https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Helder mybugs.m...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Highest |High
--
You
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Skippy le Grand Gourou lecotegougdelafo...@free.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #43 from Skippy le Grand Gourou lecotegougdelafo...@free.fr ---
Two more comments, after reading the discussion pointed by comment 30 :
- this argument from Nick White needs emphasizing : I don't think two small
edit links by
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Helder mybugs.m...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accessibility, design
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
MZMcBride b...@mzmcbride.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Normal |Highest
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #45 from kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com ---
(In reply to comment #44)
This needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Compounded annoyance is a very
bad
thing.
Let's go with [edit | edit source] for now.
Based on the results so far at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #46 from Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org ---
I don't think [beta editor | stable editor] is good as it doesn't tell you what
the functional difference between them is. We probably also want to stick with
edit rather than editor
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #47 from MZMcBride b...@mzmcbride.com ---
(In reply to comment #45)
I would suggest that we go with
[beta editor | stable editor]
No. That RFC (linked in comment 45) is specific to one wiki and doesn't suggest
using [beta
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #48 from MZMcBride b...@mzmcbride.com ---
(In reply to comment #46)
[visual edit (beta) | source edit] would be better but not optimal I don't
think. [edit | edit visually (beta)] is the most compact that I can come up
with, but
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #49 from kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com ---
(In reply to comment #47)
(In reply to comment #45)
I would suggest that we go with
[beta editor | stable editor]
No. That RFC (linked in comment 45) ... suggests better advertising
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #50 from MZMcBride b...@mzmcbride.com ---
(In reply to comment #49)
The only mention of the warning that it is beta came in the Oppose section.
The very fact that two of the only three oppose votes mention placing the
warning
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #51 from kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com ---
(In reply to comment #50)
That RFC can provide guidance, but there are issues of ends versus means.
Exactly. The end of testing Visual Editor should not include the means of
having it used
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #39 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #38 by Chris McKenna)
I think completely new users would be more confused by having to choose between
2 edit links in text format. We want to encourage them to try
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #40 from kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com ---
(In reply to comment #39)
(In reply to comment #38 by Chris McKenna)
I think completely new users would be more confused by having to choose
between
2 edit links in text format. We want
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #41 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #40 by kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com)
I was assuming of course that the visual editor was working well. I think that
the visual editor should be turned off for
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #35 from Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Chris McKenna said that a text link and an icon link were a nightmare from a
usability perspective.
Yes, because they are inconsistent.
You are saying
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #36 from Eduard Braun eduard.bra...@gmx.de ---
Just to point out the importance of this bug:
I just deactivated VisualEditor for this exact reason. I hate the hovering, and
I'm mis-clicking regularly because of the VE replacing my
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #37 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #35 by Chris McKenna)
You said the following concerning why you want consistency:
Because there are two ways to do the same job (edit the page) the ways of
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #38 from Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org ---
It's not about aesthetics (that's the reason we have the hover) it's about
usability.
One icon and one link would not likely slow me down considerably, but it would
seriously impact new
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #31 from Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org ---
(In reply to comment #30)
I think the least cluttered longterm solution for them might be
an
edit link for the visual editor, and an icon for the source wikitext
editor.
Least
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #32 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #31 by Chris McKenna)
I don't understand. How is it difficult to click a static icon that is there
all the time (without having to go through any hovering)? There
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #33 from Eduard Braun eduard.bra...@gmx.de ---
It's not about being difficult it's about consistency!
We have two equivalent ways of editing an article, therefore there should be
two equivalent buttons.
Either both of them should
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #34 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #33 by Eduard Braun)
It's not about being difficult it's about consistency!
We have two equivalent ways of editing an article, therefore there should be
two
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Richard Morris r...@singsurf.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@singsurf.org
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #26 from Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org ---
I agree we need to revisit this, Richard. We'll kick around some options, but
we won't be able to get a new interface out before next week at the earliest.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #27 from Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org ---
(In reply to comment #24)
The first and easiest step is to remove the button
for editing sections using the source editor until you actually have a source
editor that can edit
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #30 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #26 by Erik Moeller)
I agree we need to revisit this, Richard. We'll kick around some options, but
we won't be able to get a new interface out before next week at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #23 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #13 by Erik Moeller)
We don't love the [ edit ] [ edit source ] static links, because it feels
cluttered and not the kind of user experience that we want to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #20 from Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org ---
Are you sure the single link was the VE one?
I've seen some occasional cases where only the wikitext section links showed
(this is also the default, e.g. if you have JavaScript
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cmcke...@sucs.org
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #16 from Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org ---
Custom CSS workaround available at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #17 from Jason Giglio g...@gigstaggart.com ---
Eduard Braun's preferences proposal would work to solve all the use cases, but
I don't see how this is superior to just always showing both links, with a
preference for reverting to the
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #18 from Eduard Braun eduard.bra...@gmx.de ---
I'd prefer just showing them always, too (they can then be easily be hidden
separately with CSS if necessary). But others prefer how it is done now (see
Erik Möller's concerns in
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@wikimedia.org
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #14 from MZMcBride b...@mzmcbride.com ---
(In reply to comment #13)
We've been kicking around the section editing behavior a fair bit, and we
recognize the need for more flexibility, in part because the mouseover
interface
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #15 from Eduard Braun eduard.bra...@gmx.de ---
However this will be solved: Put thought in it!
I could imagine, that this decision will determine whether people will be
disabling/hiding VE or keep using it along with the Wikitext
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Jason Giglio g...@gigstaggart.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #8 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
This should be a priority and not just an enhancement. To think that future
versions of MediaWiki will be crippled longterm by this incredibly buggy and
slow visual editor is very
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org ---
(In reply to comment #7)
It seems no one has pointed out that pads and phones and touchscreens usually
can't hover. Hover stuff should pretty much never be a necessary part of
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #10 from Jason Giglio g...@gigstaggart.com ---
It's difficult to focus without clicking on a touchscreen as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Lowest |Normal
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #12 from Timeshifter zedlight...@gmail.com ---
I misspoke. The only VE gadget now in preferences is this one: Remove
VisualEditor from the user interface.
But my point is that each language version of Wikipedia should not have to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|50612 |
--
You
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Unprioritized |Lowest
49 matches
Mail list logo
