Well, hold on here.
On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of "bugs." I don't > think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of > substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is the > wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than > others to ad hoc collaborative processes. > Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and inappropriate. > > In this case, we have a broad range of issues: > * does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload > another photo > The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to do it? > * does it reflect copyright holders' licenses accurately and effectively > Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less accurate than the Commons/File pages? > * does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos > The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the software being used to display more information and detail in the image. If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer problem, it's an image usage problem. > * does it reflect a "look and feel" that we feel OK about and is consistent > with the rest of the software > etc. etc. > What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague suggestions that there is an issue. > > Fixing one "bug" may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those > already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process > to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and > takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do > a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software > products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do > it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient. > Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had "bugs" or unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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>
