Hoi,
I am afraid you do not get the point. The point is that the desktop as we
know it is our history. It is like the Dodo; something that is best
experienced in the museum to be replaced by something contemporary in the
real world. The development of a single UI is what you should consider and
expect and it should support any platform.
What the Mediaviewer does is move us away from a cluttered unintelligible
page of data junk for those who are not initiated. It is a step towards
something intelligible that may be supported on any platform.
Yes, what you hear is people whining about their desktop experience. They
want to keep things as it is and, any argument, any approach is fine as far
as they are concerned.
Our desktop experience has improved somewhat over the years but it is all
the ballast of the past that is keeping us back. It is all the byzantine
embellishments that are so "important" to have. But really, when people
like myself refuse to edit Wikipedia because the experience is so bad you
have lost with me more than is justified by insisting on the status quo.
Ask yourself, who do we do it for and who should be able to edit.
FYI I was involved in Wikipedia before there was a Wikimania.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 15 August 2014 10:02, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> I believe that the disputes about MediaViewer are mostly about the desktop
> platform's version, as most editors use the desktop platform to edit.
>
> In general terms, I have yet to hear someone say that the Mobile platform
> is a low development priority. I am familiar with Mobile-l. Mobile
> development has a long road ahead of it but I feel Mobile is overall moving
> in the right direction. In my experience, Mobile development has good
> interpersonal harmony among participants, and everyone is hoping to convert
> a portion of mobile app users to new contributors.
>
> Pine
> On Aug 14, 2014 11:58 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I am getting so pissed off.
> >
> > Let us be realistic. The user experience sucks ... It sucks big time and
> > even though the "community" is comfortable with it, it impedes the use by
> > the people we do it all for. They are the READERS.. they are not the
> > editors and the least this is done for are the people who are so
> indignant
> > because their experience changes.
> >
> > When you look at the last year, the biggest changes are driven by the
> > development for mobiles. The projections make it plain this is where our
> > customers will be. The existing Wikipedia with its monobook and what have
> > you skin will not be seen, used or be relevant to them. Our traffic is
> > transitioning to mobile. Editing starts to happen on mobile and if it is
> > not clear to the "community" that future development will be in this
> > direction they live under a rock or they are in denial.
> >
> > Have a look at a Commons page on a mobile.. It is beyond bad and beyond
> > useful. With the Multimedia viewer it becomes useful. (NB there are
> things
> > in there that are brain dead but that is a different story)
> >
> > WAKE UP. Our world is changing. Trying to shame the WMF development in a
> > different direction is counter productive, ill considered and even
> > destructive. When you are the "community", and when this is new to you, I
> > hope you will sit back for a moment and consider this. When this does
> not
> > make a difference to you, there is always the right of departure. In my
> > brutal opinion we have no option but to move towards a more mobile
> centred
> > appreciation. The alternative is stagnation and irrelevance. That does
> not
> > need to happen when we accept that the world changes around us.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 14 August 2014 17:28, Tim Davenport <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Re: Erik Möller's remark: "In general, though, let's talk. The
> > overarching
> > > principle we're not
> > > going to budge on is that this process is really not acceptable:
> > >
> > > 1) The UI changes
> > > 2) A subset of users is upset and organizes a poll/vote
> > > 3) The poll/vote closes with a request to undo said UI Change and a
> > > request is filed
> > > 4) WMF offers compromise or says no
> > > 5) A local hack is used to undo said UI change
> > >
> > > That's no way to develop software, and that's no way to work
> > together...."
> > >
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I could spend 10,000 words on this. I'll try to keep it (comparatively)
> > > short.
> > >
> > >
> > > The reason this dysfunctional situation develops, Erik, is because
> there
> > > are no steps A, B, C, D, E, F, and G preceding #1 on the list.
> > >
> > > As things currently stand, this is the way the software development
> > process
> > > at WMF seems to me to work:
> > >
> > > * Engineers collecting paychecks obviously need something to do.
> > > * Someone comes up with a bright idea that sounds good on paper.
> > > * Engineers decide to make that idea a reality and start work.
> > > * Inadequately tested software, sometimes of dubious utility, is
> > > unilaterally imposed on volunteers.
> > > * If new software is problematic enough, volunteers revolt by any means
> > > necessary.
> > > * WMF forces changes down throat of volunteers by any means necessary.
> > >
> > > This is truly "no way to develop software" and "no way to work
> together."
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Here is the way the process SHOULD begin:
> > >
> > > * WMF staffers, plural, identify by user names/IP addresses the 10,000
> or
> > > so very active volunteers across all projects and database them.
> > >
> > > * WMF staffers further divide this group into coherent "types": content
> > > writers, gnome-type copy editors, structural adapters (template people,
> > bot
> > > operators, etc.), quality control workers (NPP, AfD), vandal fighters,
> > > behavioral administrators (ArbCom, Ani, the various Admin pages), and
> > drone
> > > bees who do nothing but Facebook-style drama mongering. Multiple
> > categories
> > > may apply to single individuals and this list is not necessarily
> > > exhaustive.
> > >
> > > * Once identified, WMF staffers frequently and regularly poll very
> active
> > > users in each category about WHAT THEY NEED. Different surveys for
> > > different volunteer types.
> > >
> > > * Software development starts ONLY when a real need is identified.
> > >
> > > * Software should be introduced on En-WP, De-WP, or Commons ONLY when
> it
> > is
> > > Alpha-grade, debugged and ready to roll. (Test things on the smaller
> > Wikis
> > > first).
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Moreover, there should be some polling mechanism to summarize and
> analyze
> > > what the 500 million or whatever readers worldwide feel that they like
> > and
> > > feel they are missing. "User experience" changes with primary impact on
> > > readers rather than volunteers (such as MediaViewer) should be made
> with
> > > them in mind first and foremost; editing and structural tools should be
> > > made to actually assist the active volunteers, not created on a whim.
> > >
> > > Sometimes the needs of the Readers and the needs of the Volunteers are
> > > different, let us frankly say. In no case should WMF assume the views
> and
> > > criticism of the latter are insignificant or wrong simply because
> > > 500,000,000 > 10,000.
> > >
> > > Remember this because according to the same logic: 10,000 > 240.
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > We all agree that we need a bigger pool of very active volunteers. Most
> > > readers are never going to be very active volunteers, nor do we want
> them
> > > to be, since we need specialized skill sets. Most people using the
> > editing
> > > software are only going to make one or a very few changes a year and
> they
> > > are never going to even "see" the backstage world of Wikipedia. That is
> > > normal and fine.
> > >
> > > We do need expert contributors on esoteric topics and we need solid
> > > contributors from the developing world and we need to replenish the
> > people
> > > doing copy editing and quality control work.
> > >
> > > We don't need tools that nobody asked for and nobody wants shoved down
> > our
> > > throats just because engineers needed something to do.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 240 Paid Staff + 10,000 Serious Volunteers + 500,000,000 Readers and
> > > occasional minor contributors
> > >
> > > Three groups with differing needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Davenport /// "Carrite" on WP /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO
> > > Corvallis, OR
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [email protected]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [email protected]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
