Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Media Viewer consultation/General discussion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This page is for general or broad-topic discussions about Media Viewer that are not related to specific software improvements or prototyping. For example, this is a good page to discuss questions about software deployment procedures.

Contents

MV software should be permitted to return to "opt-in" on those projects where that has been clearly called for[edit]

  • Media Viewer remains enabled by default on German Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and English Wikipedia, in spite of local decisions to have it disabled by default.
  • The Media Viewer software should be permitted to return to "opt-in" on those projects where it has been clearly called for, and not returned to "opt-out" until those communities agree that it is a sufficient improvement over the software that has worked for this top-5 web property for over a decade. 700+ people support this notion: see this open letter, here on Meta Wiki: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer and also on change.org. -Pete F (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (MV software should be permitted to return to "opt-in" on those projects where that has been clearly called for)[edit]

  • Hey Pete, this consultation page is for talking about, for the most part, changes to Media Viewer software that are beneficial. There's a bunch of information on the page itself. I think just about everyone is aware of the petition, and this page is not about the petition, you've got some other venues going on for those conversations. Could we perhaps keep the discussion here to the topic presented? It'd be mighty who of you to afford a little conversation about this :). Perhaps you can revisit some of the issues you had back in February and we can discuss some specifics. If you have nothing more to say, that's fine. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I consider the WMF's effort to start this discussion, while resisting a simple change strongly requested by a large body of interested parties, to be disruptive. It is worthwhile to note on this page why I, and probably many of the 700+ people signing the letter, believe it is not yet possible to have the discussion that WMF proposes. -Pete F (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move as something that only tackles surface of the problem. More detail on some of the root issues. They have to be addressed first; don't beat head against a brick wall. --Gryllida 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please do not disable it for logged out Joe Users without asking Joe Users about it! Why should the veteran editors have any say in this? They have settings they can change _for themselves_. I postulate that the viewer is already a vast improvement for casual readers and should be enabled, but this claim needs to be verified. Just make sure to exclude veteran editors from the poll! --Romanski (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • At least in the English RfC, every single comment from an IP said Media Viewer should be disabled by default. Furthermore, the WMF had a poll attached to Media Viewer during the initial deployment. While Media Viewer fared better with readers than editors, fewer than 50% of people who responded to the English version who don't edit Wikipedia said the Media Viewer was even useful for viewing images. Based on the evidence we have so far, readers don't prefer Media Viewer, despite the WMF using them as a justification for a "silent majority" argument. Which is nonsense—the WMF doesn't really care about editors as evidenced by not giving people like me without an account a way to turn Media Viewer off until months after the first deployment. And even now, the anonymous opt-out doesn't work and I'm opted back in periodically without my consent! Speaking for myself, I have no interest in editing Wikipedia. But Media Viewer is such a terrible unwanted regression from the previous functionality that I felt compelled to figure out the terrible MediaWiki editing experience to make sure people like me aren't ignored. And really, how could someone prefer the slower, less featureful Media Viewer to the old file page? As I've said many times before, it's faster most of the time to get the full size original image loaded in my browser's image viewer with two clicks and an intermediate HTML page load with the old file page than it is to get a lower resolution image that I can't explore with my browser's image viewer in Media Viewer. The only use case where Media Viewer makes sense is for viewing slideshows, which is something I've never felt the need to view on Wikipedia. I'm always interested in specific images and the information about those images, not a gallery. --98.207.91.246 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with Pete, this here is both, a) a distraction from the real problem the WMF created by acting aggressively against the community and b) a tool to finally include the communities in the development process of this gadget. As the WMF still believes the gadget is something useful in it's current set-up, a believe I can't believe anyone really can believe in, they refuse to do the simple and non-disruptive solution for the immediate time and make it opt-in for those who asked for it as long as it's as buggy as it still is. This still has to made clear here and not swept under the carpet. But the gadget may be not completely useless, so an involvement of the community in general is fine for the development. Of course it should have been made far earlier, and it's of course the duty of the paid staff (paid by the community btw) do be the active part here (if they don't go to the community, they simply refuse to do their work properly). --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just keep the previous system as default for everyone.[edit]

  • Problem:

This thing is a pain in the arm. No way to see the image at different resolutions. Too complicated for most casual users. <

  • Proposed solution:

Make it optional and keep the very useful and not bugged previous system as default.--31.44.121.34 23:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Make it optional for users. Thanks for recent improvement (Media Viewer was disabled by default for logged in users on Wikimedia Commons, due to interference with the specific workflows used to curate media)--NoJin (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Just keep the previous system as default for everyone.)[edit]

  • Showing images at different resolutions is planned; not a regression compared with the old system, BTW, is it? Looks like not a blocker. --Gryllida 04:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's too complicated, please provide details as to what is complicated. --Gryllida 04:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the poster, suggest debugging this before asking for community involvement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
They have been debugging it. What specific issues do you have? The only way they are likely to get fixed is if you raise them here or on Bugzilla or Phabricator. Zellfaze (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What about using the "expand" image that appears beside the image caption to activate the Media Viewer? This would allow clicking on the image to go back to taking the user to the File page, which seems to me to be the most expected behavior for internet users (note that both Flickr and Tumblr expect images to click through to their source). In this case, an "expand" logo could be made much more prominent -- it may only appear once the user hovers over the image with their mouse, say. -- Gaurav (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a fan of this idea as well. However, there's (delayed) plans that will likely result in the "Expand" box go away from thumbnailing - there's many reasons behind this. You can find more on this page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support the Old system is Perfect. Cancel the Media Viewer and Thrash it away. it has already recieved backlash, complaints and hate, and shouldn't've even been created to begin with. LaG roiL (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

thumn

Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for trashing. This viewer shows how to complicate things instead of simplifying. --Mattes (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect the german community and switch the mediaviewer to opt-in![edit]

  • Problem: The WMF does not respect the community and its decisions.

Discussion (Respect the german community and switch the mediaviewer to opt-in!)[edit]

  • Agree the rolled out state of media veiwer was very disrestpectful to the projects media contributors and the WMF could have addressed the community concerns rather than whack it with a big stick but its not helpful to divert this discussion into that area. Gnangarra (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe you get better feedback if you do not force people to use something. If the WMF would switch the MediaViewer to opt-in, only people who care for the MediaViewer would use it. These people are much more likely to give positive and helpful feedback.
The MediaViewer is like a school that force the students to eat in its cafeteria where only “good and healthy stuff (because we know what’s best for you!)” is available. And to take the biscuit now the students are ask how to improve that! --DaB. (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
DaB., not listening to 100% of what community says is not new; see Limits to configuration changes. This problem has long deep roots starting from 2010 and earlier (also raised at this page, below). Please calm down.
You're in a position to translate complaints from German people here. If something actionable is brought up and is not trivial to fix (and is provided by classic File pages), the feature will be made opt-in as they promised. --Gryllida 04:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 The Feature should be opt-in, if communities want it to be. At least until the "must have"s are carried. --Don-kun (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 Having this buggy thing as the default reflects poorly on the WMF in the eyes of its vast public. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 I fail to see a single valid reason why MV has to be enforced asap. If it's opt-in in deWP and enWP just as at commons for some months, nothing bad could possibly happen (besides to the egos of some people at WMF, but I don't care about that). It's a pure power game by the WMF to show the unwashed masses who's in charge. --Sänger S.G (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Gruß Tom (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: There is a discussion of this going on elsewhere, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to not see that same discussion also come to this page as it will make the other discussions here more difficult to follow. Zellfaze (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
-1 the communities are people who can go and change their settings. What you're forgetting about are vast troves of logged out users who are not part of "the community" that has a consensus on this. Think about all the people affected by the change who have never participated in your community! Have they been asked about what they prefer? --Romanski (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the English poll carried out by the WMF where fewer than 50% of users who responded said Media Viewer was useful for viewing images? What of the readers like me who chimed in on the English RfC and were unanimous that Media Viewer should be disabled by default? There's no evidence to suggest that the WMF has a better finger on the pulse of what readers want than the communities that have taken up this issue and much to suggest they have a view biased in favor of their failed product. --98.207.91.246 20:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • +1000 - Hey... last I checked, the community precedes the foundation. Please point me to the discussions where 1) The community handed over control of Wikipedia to "The Foundation" 2) Where the community authorized the foundation to supercede its consensus. 3) Where the foundation became a board of directors, as opposed to what the foundation actually is, which is a board of people to spend the money and run the business end of things, and not to veto or have any power over the community. In fact, I implore any non-WMF technical editors who have access to the backend of the site to immediately implement a back door that gives the community the power to not only overturn foundation decisions, but to outright block the foundation from being able to edit the wiki. Sorry guys, but you're a bunch of pen pushers and you will have the site forcibly removed from your hands if you continue to exercise this notion of absolute authority. - Floydian (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just wait[edit]

  • Problem:

I really do not understand why every time our programmers create some important tool Wikimedia INSIST to adopt the new tool immediately, without giving a resonable time to test, debug and improve the tool. The same thing happened to Visual Editor, and the consequence of this behaviour is that now a big part of wikipedians hate Visual Editor and Wikimedia. My point is: let's wait! I mean, let's use it as a "beta feature" and let's wait before to make it default. And most important, let the community (editors and readers) decide when it is arrived the time to make it as a default. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Proposed solution:

Do not rush and follow the consensus. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Just wait)[edit]

Hi Daniele, please notice this is not intended as a forum to discuss WMF's general behaviour, rather, "The objective of this consultation is to identify any critical issues with this new experience". More specifically, it is the best current way to communicate with the Multimedia team. I'd like to learn about your personal issues with MV, if there are any which might have been overlooked, or about room for improvements, for example. Thank you! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The most common improvement proposed to Media Viewer is one that the WMF refuses to implement: disabling Media Viewer by default because it IS NOT an improvement over the the file page. And it won't be, even with all the improvements the WMF and the community have suggested. It should have never been put forth as a substitute for the file page. As long as the WMF refuses to implement this improvement, people will bring it up. If you intended this page to be about feedback other than that, you should moot the issue by implementing this very obvious and popular improvement to shut us up. The WMF should stop ignoring feedback it wishes didn't exist. --98.207.91.246 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, 98.207.91.246, this is why we talk about things - to learn how the other is thinking. It seems there is a problem of misconception: Media Viewer is meant to be neither an improvement for a file page nor a replacement for a file page. It is a different way of viewing the image, based on a presentation that puts the image in the forefront instead of surrounding it by data. If you are thinking Media Viewer is File page 2.0, I'm not surprised at all that you don't like the experience. For a better idea of what the Multimedia team is getting at, take a moment to check out the new prototype linked on the project page here. If you're not interested, thank you for taking your time here. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That's disingenuous. Before Media Viewer, clicking on an image brought you to the file page. After Media Viewer, clicking on an image brought up Media Viewer. In the UI, you're given the option of always activating Media Viewer or always the option of navigating to the file page, but never the option (without the use of a non-discoverable keyboard shortcut) to choose one or the other on a case-by-case basis. So in the UI, you replaced the file page with Media Viewer. This replacement is what people, for the most part, objected to (disregarding concerns about misused resources). This replacement is what Erik Möller has waged war on the community over. I doubt anyone was under the impression that Media Viewer could ever be an adequate replacement for the file page. And I doubt anyone would be up in arms if Media Viewer didn't hijack the UI used to trigger the file page. If Media Viewer is not intended to replace the file page, don't make it replace the file page. Come up with a new way of triggering it that doesn't interfere with access to the file page. --98.207.91.246 05:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We are actually testing a selector on the thumbnail (would only work well with non-touch devices, on hover) - I'm personally not convinced yet the added complexity is worth it, but we should talk about it (perhaps in its own section). In addition, you can always skip Media Viewer by opening a file in a separate tab/window.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's incredibly bad design to have different click behavior depending on whether or not that click is opening the page in the same window or in a new window/new tab. Breaking this consistency and relying on that to send people one place or another isn't very discoverable. And I already acknowledged that you're doing this when I wrote "(without the use of a non-discoverable keyboard shortcut)." And doing a mystery-meat onhover hack is more of the same non-discoverability. The only use case where Media Viewer provides any improvement over the file page is as a slideshow viewer, so you really shouldn't be directing people there unless they're looking for a slide show. If you've seen the light and you'll let the file page be accessed as it always has been while retaining Media Viewer, make the new UI for invoking Media Viewer very clear what it is. Use a descriptive link along the lines of "View slideshow." Don't make people guess or hunt. And quit with the fancy stuff that's hard to use and breaks things. --98.207.91.246 06:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
98.* has a point. It would be easy to make the non-core media viewer triggered by the "expand" icon, for instance. --Nemo 06:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some issues, though. The expand icon doesn't show up in infoboxes, for example. Plus the icon says "expand" when, even now just going to the file page, doesn't...expand. There could be a workable underlying thought behind this, but I fear it might be incredibly complex and not workable. Let us see what others think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • They are a big Team, they will do things quickly. You should share your thoughts about firing a half of the staff and moving slower over at this page; these issues do not belong here as they do not show how the readers and contributors feel worse after starting to use this tool. This is not a blocker for keeping MediaViewer available. --Gryllida 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop.[edit]

  • Problem: The new media viewer is very obstructive to my use of Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: Disable by default the new media viewer. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysterytrey (talk • contribs) 29. Aug. 2014, 02:27 (UTC).
Please see the answer I gave Daniele above? :) Thank you! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Stop.)[edit]

True. Stop it by default. Enabling by default may be appropriate for smartphones because of their small screens.--RöntgenTechniker (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

get rid of it[edit]

  • Problem: Annoying and takes a long time to load, the new Wikimedia Media Viewer is another failed attempt to modernized the outdated Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: Do away with it. It's much easier to go directly to the photo's page. 99% of the time when someone clicks a picture they simply want to see the full sized photo. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airplanespotter15 (talk • contribs) 29. Aug. 2014, 02:56 (UTC).
Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support LaG roiL (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (get rid of it)[edit]

  • Please use Firebug to track the load time. I could only suggest to load image last and show metadata first, here. This is a real issue. (Whether classic file pages have it or not, I dunno.) --Gryllida 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with every single Problem report. The Media Viewer blows. Go back to the older, simpler style (pre-MV) Permanently, and Never force the MV like the YouTube Layouts. It's useless and unwanted, Get rid of it. LaG roiL (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop this circus[edit]

  • Problem: we're sick of discussing Media Viewer; we're sick of thinking how much this affair is costing in terms of donor money.
  • Proposed solution: do whatever needed to immediately stop any WMF development (i.e. put media viewer in "maintenance mode") and any discussion (hint: using force doesn't help). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemo bis (talk)

Discussion (Stop this circus)[edit]

  • Who is the "we" you are referring to? --Deskana (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm here, among the "we". I believe the poster is referring to users of wikipedia and commons.wikimedia, i.e., people who want to look at the interesting media that have been uploaded, and perhaps read the descriptions of those media. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This suggestion is off-topic for this RfC, but +1 to focusing more on the editing team activities. Patrolling activities and administrative activities should also be all centered the edit box (and be semi-automated). --Gryllida 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I am included in the "we": in fact I agree with Nemo at 100%. We are talking about one tool that has very little impact, instead there is so much work to do to improve Wikipedia and related project. Who minds what the programmers want to do? Wikimedia is made for readers, not for programmers! --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Flawed Consultation Process[edit]

I put the "Flawed Consultation Process" section on the main page. Let's consider the simple position "The old image view page was better", and lets use their stated criteria for evaluating it:

Importance: Can this suggestion significantly improve the experience for target users: readers and casual editors?

During the RfC rejecting Media Viewer a large number of comments clearly said they thought Wikipedia was better for readers without it, although the RfC question and closing did not distinguish "get rid of it" votes from "turn it off until it's fixed" votes.

Support: Is this suggestion supported by many community members? (e.g. editors on talk pages) This feature primarily targets readers, but we recognize that issues many contributors care about should be taken into account.

During the RfC rejecting Media Viewer a large number of comments clearly said they thought Wikipedia was better without it, although the RfC question and closing did not distinguish "get rid of it" votes from "turn it off until it's fixed" votes.

Feasibility: Can this suggestion be practically implemented with available resources in the short term? (or does it require an extraordinary or long-term investment?)

Yes, removing Media Viewer is easily implemented.

Validation: Is this suggestion confirmed by research data or frequent requests from target users? (e.g. validated through user studies, surveys or talk pages)

Yes. Overwhelming evidence. I don't have the link handy but somewhere on the Mediawiki site I found a link that let me copy-paste a list of over 500 of the text-field from the survey they did on Media Viewer. The text field of the survey asked, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, "What can we do to improve Media Viewer". The nature of the question itself excluded any sort of survey response saying that Media Viewer itself was worse than the regular image view page. I believe this was a good-faith flaw in the survey design - I think the nature of the question simply reveals the overly focused thought process when they wrote it. Even though the nature of the question implicitly prohibited it, the number one answer they got took some form of "Media Viewer is worse". My most conservative count found more than one third of responses to their own survey compared Media Viewer to our normal image view page and said Media Viewer was worse. And let me clarify my my conservative count method. I did count "Remove it" because it carries an almost unavoidable implication the person knows there is a better alternative to return to. I did NOT count "It sucks" because, in theory, the writer may never have seen the normal image view. A more reasonable standard an easy MAJORITY of responses to the survey pretty clearly said they didn't want Media Viewer at all. Then there was a large group of ambiguous comments such as "Don't like it. Can not easily see history, metadata, or discussion." That could be read as a general rejection, or interpreted as a sweeping bug list. If we count those as rejections we get a sweeping supermajority against Media Viewer itself. Any reasonable RfC closer looking at the survey responses would have no trouble taking it as a flat out rejection of Media Viewer itself.

I also found a link (sorry don't have it handy) showing how they processed the free-form text replies into more usable data. They examined each reply looking for anything that could be interpreted as a bug report. The final result was a list of bugs to fix, which a count of how many times each bug was reported. I had no way to see how any individual text response was coded into bug reports, but one thing was pretty clear. When they got a response such as "I hate it. I miss the ability to zoom. Please go back to the old method of viewing images!", they would code it as "Wants zoom fixed". The rest of the comment didn't fit into the coding system, so the rest of the comment got filtered out by the process. This filtered information is what got passed up the chain to guide management. The institutional process itself was deaf to any feedback that didn't serve to drive the project forwards.Alsee (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoom suggestion is in the plans, Alsee. They added a bigger button to view file info, now ready in the prototype (visible in screenshot on the content page whose talk page you're using here) to address feedback about missing metadata.
They're asking whether we've lost something when we switched to media viewer by default — something significant warranting a decision to switch the feature off, back to beta (opt-in). You're welcome to add your suggestion of firing 90% of the staff so that the Multimedia Team work is slow enough to account for all 100% of community feedback at this page. --Gryllida 04:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Medienviewer sofort abschalten[edit]

Bitte sofort weg damit. Danke für die Einladung zur Diskussion. --Nifoto (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für ihren Beitrag. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Community noch klarer einbinden[edit]

  • Problem: Auf der Vorderseite steht: "Mitglieder des Multimedia-Teams und des Community-Engagement-Teams für Produktentwicklung werden direkt auf der Diskussionsseite kommentieren (erkennbar durch das "(WMF)" im Benutzernamen). Schlussendlich werden die Entscheidungen darüber, welche Verbesserungen prioritisiert werden, vom Multimedia-Team getroffen werden, basierend auf den obenstehenden Kriterien. Während es keine perfekte Formel gibt um zu beurteilien, welche Funktionen zuerst entwickelt werden sollten, werden wir achtsam zwischen Kosten und Nutzen abwägen und uns darauf abzielen, jede Entscheidung auf der Basis von Benutzerverhalten oder konkreten Rückmeldungen zu validieren."

Das klingt wieder nach "Ihr könnt ja reden was ihr wollt, am Ende entscheiden wir". Vergesst nicht: die Programmierer werden von Spendengeldern bezahlt, die Spenden fließen wegen der Inhalte, nicht wegen irgendwelcher fancy new features, die Inhalte produziert aber die Gemeinschaft der Autoren. Die Gemeinschaft verdient dafür zwar kein Geld, aber wenigstens euren Respekt.

  • Proposed solution: Auch in den Prozess der Priorisierung der Probleme und in die Frage, ob Lösungen geeignet sind, sollten (technisch interessierte) Mitglieder der Community auf Augenhöhe eingebunden werden. --84.61er (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

  • Problem: On the frontpage it reads: "Members of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Multimedia and Community Engagement (Product) teams will be commenting on the discussion page (recognizable by the “(WMF)” in their usernames). Ultimately, decisions on which improvements to prioritize will be made by the multimedia team, based on the above criteria. While there is no perfect formula for determining which features to build first, we will carefully consider the trade-offs between impact and cost, as well as aim to validate each decision based on user data or feedback."

That sounds like: "You can talk as long as you want to, we decide what's happening". Don't forget: the programmers are paid by donations, those donations flow for content, not some fancy new features [sic], the content is produced by the community of authors. The community doesn't earn any money there for, but at least your respect.

  • Proposed solution: In the process of priorizing of the problems, and the suitability of solutions, (technically interested) members of the community should be involved on equal footing.

[Translation by --Sänger S.G (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)]

Discussion (Community noch klarer einbinden)[edit]

(Thanks for translating!) I'm literally quoting Erik here: Actually, the listed planned improvements on this page are based both on user feedback, survey data and user testing. This consultation is more about "If we do these things, what's left that is really important to you?"--Erik Moeller (WMF). So, we are all here to sort and prioritize issues and suggestions which have been been found/proposed by the community in these months of consultations. Fabrice's team did engage several competent editors in these months in different ways, mailing lists and roundtables among them, and we're always looking for ways to improve this kind of process so that nobody feels like "hey, I wasn't consulted" (this is happening on a different page, though). This said, I hope you too will take advantage of this current community chance to work on the future of MV. We might have overlooked something, for example (which is why we have launched this quite specific format of consultation). If this is the case, we want to know. Thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

reactivate the mediaviewer[edit]

  • Problem:

The Media Viewer is fine for occasional users, so please switch it on again.

  • Proposed solution:

1. The visual presentation of the wikipedia should be concentrated to a small gremium to keep discussions about that topic out of the way.

btw. feel free for a spell correction of my suggestions

-- I close my active account several years ago -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.187.109.127 (talk)

Discussion (reactivate the mediaviewer)[edit]

Gremium means (approximately) "group of people". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Make a better link to this page[edit]

  • Problem: Until I entered a suggestion, I was unable to find this page in order to look to see what problems had already been reported. I was coming from this page, and saw the red link for discussion on that page, so it appeared that there had as yet been no discussion (hard to believe, of course, but I couldn't find my way here).
  • Proposed solution: I think someone else can figure out an appropriate solution. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Make a better link to this page)[edit]

The main feedback page for MV is at mw:Talk:Multimedia/About Media Viewer; both that page and the improvements page you visited feature a link to this consultation (which is mainly linked from meta's mainpage, banners, and other discussions related to MV). Suggestions on how to improve link's visibility are welcome! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I just included a redirect in the German discussion page, as it seems that all discussion pages in different languages are treated as different, which is quite ridiculous. I haven't redirected the other languages yet, to let you see the prob, but will do so (unless you have a better solution) in a few minutes. --Sänger S.G (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I see!, and yes, this is a common issue with translations and redirects seem to be the best solution, I agree. Thanks! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Been there, done that. --Sänger S.G (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. And the page I came through now has more pointers to aid travellers. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The link to the Media Viewer page is under the very title of that page anyway (which is a subpage of it). The second one you added is a link to the Improvements page itself though :D --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Should be disabled.[edit]

  • Problem:

Media viewer is slow, ugly, and disruptive. It should be disabled.

  • Proposed solution:

Discussion (Should be disabled.)[edit]

Daniele Pugliesi, What layout change would you like to see? What appears to matter most? Thanks. (You may want to go through some more discussions on this page and share your thoughts on those that you have an opinion on.) --Gryllida 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Disable it. I will be in All the Anti-MV sections. LaG roiL (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't shove that much out of sight[edit]

  • Problem:

Yes, some few comments were perhaps suited for "other discussion", but it was quite obvious that this discussion here should be sanitized. The OpenSource stuff definitely belonged here, it was just not restricted to MV but definitely about it.
The kind of roughshod implementation against the communities, including superputsch, are as well not exactly spot on target, but belong here as well.

  • Proposed solution:

Don't censor too hard, you botched the implementation procedure of the MV quite comprehensive, so now stay put a bit more.

Discussion (Don't shove that much out of sight)[edit]

I regard the deletion spree by Keegan as rather hostile. Please be more friendly.

I'm sorry you took it as hostile, that certainly was not my intent. The topic for this consultation is clearly outlined and for clarity of its goals this page will get way too long to be usable if the page fills up with discussions that are not on point. That's why I created the other discussions page and moved the content over there, making it clear at the top of the page that this is meant solely to keep the conversations on track. Nothing about it is intended to delete or remove topics as a whole. I'm more than welcome to suggestions on how to clean up this page, since it seems folks are not happy if I do it. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Create another sub-page, that's better labeled, like "More general discussion about implementation of MV" or such, and just put the one post about VE, that's currently in the archive, in "other", and those more general about the opt-in, opt-out and the use/thread of force against deWP and enWP there. Currently it's labeling is more like a troll-bucket (and perhaps that's how you see us deWP'ers, but to be frank: we see you as well a bit like that because of superputsch, VE and Flow).
The one about the license plate definitely belongs here ('though I don't know enough about licenses to know how valid it is). --Sänger S.G (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, all right. Or perhaps a labeling system here on this page (resolved/bug reported, etc). My labeling of "other" was not meant to be offensive and my apologies that it came out that way. I don't see you as trolls at all. Something must be lost in translation there :) Thanks for the input. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
All right, Sänger S.G, I created a general discussion page. I encourage you or anyone else that might have the initiative to move some of these "big picture" topics that are not focused on a specific software idea over there so that we can all stay organized and sane. I'll refrain from moving anything over there myself for now because I don't wish to be thought of as censoring the discussions since I have this (WMF) after my username. Once there's an agreed upon pattern of what to move over there, I'll start participating in that again. Does that sound good? Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though there are a number of ways of expressing something could be accomplished by a very specific, and simple, software feature: make the changes that enable the Media Viewer as opt-in only on English Wikipedia and Commons, and opt-in only for logged-in users/not available to IPs on German Wikipedia. Moving those various expressions to a separate page makes no sense to me. If WMF chooses to ignore those requests, so be it; but this page should not facilitate WMF's ignoring them in a structural way. -Pete F (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but if you really want this first page for MV bugs and such only, and move the stuff that will probably for quite a long time be associated with the MV (superputsch, might over right by the WMF, ditching the communities) and the completely unfathomable refusal to let it be opt-in for a wee time on deWP and enWP, leave just the very first item here, but a clear and prominent link to that new page in there, and move it over.
Currently the main problem of the MV is it's association with superputsch and the brutal actions against the communities. If you get the bling-thing properly working one day, with all files, nobody will object, but through your despicable actions the bar for acceptance has been considerably risen. Up to now it's not that big a mess here, so imho nothing has to be moved, but imho it could be done. And now I'll go to bed ;) --Sänger S.G (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
(BK) +1 to Pete above. That would also make users willing to help finding bugs to fix instead of always having to have the impression that those things which are of interest for the communities doesn’t count at all. In the end of the process of bug error fixing, there could always be new voting processes for the communities. And if they want the MV then, then it would have some kind of legitimation and it wouldn’t stand constantly between the WMF and the communities. But forcing it against community wishes at this point and time, that’s the worst thing the WMF can ever do. Then you don’t need to wonder anymore, if people aren’t willing to get such new software features anymore, if they from now on always shall be pressed upon the communities. The easiest way would be to roll it back to beta. Only then there will be a possibility for any kind of better communication in the future. It’s not hard, it’s just very easy, just roll it back for now, and fix the bugs then. And then, let’s see, what to do with it in the future. In an open discussion, as the WMF said. This way of forcing is no way. It’s a huge step backwards in the relationship between the WMF and the communities, nothing more than that. --Winternacht (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I was just asking for input about the flow of discussions and archiving is all :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, I'm curious whether this was resolved. If it was, leave a note of where the parking lot for offtopic comments is -- it being different from the deletion bin was a concern here. Then add {{resolved}} to the top. Thanks! --Gryllida 10:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This diff. --Gryllida 10:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This suggestion page[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.
  • Problem: Prototype is just a screenshot
  • Proposed solution: Say so in the caption and provide a highly visible link to experience the prototype

Discussion (This suggestion page)[edit]

I suggest at this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_(Product)/Media_Viewer_consultation that you include in the caption in the Easter Island image "This is just a screenshot".

I suggest that there is, at that page, a gigantic, huge, bolded link that says "Click here to EXPERIENCE the new prototype".

I suggest that this edit mode screen be less confusing. The one I'm looking at right now, with the invisible comments and "Proposal of..." and Discussion (YourTitle). I have no idea where to leave my comments. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak: Fixed - added link to the prototype. Thanks. :-) --Gryllida 06:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Gryllida. Thank you, thank you, and thank you. :) Not sure about the all-caps "experience", but the clarification will sure help the dumb-dumbs like me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Diese Feedbackseite[edit]

  • Problem:

Nutzt man die Feedbackseite, die über das auf Wikipedia eingeblendete Banner zu erreichen ist, wird man

  1. zunächst einmal auf eine englischsprachige Seite geleitet. Ich kann aber kein Englisch. Eine deutsche Übersetzung steht jedoch zur Verfügung; warum nicht die verlinken?
  2. aufgefordert, in einem kleinen Eingabefeld einen Vorschlag zu machen;
  3. dann plötzlich auf ein großes Eingabefenster mit Wikitext geleitet; hier steht der eben eingegebene Vorschlag plötzlich nur noch in der Zusammenfassungszeile. Das ist ärgerlich, weil man seinen Vorschlag dann auf einmal völlig neu fassen soll.
  4. Hat man sich davon nicht abschrecken lassen, es tatsächlich getan und den Vorschlag "by clicking Save Page" unterbreitet, merkt man plötzlich, daß man bloß einen Abschnitt zu einer ewig langen Diskussionsseite hinzugefügt hat.
  5. Das Thema, das man selbst mit Liebe formuliert hatte, um es den Leuten von der Mickyvideo Foundation einfach zu machen, ist auf der gedachten ewig langen Diskussionsseite schon mehrmals angesprochen, ohne daß man vorher auch nur um diese Möglichkeit wußte.
  6. Überfliegt man die ewig lange Diskussionsseite, stellt man fest, daß Vorschläge, die a.) nicht in englischer Sprache verfaßt sind oder b.) nicht auf der rein technischen Ebene bleiben, keine reelle Chance auf Beachtung und Würdigung durch die Herrschaften von der Mediaviewer Foundation haben.
  7. Vorschläge zu machen, die den Medienbetrachter und dessen Eignung auf einer grundlegenderen Ebene in Frage stellen, ist offenbar sinnlos. Er ist nun einmal da, da muß er auch un-be-dingt verwendet werden.

Fazit: Viel Arbeit für'n Abfalleimer. Tolle Beschäftigungstherapie am Sonntagmorgen, made in San Franzisko. Vielen herzlichen Dank dafür, it's amazing, I appreciate it very much. Eigentlich ganz schlau gemacht: Nun merke ich auch mal, wie das ist, wenn ich viel Mühe in eine Sache gesteckt habe, die dann wirkungslos verpufft. Wie die Flickr Foundation mit ihrem Wikimedia Viewer. Danke für den Perspektivwechsel! Allein: Ihr habt mich dazu aufgefordert, aktiv zu werden. Ich Euch nicht!

Translation by Saenger:
If you use the feedback page, that's accessible by the banner in the wikipedia, you be
  1. let first to an english language page. I don't speak english. A german translation is available. Why not link there?
  2. asked to make some suggestions in a input box
  3. then suddenly redirected to a big input box with Wikitext, where the suggestion suddenly is just the head line. That's annoying, because you should make your suggestion once again completely new.
  4. If one wasn't sufficiently alienated, really made it and posted the suggestion "by clicking Save Page" [sic], you suddenly realize you have just added a paragraph to a very long discussion page
  5. The suggestion, that was phrased affectionately by oneself, to mekr it easy for the people from the Mickyvideo Fondation [sic] was mentioned several time before on that very long page, without former be made aware of that possibility
  6. If you browse that very long discussion page, you realize, that suggestions that are a) not in the english language and b) not on a pure technical level, have no real chance of being noticed or appraised by the fine people from the Mediaviewer foundation
  7. To make suggestions, that question the suitability of the MV more fundamental, seems to be futile. It's here, it has to stay un-con-di-tion-al-ly.
Conclusion:
Lot of work for the waste bin. Fine occupational therapy on a sunday morning, made in San Francisco. Thank you very much for this, it's amazing, I appreciate it very much. [sic]. It's rather smart: Now I realize how it is, if you exert yourself for some subject, and it just blows off without impact. Like the Flickr Foundation [sic] with it Wikimedia Viewer. Thanks for this change in perspective! But: You've asked me to become active. I didn't ask you!
  • Proposed solution: Macht das einfach besser! Erst denken, dann handeln. Quidquid agis prudenter agas, et respice finem!
Translation by Saenger:
Simply make it better! First think, then act. Quidquid agis prudenter agas, et respice finem! [sic]

Discussion (Diese Feedbackseite)[edit]

  • DaB., translate please? Thanks. --Gryllida 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
already done it. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The input box and the button are not translated. Why? They are not even on the translation page at all. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disable for all viewers by default in commons[edit]

  • Problem: In commons, the media viewer is just an annoyance, and makes getting to a file two clicks away instead of one. Since you are already on commons, a pop up button to take you to commons is useless.
  • Proposed solution: Remove media viewer from all users in commons, logged in or not, and made available to logged in users if they want to use it.
  • Proposal of Apteva (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Disable for all viewers by default in commons)[edit]

Don't rewrite history[edit]

  • Problem:

3 projects decided to have the MV opt-in: enWP, deWP and Commons, and only one of them was granted the pleasure to get it's wishes by the self-declared bosses here. Don't invent some special case for Commons, it was the same everywhere. RfC/MB for opt-in, but some people with might decided to treat this differently.

  • Proposed solution:

Either the whole situation is mentioned on the topic page, or nothing, not the sanitized version Keegan just edit-warred in there again.

Discussion (Don't rewrite history)[edit]

Edit warring? Accurate information was removed from the page, I restored it. I'm not at war with anyone. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The half sentence had been removed and reposted several times, that's the definition of an edit war. OK, this time there were some other changes in-between, but the gist is this: The official story by the WMF is that there's a difference between the 3 RfG/MB, while de facto the only difference is the way the WMF reacts towards the communities: Commons was granted the right, enWP was bullied to comply and against deWP it was an open declaration of war with superputsch. Either you write all this in there, or no erason at all. But don't try to rationalize something into the different handling of the communities that makes this random behavior of the WMF appear in a better light. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. I can't speak for others, I did not author the page, but I do not believe that the wording is for rationalization; I think it's there for informative purposes, but that's just me I suppose. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It gives some fluffy reason for treating commons different from the other projects, but there isn't. It was a MB/RfC in all three, and it was treated in an absolutist manner differently by the people with power. Write that in there as the reason and it#s fine. Or leave the reasoning completely. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll think about a way that I might be able to structure it that isn't "fluffy" to anyone's perception, but frankly that is going to be difficult while things are this tense :( The WMF did disable Media Viewer for logged-in users on Commons for the reason described: there's a fundamental workflow difference. I've been advocating turning it off for logged-in users on Commons since the day Media Viewer was switched on there. But that's neither here nor there, now is it? Back on track to your point, I'll see what I can do, or perhaps someone else can word it more neutrally to everyone's perception. Other thoughts here are appreciated. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
As I had to translate it again in German because of the changes in English, I didn't translate it word by word, but used a formula, that shows more the whole picture:
Der Medienbetrachter wurde für angemeldete Benutzer auf Wikimedia Commons nach einem Meinungsbild standardmäßig abgeschaltet. Meinungsbilder in anderen Gemeinschaften (enWP und deWP) wurden hingegen übergangen.
In English that would be: Media Viewer was disabled by default for logged in users on Wikimedia Commons in response to an RfC. RfCs of other communities (enWP and deWP) however were ignored.
I think that's more accurate. I didn't even mention the brutality used by WMF to act against deWP. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's accurate, either for the claim that the RFC at Commons is what ultimately mattered (rather than the fact, for example, that Keegan has been explaining to the team from before the RFC that it shouldn't be turned on by default at Commons) or that the RFCs were "ignored". WMF staff posted information in all three of these RFCs, and "participating in" is the opposite of "ignored". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the reasoning, the WMF gives itself to make their aggressive deeds against the community be seen in a better light. Nobody outside their in-group believes this fairytale. It was a pure power game against those unwashed masses, who dared to oppose the beloved leaders on some piece of their supposed wisdoms. Of course nobody could officially say "L'etat, c'est moi", but that's exacrly what they did. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Imprescindible: Desactivarla por defecto para todos los usuarios[edit]

Translation by Timwi Turn it off by default for all users

  • Problem: A la hora de apreciar detalles de la imagen y de su descripción y autor el sistema de previsualización hace perder mucho tiempo.
Translation by Timwi
With the Media Viewer it takes longer than before to find image details, description and author information.
  • Proposed solution: Desactivarla por defecto y que solamente pueda ser activada a través de las preferencias de usuario
Translation by Timwi
Disable it by default and have it activatable through the user preferences.

Discussion (Desactivarla por defecto para todos los usuarios)[edit]

Caligatus, What do you think of this version? Keegan (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming report[edit]

Just a heads-up that there is a report being written from the last round of usability studies. I'm not sure of the details—User:Keegan (WMF) might know more—but I believe it covers user studies done in July or August, and might be finished in a week or so. If you're interested, then check back in a few days to see if there is more information available. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)