https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62266

--- Comment #23 from Pau Giner <[email protected]> ---
> And what if you want to use your browser's back button to get back to the 
> 20th Kiwi image

You will click the "back" button, and then use Media Viewer "prev" arrow to go
back to the image you were before.

I think that the behaviour can be intuitive for the user, but in the case it is
not, you still have the possibility to recover: Imagine you click the "back"
button one time (going to Media Viewer) and then again (exiting Media Viewer),
you only need to click the browser "Forward" button to return to the Media
viewer and use the next/prev controls to locate the desired image. 

> The argument of browsing 25/50/100 images is blown out of proportions.
That depends on the article ("Kiwi" has 7 pictures, but "New Zealand" has about
30) and the specific user interaction. The number of times you have to click
the "back" button, depends on the movements you made through images. Thus, a
user going back and forth with prev/next through 5 images will require more
than 5 back button clicks to undo his path.

It is not only a problem of volume, but the user mental model about what
constitutes an activity. Articles are also composed by sections, but creating
history steps for each section the users go through would be problematic. Even
for fewer sections, the user would not recognise those as relevant steps.
Similarly, we provide users with a collection of images and each individual
step seems to be perceived more as part of a single activity (exploring the
collection) than as many individual tasks. Obviously the divisions in this case
are more blurry than the article/section example, but I think that the volume
is just a manifestation of the underlying problem.

-- 
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

Reply via email to