On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, hold on here. > > > On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> 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. >
While this is true, I have yet to see bugzilla used as a platform for a design process for Media Viewer, and I don't think I would recommend it. It's *possible* to use it as a platform for more than mere bugs, and it has been done before; but I don't think tha'ts what's going on here, or should go on here. > > 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? > The Commons/File page DOES do that, to the extent that readers have some familiarity with MediaWiki software and how to find the "Edit" button. You may not believe that is significant, but I encounter people on an almost daily basis who are mystified by Wikipedia, but at least have a basic understanding what the "edit" button does, or could allow them to do. It may not be all readers or even a majority, but it is my very strong belief -- rooted, perhaps not in rigorous scientific analysis, but in my very active engagement with non-Wikipedias since 2006 -- that it's the pool of people who tend to replenish our declining editor pool. A great many of the 100+ students who signed up for the 4 rounds of my online course on editing Wikipedia, for instance, had accounts that were several years old, but only had a dozen or so edits. > * 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? > That evidence is all over the various RFCs and wiki pages related to this, and also in Bugzilla I believe, I'll leave it to you to track it down. > * 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. > This point has a lot of nuance in it, and I'm happy to discuss it, but not here and now. If you want to dig into it, I suggest this as a venue: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Consent -- if you leave a note there, please {{ping|Peteforsyth}} so I can find it. > > * 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. > I don't personally have a big issue with this one; but it's something others have brought up. I'm trying to capture the breadth of concerns about the software here, rather than (as WMF staff keep inaccurately accusing me and many of my colleagues of doing) saying merely "I DON'T LIKE IT." > > > > > > > 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. > It is absolutely a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms. It is a Media Viewer issue because the design and deployment was executed so badly that it caused a significant backlash on 3 major projects. And again -- the WMF has done this well in some cases, there's no need to look at mega corporations to find good models. All I am suggesting is that the WMF do a better job of learning from its own successes. Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
