https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62266
--- Comment #7 from Gilles Dubuc <[email protected]> --- > The thing is that this is not likely where the start of the experience will > begin... We're building a sharing feature that will link to those URLs: https://wikimedia.mingle.thoughtworks.com/projects/multimedia/cards/147 It's very much going to be where the browsing starts in many cases from now on, for anyone who shares an interesting image they find on an article. So no, you can't dismiss that use as being unlikely. > The purpose of a wiki, and the purpose of our wikis, is text-oriented That's a very outdated view. By that standard, the Multimedia project shouldn't exist, if text is all that matters. My understanding is that all this work is done precisely because Mediawiki has been too focused on text and negligent of the possibilities of the media it's being delivered on. > When I view the files and I click the X[...] So the argument brought to the table is that it's your personal preference. I went out and researched the issue, seeing what the web at large is doing in similar situations. I'm not easily convinced by self-centric preference arguments when it comes to designing UX. Particularly when they come from an echo chamber of people who have been similarly influenced by a product to the point of forgetting what the rest of the web does. The question is not why 3 people on this ticket who share a bias by having spent too much time on a product that's always focused too much on text would prefer it to be that way. It's whether the majority of web users would find it to be a better/more logical experience. So far nobody here seems to have made any effort to justify the "pro" view using tangible arguments or real-world examples. It seems to be only driven by mediawiki distortion field where fullscreen images are so secondary that they don't deserve a place in the permanent browser history. Never mind the fact that the user could have spent more time looking at each image than they spent on the article. Also, the "looking at 10 images" argument is blown out of proportion, because it's unlikely to happen. On average people won't look at that many images (we could even gather stats to confirm, but really, it's a simple as seeing that very few articles actually have 10 images, most of them probably have between 0 and 5), unless it's a gallery page. So the "inconvenience" of having to go back as many virtual pages as they actually visited is low on average. -- 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
