very active volunteers across all projects and database them. > > > > * WMF staffers further divide this group into coherent "types": content > > writers, gnome-type copy editors, structural adapters (template people, > bot > > operators, etc.), quality control workers (NPP, AfD), vandal fighters, > > behavioral administrators (ArbCom, Ani, the various Admin pages), and > drone > > bees who do nothing but Facebook-style drama mongering. Multiple > categories > > may apply to single individuals and this list is not necessarily > > exhaustive. > > > > * Once identified, WMF staffers frequently and regularly poll very active > > users in each category about WHAT THEY NEED. Different surveys for > > different volunteer types. > > > > * Software development starts ONLY when a real need is identified. > > > > * Software should be introduced on En-WP, De-WP, or Commons ONLY when it > is > > Alpha-grade, debugged and ready to roll. (Test things on the smaller > Wikis > > first). > > > > ----- > > > > Moreover, there should be some polling mechanism to summarize and analyze > > what the 500 million or whatever readers worldwide feel that they like > and > > feel they are missing. "User experience" changes with primary impact on > > readers rather than volunteers (such as MediaViewer) should be made with > > them in mind first and foremost; editing and structural tools should be > > made to actually assist the active volunteers, not created on a whim. > > > > Sometimes the needs of the Readers and the needs of the Volunteers are > > different, let us frankly say. In no case should WMF assume the views and > > criticism of the latter are insignificant or wrong simply because > > 500,000,000 > 10,000. > > > > Remember this because according to the same logic: 10,000 > 240. > > > > ----- > > > > We all agree that we need a bigger pool of very active volunteers. Most > > readers are never going to be very active volunteers, nor do we want them > > to be, since we need specialized skill sets. Most people using the > editing > > software are only going to make one or a very few changes a year and they > > are never going to even "see" the backstage world of Wikipedia. That is > > normal and fine. > > > > We do need expert contributors on esoteric topics and we need solid > > contributors from the developing world and we need to replenish the > people > > doing copy editing and quality control work. > > > > We don't need tools that nobody asked for and nobody wants shoved down > our > > throats just because engineers needed something to do. > > > > > > > > 240 Paid Staff + 10,000 Serious Volunteers + 500,000,000 Readers and > > occasional minor contributors > > > > Three groups with differing needs. > > > > > > Tim Davenport /// "Carrite" on WP /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO > > Corvallis, OR > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
