On 7/22/13, James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On 22 July 2013 11:45, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for >> hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder >> users at all, that it's JS footprint is nonexistent, and that the >> interface >> changes aren't that bothersome (which, to an extend, are true). Even with >> all that, what reason is there to purposely deprive users of the choice to >> completely hide VE if they're sure they have no intention of using it? >> > > Adding a preference to disable VisualEditor in normal user preferences > (rather than making it as easy as possible for gadgets to disable if people > so chose) would be a lie. > > It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia thinks is > appropriate. This would be a lie. For a similar example, see the removal of > the "disable JavaScript" option from Firefox 23. > > It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia will support. > This would be a lie. We have always intended for VisualEditor to be a > wiki-level preference, and for this user-level preference to disappear once > the need for an opt-in (i.e., the beta roll-out to production wikis) is > over. > > It would imply that Wikimedia thinks preference bloat is an appropriate way > forward for users. This would be a lie. Each added preference adds to the > complexity of our interface, increasing even further the choice paralysis > and laughable usability of our existing preference system. > > It would imply that Wikimedia thinks preference bloat is an appropriate way > forward for expenditure of donor funds. This would be a lie. Each added > preference adds to the complexity of our software - so increasing the cost > and slowness of development and testing, and the difficulty of user support. > > It would imply that Wikimedia can get rid of under-used preferences. This > would be a lie. We do not have a successful track record of getting rid of > preferences, even when used by a handful of our users, even when set away > from default mostly by inactive accounts; accepting this form of product > debt now on the spurious claim that we'll pay it off later is untrue. > > It would imply that getting rid of preference later rather than now would > in any way reduce the outcry. This would be a lie. The very few times we > have done this, the arguments from those campaigning for retention are > generally emotive and not based on the above points - that "it's just a > little preference, not harming anyone", that Wikimedia "has enough money > for just this one item", or that the preference is the only thing keeping > the user from leaving - an argument that almost always is visibly proven > untrue after the preference is removed. > > Creating such a preference is a lie, and a lie I cannot endorse. > > J. > -- > James D. Forrester > Product Manager, VisualEditor > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Really? Given the number of inane preferences in Special:Preferences (I'm looking at you preference to disable sending 304 status codes), this is where we're going to draw the line? A preference for this seems fairly reasonable in my opinion. Especially given that visual editor is not at a fully feature complete state yet (For example, its not enabled in the project namespace as far as I understand) --bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
