Topic on Talk:Structured Discussions

Does it has to be so hideously ugly? Or is it just a bonus?

3
Felis domestica (talkcontribs)

Apologies if the question was posed before, but after 15 minutes or so, this modern page is <<still>> loading, so I can't check.

I did manage to guess that this tiny three-line icon near the humongous topic header A) is not just a blob B) may actually show the list of topics (which in the "old" and "user unfriendly" discussions were simply and clearly listed, allowing easy navigation). Note: I wanted to mark the word "still" by adding bold, but is seems that it is not allowed / I can't find the proper tool/icon for it (so much for user-friendliness).

Back to the original question: huge headers, small icons, no list of topics, no easily accessible editing/formatting tools. These are my impression of the "improved" system. Call me grumpy, but - at the first sight - can't see any improvement.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

There is still a lot of work to do, with many missing fundamental features, and some needed design changes, which is why the dev team are not calling out for massive quantities of feedback, yet. (But the constant slow&steady stream of editors discovering it, is good)

Much of the documentation also needs to be re-organized and/or updated, but you can see some of the planned features at Flow/Release_planning, and that, along with the other main Flow pages, should be massively updated by the end of January.

Specifically:

  • The WikiEditor toolbar is coming. (phab:T78346)
  • They're working on a custom Table of Contents, which should be live in early January. There's a version with a few bugs, at http://flow-tests.wmflabs.org/wiki/Talk:Sandbox
  • They're also working on a built-in powerful search system. See design proposal notes at File:Flow-search-details.pdf, and detailed discussion at this mailing list thread. (People discuss things anywhere they're announced... Herding cats editors to a single discussion location is nigh impossible. :-/ )
  • The headers probably need to be re-examined again. I've re-opened phab:T61636.
  • Examining the performance (particularly on older computers) is on the regular-priorities list.

Thanks for the feedback, and I hope that helps.

This post was hidden by 110.149.188.132 (history)
Reply to "Does it has to be so hideously ugly? Or is it just a bonus?"