Talk:Flow Portal/User stories

"As a user, I want to be able to edit my own comments."


 * completely freeform and perpetual editing of my own comments (say after someone has replied and I change the fundamental meaning of the post) then we have to worry about showing previous versions, and all the UI that comes along with that (something a new user is not likely to understand) JZimmerman (WMF) (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We get revision history for free with mediawiki. I think we can bury this into a "more actions" panel on the post (which is where the "edit" action and administrative actions would go anyway).  The standard MW history list is definitely overkill; I suspect we can pare away a lot of it.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Epic
I can deduce the definition as used here, from the terminology it's a header for (a story/narrative description of use-cases), but what is the origin of the way you're using the word 'epic'?

(It's understandably difficult to google for "epic interaction design" or "epic user groupings" and similar! Every web-company under the sun believes they are "epic, dude"...) Wiktionary and Onelook weren't much help, either.

I know I've seen it before, somewhere, used like this, but can't find anything here or on meta.. Quiddity (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As is often the case, I found the answer 20 seconds after submitting the question. Epic vs Story, last seen in Atlassian (Repress, Repress, Breathe....). Quiddity (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Drafting and collaboration
I want to my recognition of the hard work that the Flow and VisualEditor development teams are carring out, as well as their conversations with Wikipedia community to explain the projects. I understand what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing with the several projects to improve the experience for new users, and I wholeheartedly agree with the goals.

That said, I've been testing the Flow prototype and reading about the decisions that are shaping it, and I'm concerned that a major function of talk pages as used by the community is missing.

"As a user, I want to"... collaborate with other editors to build a draft version of a Wikipedia article, through refinements to a stable content section (hidden from the view of article readers) that I can reference with wikilinks.

I see a thorough task analysis about one-to-one or one-to-many conversations, as if Talk pages were exclusively to be used as a chat room. But article's talk pages are primarily intended as a tool to support coordination between content creators. Where are all the use cases and stories for collaborative editing and content creation that are core to the wiki platform? Where is the sandbox? Diego Moya (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Drafting content is essentially part of the "Discussion" use-case (the point above the item you added at Flow Portal/Use cases). Check the diff-link that it includes as an example, and see the entire thread that it is a part of: . It's discussing, and contains, a copy of the infobox. - Therefor, we can conclude that the "elements [which] do not need to be elaborated on at length", include a variety of things which probably could be elaborated on quite easily, but to make an exhaustive list would be rather lengthy indeed. The list necessarily includes everything that we do in talk-space, that isn't specifically mentioned in the other points.
 * Re: sandboxes in particular, I believe that this is what is meant by the section at Flow Portal/User to User Discussions. Again, the section was written a while ago (February - possibly based on notes from even earlier), and could definitely use elaboration, but the current documentation is meant more as an abstract overview and set of notes, rather than a rigid documentation of "how the software will work exactly". Some amount of "reading between the lines" is required, at this point in time. (Developer time is limited, and is prioritized towards writing code, rather than filling in detailed versions of documentation for the as-yet-unwritten-software).
 * Hope that helps. Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "(Developer time is limited, and is prioritized towards writing code, rather than filling in detailed versions of documentation for the as-yet-unwritten-software)."; are the requirements for the "as-yet-unwritten-software" written, and are they subject to discussion? Writing code for detailed requirements which cannot not meet overall use requirements should be extremely low priority.  Arthur Rubin en.Wiki (talken.Wiki) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)