Hello all, Thanks, Dan, for bringing this to the list. It is a better place to have the discussion, I think. I don’t have a lot to add beyond the original post, but do wish to clarify a couple of my views.
>As far as I know "slam dunk" criteria has never been formally applied to any >previous changesets. Perhaps we should formalize how we make such decisions >and apply it consistently for _all_ new features, otherwise conflict, hurt >feelings, and wasted time may result. I agree with this 100%. I hope it was clear that “slam dunk” was simply an attempt to articulate my personal criteria for whether a new behavior should be optional or not. I’d love to see us reach a consensus with guidelines which can consistently applied. It might also make a difference whether we are talking about options which affect data or options which affect only display, as display level options are easier and less dangerous all-around. >The power of the default dictates whether libraries are likely to even be >aware of the feature… I also agree with this, and I would not argue that “slam dunk”-age be applied to choosing default behavior. I would say a new feature should be “on” by default (for the reasons you gave) unless: a) It is *clearly* meant to serve a niche audience; OR b) It significantly changes an already entrenched behavior or expectation In the case of the new library pages, neither of these concerns apply, so I’d vote that it should be on by default. I would also say that defaults should be revisited as needed, as gradual adoption of a new feature may shift either of these concerns to a different side. >While hover help via a title attribute or the like might help for desktop >browsers, the mobile browser situation is more complicated. Agreed, but shouldn’t we take what we can get? I could really go either way (hence my posing it as a question in the first place). >I'll admit that I shudder a bit at the thought of 90's-era "external link" / >"more info" icons and such for navigation; I think that would clutter up the >display even further. I know that Wikipedia still uses external link icons, and I’m sure other major sites do as well. I think it is more important when a site has a high percentage of links per page (which we certainly do). They also use a “tooltip” feature for their citations, which is really handy. Obviously this is just one site, but we could do worse in selecting a site to draw inspiration from. I think it is at least possible to add icons and styling in way which adds clarity, not clutter. Besides, the 90s weren’t *that* bad ☺ For all the rest, I am happy to wait and hear other thoughts. Thanks again, Dan! Dan
