> > I disagree here; I think the article, its discussion, and its history > *are* at the same level of importance.
I was thinking about it more in terms of dependencies between concepts. I see "History" as "history *of the article*", and "discussion" as "discussion *about the article*". So the fact that those links were inside the article was enough from my point of view to communicate the relationship (without the explicit "article" option). >From what you comment, I can see that this generates the need for a different way to present the way back to the article, which may introduce more complexity for "history" and "discussion" views and has its challenges too. The problem is that some articles are going to literally have thousands of > discussion topics. I think that if it is worth it, we can deal with that. For example, we can reduce the scope to a time period (e.g., "100 discussions today"). The question is: is it worth it? I don't know the answer. I'm suggesting that if we identify that users are especially interested on some particular states of conversations/history (recent change, big changes, whether you participated...) we could try to anticipate those when they are relevant for our users. On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Brandon Harris <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Pau Giner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This looks good, thanks for the update. > > > > I have some comments about the sections that appear below the article > title: > > * Is the "article" section really needed initially? > > Even if the article is the option selected by default, I think that > presenting a choice between "article", "discussion" and "history" puts them > conceptually at the same level when they are not. > > I disagree here; I think the article, its discussion, and its > history *are* at the same level of importance. > > But: not having the button there felt weird when you'd move to > other views and it would magically appear. This was something that was > causing confusion among users (having links disappear and reappear) so I > standardized on it always having things visible. > > > * Would it make sense to anticipate content? > > Using "3 discussions" instead of the generic "Discussion" as label, and > using "Updated today" instead of the generic "history" label can help to > anticipate the expected data behind those links. There is a drawback of not > having uniform labelling but keeping the same icons can alleviate that > issue. > > The problem is that some articles are going to literally have > thousands of discussion topics. Further, we're not going to be able to > easily get that number until everything is Flow-enabled (can't do quick > counts on wikitext), so there's no way to use it. > > I'd prefer to avoid using non-static metadata as a > button/tab/navigation link mixed in with static labels. > > --- > Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
