Risker, what do you think might get us all back on track for Flow? Should the WMF consider a reset of the project and proceed only after making specific and enforceable commitments to work with the community? Is a total rewrite in order? Should we go completely tabla rasa on it and revisit whether we need something like this at all?
,Wil On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that > the current talk page system needs to be improved. However, there's been > little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement. I have > been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like > the system was developed backwards: essential functions for effective > discussion that already exist and are used on a daily basis were not > included in the initial designs, while the design incorporated plenty of > bells and whistles that were considered desirable (although the reasons for > desirability weren't necessarily universally held or particularly clear). > This has resulted in a huge amount of re-engineering to incorporate (some > of the) needed functions , and a lot of downplaying of the feedback given > because the feedback has conflicted with the "bells and whistles" of the > original design. There is also the fact that it would add another > completely different user interface to the editing process, which increases > barriers for existing users but even more so for new users. > > In other words, the issues with Flow are so deeply rooted in its core > design and philosophy that it may not be possible to come up with a product > that is actually useful on the projects we have to replace the discussion > system we have. It seems that the Flow team has assembled the ingredients > to make a chocolate cake with the hope that it will be a suitable > replacement for vegetable stew. > > Risker/Anne > > > > > On 5 September 2014 13:29, Wil Sinclair <w...@wllm.com> wrote: > >> This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a >> chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that >> come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a >> bigger debacle: >> >> 1) Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially >> as possible to make sure Flow is ready for primetime? >> >> 2) Is the community preparing itself for a major change, not only in >> interface, but to some degree in wiki-philosophy about how discussions >> are conducted- not to mention the notion that, while wiki software can >> do almost anything involving asynchronous online communication, it >> can't do everything as well as other interfaces? >> >> I think Flow will be particularly challenging. I deployed Liquid >> Threads on another site. I liked the threaded interface, as did >> others. But overall it was roundly rejected because it was harder to >> search (I only found out you have to add the namespace to the >> searchable namespace in LocalSettings.php later), and it invasively >> took over all discussion pages, among other headache. Problems like >> these could easily be addressed before a rollout, but they should be >> addressed as early as possible. It is notable, however, that the more >> our users used it, the more they seemed to like it. >> >> What can we do to make the Flow rollout as smooth as starting '''now'''? >> >> ,Wil >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> >> wrote: >> > On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> >> On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: >> >> FLOW? >> > >> > Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful >> > of places, and is still in active deployment. >> > >> > But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than >> > a new method alongside the old. A long, long overdue and desperately >> > needed replacement -- but a replacement nonetheless. >> > >> > That also explains the very deliberate development and feedback loop. >> > >> > -- Marc >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
