This is related to the explorations in T297617 (Figma 🎨)
Feedback to process
RH
- Regarding the phab task: As previously mentioned, I would remove “More modern interface” in the user stories/criteria as it is a highly subjective (esp as it was IIRC a comment from 1 person) and not very measurable piece of feedback.
- User talk
- Overall I like the design but would consider balancing how this looks compares to the web experience so it is not too different (as it then becomes even more mental burden to parse four different experiences instead of two)
- How is the new subject body text hierarchy being introduced in this design? <-- Clarification: Similar comment as Johan around whether the subject could be the top most important element, and de-emphasise participants in the discussion (moving the particpants below, a version without the "avatar")
- Have you considered a design where more of a talk page message could be read?
- What is the use case for adding a topic on your own talk page? Asking as I wonder if it makes sense to be placed as the primary action. Does it actually need to be so shown as a FAB at all?
- Article talk
- Apologies if I missed this, but how does one access the Talk page from the Article now?
- I like the warning box on the topic overview page, but would include an additional warning in the new topic UI warning users again that the topic is about improving the article and not a comments section, since it’s likely to be missed.
- It would be good to explore alternatives to indenting once it is 4-5 replies in, especially for long discussions on languages with long strings.
KMC
- Great explorations!
- I’m all for using the signature at the top of comments. Currently one of the challenges is seeing where a new comment starts and I think this is a useful way to visually indicate a new comment
- Have you explored or had any thoughts about levels of replying? i.e the number of indents allowed? Should this be limited or potentially infinite? One of the things myself and Jess have been considering so would be useful to catch up on this.
- I think the different approach between user talk and article talk is very interesting. They are very different spaces so makes sense to treat them in a different way.
JK
- Take a look at how we are thinking about mobile views on Web. We have the topics and then have a popover page for the conversations 1 RH
- Let’s set up a 1:1 to talk more - this lack of time is stressing me out.
AH
- All around — really solid work. It looks fantastic.
- I know this is out of your hands but one thing I’ve been wondering about lately as I look at various talk page designs is: would it be helpful to have a character limit on the talk page topic names, and then have a secondary field for a description?
- I think the idea of user avatars is super interesting…I wonder what kinds of cultural shifts that might cause (in good ways)
- I really like how you used the header image from the article on the Talk page to connect those two
- I also like how you’re showing the Talk page as a sub-page of the Article…this lines up with how I’ve been hoping to do it on the web as well
- Once you’re within a topic/subject, is it possible to put “Talk:Climate change” in the header, next to the back arrow? Even if it got clipped…it seems not so important at that point?
- Is it worth having a menu when someone taps a username? Do you have any data on how often people go to the profile vs. the talk page?
- Is the action “Collapse” clear enough? Maybe worth trying “Collapse replies”?
JJ
- General
- Likes that it would work better on Mobile
- How does sorting A-Z and Z-A work in Japanese (do we remove the option?)
- User talk
- Prioritization of information: bigger focus on the topic not the user (true for both, especially for article talk pages)
- Usernames are useful information but not essential
- The difference between chat and Wikimedia interaction: people I know in a messenger and on Wikipedia there are not familiar people
- For experienced users: might be confusing since they’re focused on subjects not users
- Article talk page
- Nomenclature: would call the upper part of an article talk page the template
- Talk page date/time → prefers to see the complete date rather than 2m, 5h, 2d (ago)