*Make it easier to contribute from projects. *— brought this up with the team working on the mediawiki.ui/oo.ui UX standardization work, great point, and critical to the success of the projects.
*Make it easy to check the current status.* — Jon is working on this, it will be the focus of the next mediawiki.ui hack day on the 11th. *Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Pau Giner <[email protected]> wrote: > I propose we try this proposal in code, on real process flows that >> actually exists and inform our decisions of what to change and how to >> change it on actual user feedback and testing. > > > I totally agree with this. However, in my opinion there are some aspects > that we need to support better for this to work in practice: > > - *Make it easier to contribute from projects.* With previous > incarnations of Agora I tried to contribute changes: a loading indicator > control (GitHub pull > request<https://github.com/wikimedia/agora/pull/7>that I later converted into > Gerrit > patchset <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/53353/> when the GitHub > repo was deprecated) and a spacing > fix<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/75079/>. > Nothing got merged nor requests for improvement were made. I think this is > due to: > - The fact that this involves merging into core, so it makes it > hard to accept a component that works for a specific project and will > become more generic in the future by iterating. > - The lack of a clear discussion process: Since this involved > different roles and teams it is hard to solve, but we need clarity on > who > should contributors ask to reviewing and approve those changes. > - The difficulty to review UI code without context. Even for a > simple change of colour or padding, the person reviewing the change > needs > to answers many questions (how dis it look before? how does it look > now?, > is it affecting the look of any other component anywhere else in the > system?) which require a lot of work to answer. Make it easy to view > the UI > components would facilitate this process (which leads to the next > point). > - *Make it easy to check the current status.* If the current state of > the style is embedded into a specific project, or a local installation of > Mediawiki is needed, we are putting too much barriers for most of our users > (think on the steps that a volunteer designer at a Hackathon should do to > view the Agora buttons and suggest a different tone of blue). Ideally we > should be able to provide a single source of truth that can be easily > viewed, shared, and contributed to. The more replication and barriers, the > hardest it will be to put a quick iterative process to work. > > > Don't take the above as a complaint. Making a process that involves many > teams and roles work fluently is really hard. I just wanted to share some > of the issues I found when tried to go through this process in previous > attempts so that we can learn from previous experiences. > > > Pau > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jared Zimmerman <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Great conversation everyone, looking forward to seeing everyone weigh in, >> I don't want to get too far down into the weeds of form design though. >> Let's leave that for the designers of individual features. My hope is that >> we'd have some general principals and a system that is flexible enough to >> implement them. Designing theoretical UI libraries and coming up with >> possible issues with them is something we could probably do until the end >> of time. >> >> I propose we try this proposal in code, on real process flows that >> actually exists and inform our decisions of what to change and how to >> change it on actual user feedback and testing. >> >> The subtleties of color and arrangement will change, I have no doubt, but >> let's not get so caught up in the what ifs that we don't actually make >> things. >> >> Sent while mobile >> >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Steven Walling <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Friesen < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Neutral = Grey >>> Destructive = Red >>> Constructive = Green >>> Primary = Blue >>> >> >> Should we start a new thread about this, and keep the conversation on the >> topic of button semantics and the according CSS? :) >> >> For reference: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Agoraswatch.png is >> the current palette. >> >> -- >> Steven Walling, >> Product Manager >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Design mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Design mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >> >> > > > -- > Pau Giner > Interaction Designer > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design > >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
