https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37992
--- Comment #19 from MZMcBride <[email protected]> 2012-09-15 23:10:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > TL;DR, I really oppose turning this on with the way it's formatted now and > using the process that's being discussed. Most of your comment reads as "I'm bored and looking for a fight" with a hint of "why wasn't I consulted?" If you want to start petty disputes on Bugzilla with me, you really ought to do better research into the battles you pick. This isn't my brainchild or my code. It's a missing MediaWiki feature that would be particularly helpful to have on Wikimedia wikis. > *For more detail on each point; this is not, as MzMcBride claims, "a general > MediaWiki enhancement" unless you want to expand the definition to cover > pretty > much anything. It seems like a fairly standard enhancement to me. > It introduces a completely new workflow, alters existing ones > and sticks a big button on the (already overfilled) page that we know all > editors are going to see. There is no way this can be turned on without a > community discussion unless you want a raging storm of anger hurled in the > direction of whoever hits the big red button. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Microsoft Word has auto-save; WordPress has auto-save; modern Web browsers have auto-save. Who do you think will be shouting about this being enabled? Is there any evidence of this being a controversial feature? > *The UI elements clash with current thinking about the direction that we're > going in. The Micro Designs Improvement project is currently working on the > edit window as we speak, and plans to do a couple more iterations given the > opportunity. I'd rather not throw two competing philosophies of design into > the > mix - that works if they're from the same team, but I worry we'd end up with > (at best) an inconsistent UI and (at worst) an active clash. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Other parts of the edit view need work, yes. > *This really doesn't seem an efficient way to do things. What's the use case > here, exactly? If it's "people would like to save a draft in case they lose > their work", save the draft automatically after [number] of minutes or seconds > rather than requiring them to actually make a decision, and then just void any > drafts after [other number] of minutes or seconds. This extension pretty much does exactly that, doesn't it? I don't think the current version of this extension is as heavy-handed about auto-discarding drafts as you suggest it could be, but that seems like a feature to me, not a bug. > If it's "we want to sort how > confusing the existing setup is by offering functions found on other sites", > integrate that into the existing workflows to avoid button bloat. At > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Drafts I'm seeing edge cases > discussed > and the workflow discussed...but not how this in any way can be integrated > into > how Wikipedia currently works, or how we'd like it to work, or what exactly > the > use case is for this software. If there is a use case, it needs to be > communicated. If there isn't, we shouldn't be turning it on. I didn't follow most of this section, so I'm not quite sure how to respond. > *Can someone point me to, if not a use case, the user demand for this feature? > One power user requesting it on bugzilla is not a case for change. You can't formulate a use-case for a drafts feature in your head? Interesting. You've been editing Wikipedia for how many years now? You've never wanted to create a draft of something? :-) As for the "one power user" comment, when you look at the history of the development of the extension (which you apparently didn't) and you look at related bugs (such as bug 19909), you can see that your comment doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure what you gain by trying to act as though there's only person pushing for auto-save functionality on Wikimedia wikis. > This is not to say that it isn't useful, or that this type of feature isn't > the > sort of thing we should be looking at - as mentioned above, reforming the > editing workflows is something that is being discussed and worked on. I'm just > skeptical that this particular information, particularly deployed in this > fashion, is going to benefit more than it costs. "The extension needs a bit of work before deployment. Water is also wet. You can safely ignore the last few paragraphs I wrote." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
