Article feedback/Version 5/Feature Requirements

This page describes new features to be developed for the Article Feedback Tool Version 5 (AFT V5), during phases 1.0 to 1.5 of this project (Oct. 2011-Jan. 2012). Other features for phase 2 (Feb.-Mar. 2012) are only referred to here in outline form. (See sample feedback forms on the right)

See also: project overview page, testing page, interactive prototype, as well as technical design page, data and metrics plan and our live metrics dashboard.

Overview
Key features for AFT V5 will include: In phase 1.0 of this project (Oct.-Dec. 2011), we will create and test three different types of feedback forms:
 * new feedback forms
 * calls to action
 * feedback page
 * administration tools
 * Option 1: Basic feedback
 * Option 2: Make a suggestion
 * Option 3: Review this page

We plan to A/B test these options against each other, to find out which is most effective for engaging readers, supporting editors and improving article quality (see data and metrics page).

In phases 1.2 to 1.5 (Jan.-Feb. 2012), we will also test these additional options: In phase 2 (Feb.-March 2012), we plan to develop more features, such as expanded feedback. Other phase 2 features are outlined in the sections below.
 * Feedback links
 * New calls to action (such as Option 4: Edit this page)
 * Feedback page

For a preview of what these forms and pages might look like, read below, or check our project slides.

Phases
Here's our phased development plan for AFTv5 features from Oct. 2011 to Mar. 2012:

Phase 1.0 Features Phase 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 Features Phase 1.4 and 1.5 features: Phase 2.0 features: 
 * 3 feedback forms:
 * option 1 - did you find what you were looking for?
 * option 2 - suggestion / praise / problem / question
 * option 3 - review this article
 * CTA 1: Edit call to action
 * CTA 2: Learn more (if you can't edit)
 * help tool tip + help page
 * bucketing via cookies
 * data collection of stage 1 metrics
 * small set of articles
 * 4 feedback forms:
 * same 3 forms as above, plus:
 * option 4: edit this article
 * add overlay capability
 * add minor copy tweaks
 * 2 placement options for feedback link:
 * option A - article title bar left
 * option D - horizontal button at bottom right corner
 * CTA 3: survey call to action (like AFT v4)
 * simple survey form (like AFT v4, separate table?)
 * CTA 4: sign up or login (like AFT v4)
 * CTA 5: email capture form (adapted from AFT v4)
 * data collection of stage 2 and 3 metrics
 * larger set of articles
 * basic feedback page
 * simple listing of full posts (most recent comments by default)
 * overall article ratings (e.g.: % who found what they were looking for)
 * sorting (by date / by rating / by helpfulness)
 * basic filtering (e.g. comments-only, flagged only)
 * flag for abuse
 * hide/show this post (editors only - rollbackers?)
 * delete this post (oversight administrators only)
 * community policies for access, hide and delete features
 * no feedback page links (only accessible if you know the URL tag)
 * advanced feedback page
 * expanded filtering (helpful only, by user group, editor filters, by tags)
 * rate posts (was this post helpful?)
 * tag this post
 * editor tools (add to talk, resolved issue)
 * better layout and pagination
 * abuse/spam filters
 * add links to feedback page
 * feedback link on talk page
 * partial talk page integration (feedback section)
 * full talk page integration (add best posts to discussion)
 * add comments to feedback posts
 * add in to-do list (link in editor tools)
 * to-do list display and management
 * expanded feedback

Feedback forms
The feedback form interface will appear on every article selected for our phase 1 test, as the current AFT does now on Wikipedia (unless disabled in user preferences). There will be several options of the user interface, for A/B testing. Ultimately, one option will be selected for production use on all articles. The following 4 options shall be implemented, along with a fifth option 5, where we will not display any feedback form at all. For a quick demo, see this interactive prototype.

Overall Features
Overall Functionality
 * During the first testing phase, new feedback forms will only be shown on a subset of articles in the english encyclopedia (e.g.: Obama). They will not be shown for articles that are newly created, or which do not include any significant content, or which include geo-tags.
 * Feedback forms and feedback links will not be shown either if the user has selected to hide the AFT (checked 'Don't show the Article feedback widget' in Preferences > Appearance >)
 * The feedback form option to display shall be selected randomly, as per the current AFT mechanism. See this bucketing flowchart.
 * The "bucketing" mechanism will work as described in this flowchart and the technical design page. It will not be configurable, but should be easily changeable in code.
 * For testing purposes, an override parameter shall be supported in the bucketing mechanism (e.g.: a URL tag specifying which form to show).
 * All feedback forms will be displayed at the bottom of the article pages by default.
 * We are also planning to test three different 'Feedback' text links higher up in the browser window, as described in the section below. If a user clicks on one of the feedback links described in the Placements section below, the feedback form will be shown as a modal overlay next to the feedback link (or at the very least provide a jump link to the form at the bottom, if overlays cannot be implemented on certain browsers). Overlay forms will include a close 'X' button and the page background will be grayed out.
 * Comments can be as long as 5,000 characters (no countdown will be shown for now, but we will simply not allow the user to type any more text beyond that limit)
 * For returning users (registered & logged in, already provided feedback for this article): the form will be blank, even if you provided feedback earlier. But this text link will be shown: 'See your last post >>' with a link to your last post(s) on the feedback page, sorted by user. Unlike with the AFT v4 form, users will not be able to edit previous feedback.
 * when calculating overall ratings (or yes/no answers), only count the last post rating, not an average of all ratings by that user for that article
 * Feedback forms may not be shown either if a user (or IP address) has been permanently blocked from editing on Wikipedia (exact policy TBD)
 * Anyone can post as many feedback items as they want for a given article (TBD: to prevent spam, do we want to set a limit of 10 posts per user per day?).
 * In phase 2.0, we may also give the users 30 minutes or so to go back and edit their feedback, in case they make a mistake they want to correct. This may be done by adding an edit link next to your posts on the feedback page.

Overall Visual Design Font Sizes: We will aim to use the following font sizes, with this proposed hierarchy across all forms:
 * The feedback form interface shall follow the Mediawiki style guide, as well as the look and feel of WMF's latest Call to Action assets and buttons.\
 * The 'Post your feedback' buttons will be shown on the left of the form (where it is most likely to be clicked on than on the right).
 * All text prompts in comments to be gray, not black, as commonly done on other sites. The user comments themselves should be black, not gray.
 * A close 'X' button will be shown at the top right corner of all overlay versions of the feedback forms. This close button would not be shown on the bottom versions of the forms, where only the help icon would appear. Both the help and close buttons should be consistent in shape and size, with the '?' and 'X' as the primary differentiators.
 * When a feedback form is shown as a modal overlay, let's gray out the background, as done in the WikiLove feature (but perhaps using a lighter shade of gray).
 * The forms should survive and degrade gracefully in a visual manner within three design styles: Normal web page (580 px minimum, grow horizontally with grace); Tabletized web page (580px); Mobile (max 320 px, give 5 on each side, for 310)
 * All links will be underlined on hover (as per the style guide). External links and links that open in another window shall have an appropriate icon next to them.
 * Feedback forms should also display summary statistics. For Option 1, this could be "% found what they were looking for" and # of total comments.
 * To discuss: Should these statistics should ideally be hidden behind a click so as not to influence the reader (e.g., reader needs to click a "view stats" button)? Or does having the statistics in plain view suggest activity on the site?
 * Title: 1.4 em / 16 pt (e.g.: 'Help improve this article')
 * Subtitle: 1.2 em / 14 pt (e.g.: 'Did you find what you were looking for?')
 * Button Labels: 1.2 em / 14 pt (e.g.: 'Yes / No', or 'Post your feedback')
 * Comments: 1.0 em / 12 pt (for both gray text prompts -- and for actual user comments)
 * Small text: 0.8 em / 10 pt ('By posting, you agree to transparency under these [terms]')

Note: For final text copy, please refer to the text descriptions below, rather than the graphic wireframes and mockups, which could be out of date.



Option 1


(The picture above is a mockup - see also earlier prototype screenshot and wireframe for this feedback tool.)

This feedback form includes these design elements, from top to bottom, left to right: 'Your comment will be shared on this [feedback page]. (phase 1.5) By posting, you agree to transparency under these [terms]' (phase 1.0)
 * Title: 'Help improve this article' (instead of earlier titles: 'What do you think?' or 'Share your feedback')
 * Help button (link to static page or FAQ with tips on how to give feedback)
 * Question: 'Did you find what you were looking for?'
 * Yes/No Buttons:
 * The yes/no buttons shall have a button appearance, but function as radio buttons.
 * Clicking a yes/no button shall toggle the yes/no switch state, but not submit the form.
 * The yes/no answers shall be stored in a separate field, as well as mapped to 4 and 2 overall ratings
 * Clicking on yes/no buttons will cause a context-sensitive text prompt to appear in the comment box (see below)
 * A comment box (multiline text area)
 * A gray text prompt inside the comment box (after user clicks yes or no, e.g.: 'What's missing? Any suggestions for improvement?' - see below)
 * Small disclaimer text with links:
 * Post button: '[ Post your feedback ]'

Context-sensitive text prompts: The prompts in the text area are context-sensitive, so you get a different message if you click on Yes, rather than No.
 * Yes: "What did you like most? Share your praise with the editors."
 * No: 'What's missing? Any suggestions for improvement?' (as shown in this wireframe)
 * If neither Yes/No button is selected, do not show text prompt (as shown in this wireframe)
 * To give users maximum freedom in option 1, we will allow a user to enter a comment in that form, even if they don't want to click on the Yes or No button. So the 'Post your feedback' button should become blue as soon as the user types in the comments box (instead of forcing them to use the Yes/No buttons).
 * Similarly, a user should have the option to click 'Yes' or 'No' and post without any comments.
 * As soon as a 'Yes' or 'No' button is clicked or a comment is typed, the 'Post your feedback' button will become blue (instead of the default gray).

"By posting, you agree to transparency under these ". foundation‏‎:Feedback_privacy_statement
 * The small legal text at the bottom of all forms will link to this privacy statement (on all forms):



Option 2


(The picture above is a mockup with new face icons from Brandon - see also earlier mockups with color icons, with only one tab selected and with all color hilites.)

This second variation of the feedback form focuses on the text comment and its label (tag). Interface functional details:
 * The title of the form shall be "Help improve this article" (used to be context-sensitive)
 * Label selection (default selected is 'suggestion')
 * Comments box (multiline, with different prompt depending on selected label)
 * Post button (caption shall reflect the selected label).
 * Links to the feedback page (1.5) and privacy policy (1.0)
 * The labels selection shall function as tags selection, only one can be selected at any time.
 * Selecting a label shall change the default placeholder text for the comments box, only if no text had been entered yet
 * If text had been entered in the comment box, it shall persist through label changes.
 * To further clarify, there is only one text input box.

Context-sensitive text prompts: The prompts in the text area are context-sensitive, so you get a different message if you click on Suggestion, Praise, Problem or Question.
 * Suggestion: "Make a suggestion! How can this article be improved?"
 * Question: 'Ask a question about this article. '
 * Problem: 'Report a problem. How can this article be improved?'
 * Praise: "What's most useful to you? Share your praise with the editors."

Context-sensitive button labels: Ideally, we would have different button labels for each type of feedback, if easy to do: If this is hard to do, we will just have the button say: "Post your feedback"
 * "Post your suggestion"
 * "Post your question"
 * "Post your problem"
 * "Post your praise"

Note: This form design is inspired in part by GetSatisfaction.com.



Option 3


This version of the feedback form provides the users with the ability to give an overall rating to the article (see rating functionality above), and a comment. Labels/tags input are not provided on this form. The visual appearance shall be the same as option 1, but have 5-star rating widget instead of the yes/no buttons.

Updated text: 
 * Title: 'Help improve this article'
 * Subtitle: 'How would you rate it, overall?'
 * Comments prompt: 'Add a comment. How can this article be improved?'
 * Small text: 'By posting, you agree to transparency under these [terms]'

Option 4


(streamlined mockup for this call to edit.)

This variation will be tested in phase 1.4 and does not provide feedback options. Instead it is a direct call for the readers to edit the article.
 * The "Edit" button takes the reader to the article's edit page.
 * The "learn how to edit" link takes the reader to this New Wikipedia Tutorial].
 * Both registered and anonymous users shall be able to edit the page, as per current Mediawiki functionality.
 * If the article is not editable by the user (according to its protection level), another interface option is to be displayed instead (options 1-3 or 5)
 * If the user has been blocked from editing by Wikipedia, another interface option will be displayed as well.
 * Wikimedia's standard CTA button with arrow is used in this mockup.

Here is the text copy for this option:

"Help improve this article

Did you know that you can edit this page?

Wikipedia works because anyone can edit its articles. Go ahead, give it a try. Be bold!

Learn how to edit >>

Edit this page  => "



Option 0
The last option we will give to users during the test in December will be no feedback form at all. (option 0)

Calls to Action (CTAs)
After readers post their feedback, they will see one of these calls to action (CTAs):
 * edit this article (for unprotected pages only - anyone can edit, even if they are not logged in)
 * take a survey (link to survey page) - this call to action may be postponed for a week
 * sign up or login (if logged out) - this call to action may be postponed for a week
 * get email notifications (if my post is used) - this call to action may be postponed for a week

Call to action selection criteria:
 * We will start the phase 1.0 test in December with only the 'Edit' call to action
 * After we have enough edit conversion data, we will introduce more CTAs in phase 1.3, on a random basis, with equal selection chances
 * If a page cannot be edited, we will display the 'get email notifications' CTA instead (or the survey CTA, if 'get email' CTA is not ready yet)
 * If a page cannot be edited and no other CTA is available in phase 1.0, we will display 'Saved successfully' in green text next to the 'Post your feedback' button (as AFT v4 does now)

CTA 1: Edit this page


This 'thank you' confirmation is shown after a user posts feedback, and includes a call to action (CTA). This CTA invites the user to try editing the article they just gave feedback (see earlier mockup for 1.3). We will start the test in December with only this call to edit for phase 1.0, but plan to add more CTAs in phase 1.3.

This a direct call for the readers to edit the article.
 * The "Edit" button takes the reader to the article's edit page.
 * The "learn how to edit" link takes the reader to this New Wikipedia Tutorial].
 * Both registered and anonymous users shall be able to edit the page, as per current Mediawiki functionality.
 * If the article is not editable by the user (according to its protection level), another call to action is to be displayed instead
 * If the user has been blocked from editing by Wikipedia, another interface option will be displayed as well.

Here is the text copy for this CTA:

{checkmark} Thanks! Your feedback has been.

Did you know that you can edit this page?

Wikipedia works because anyone can edit its articles. Go ahead, give it a try. Be bold!

Edit this page  =>

View Feedback Page >>

Learn how to edit >>

en:Wikipedia:Tutorial
 * The "learn how to edit" link takes the reader to the Wikipedia Tutorial:


 * Wikimedia's standard CTA button with arrow is used in the above mockup, which uses small versions of the button and arrow graphics.

CTA 2: Learn more


This a call to action for readers who can't edit this article -- to learn how they can contribute to Wikipedia.

This 'thank you' confirmation is shown after a user posts feedback on a page that is protected or semi-protected. It includes a call to action (CTA) that invites the user to learn more about improving Wikipedia. In phase 1.0, this CTA will be shown when a user cannot edit the page they gave feedback on, because it is protected (instead of showing the call to edit this article). More CTAs will be added in phase 1.5.

Here is the text copy for this CTA:

{checkmark} Thanks! Your feedback has been.

Help improve Wikipedia

This encyclopedia is created by people like you. Can you give us a hand?

Learn more =>


 * The "Learn more" button takes the reader to this New Wikipedia Tutorial].


 * Wikimedia's standard CTA button with arrow is used in the above mockup, which uses small versions of the button and arrow graphics.

CTA 3: Take a Survey


This call to action will be implemented in phase 1.2, after the first calls to action have been released. New images will be added later (screenshots of current version are provided here for reference).

We will adapt this current version of this CTA (and Simple Survey below) from AFT v4, with some minor changes to the wording of the survey, to reflect some of the new project goals and user interface.



CTA 4: Sign up or login


This call to action will be implemented in phase 1.2, after the first calls to action have been released (a screenshot of the current AFTv4 version is provided here for reference).

We will adapt this current version of this CTA from AFT v4, with only minor changes to the wording, as well as look and feel.

CTA 5: Get email notifications
This CTA would only be displayed to anonymous users ("anons") or logged in members for whom we don't already have an email address. If such a user posts a comment, we will invite them to enter their email address, so we can notify them if their comment is used. We should also have a checkbox to make this message dismissable (e.g., "Don't show this again").

This is a new call to action, which doesn't already exist, though we may be able to adapt the post-survey CTA from AFT v4, with some minor changes to the wording. (We think the current CTA functionality allows dismissing, but only for a certain period of time.)

This call to action will be implemented in phase 1.3, after the first calls to action have been released (a screenshot of a current AFTv4 email capture form is provided here for reference).



Other calls to action
Other optional calls to action we are considering for phase 2 include:


 * discuss this article
 * view feedback page

Specs to be added later on, if we decide to include any of these in phase 1.5 or later.



Help Tool Tip


When you click on the question mark icon on any of the forms, you get a small tooltip that will link to the upcoming AFTv5 help page.

Here is the updated text copy for this tool tip:

"What's this?

Wikipedia would like to hear what you think of this article. Share your feedback with the editors -- and help improve this page.

Learn more >>"

'Learn more' should link to this correct URL for the help page link: w:en:Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Help

(this is what you would get when you click on the question mark icon in the feedback forms, then click 'Learn More')

Feedback links
To invite more user feedback, we recommend adding a prominent 'Feedback' link or button above the fold on article pages.

We also propose adding a prominent 'Feedback' link on talk pages, so that editors can quickly view feedback collected about a given article.

Feedback links on article pages
The purpose of this prominent feedback link on the article pages would be to:
 * let readers know they have a voice, even if they are not yet ready to edit
 * increase the overall number of feedback responses (particularly for low-traffic articles)
 * increase the quality of feedback (assuming that we get more experts to respond as a result)

For discussion purposes, the mockup below shows 8 different placement ideas on article pages: Here are some of the options we have mocked up individually for this feedback link:
 * Option A: add feedback link below the article title (after Wikipedia slogan)
 * Option B: add feedback link below the article title bar (top right corner of page)
 * Option C: add vertical button in the right margin of the browser window
 * Option D: add horizontal button in the lower right corner of the browser window

Based on our current evaluation, only a couple of these ideas appear practical to implement at this time. Option B has serious collision issues with geo-tags, Option C either overlaps with content or requires adding an extra margin, we had issues with all the options on the left side of the page (F and G), because they don't relate to the article and obscure these links and Option H introduces a lot of visual clutter by repeating the same long link for each section (for consistency, we want to use the same 'Improve this page' label as the form itself).

So for now, we plan to test Option D first, because it is the most practical and can give us an immediate boost to collect more data so we can measure the effectiveness of the forms. In a later phase, we expect to test two of the most practical links (e.g.: A and D) against no links at all, and implement the best of these solutions in the final version.

If Option D is selected as the final version, we are considering adding a little [x] button that would appear on rollover and enable people to disable this button. For practical purposes, this could have the same effect as changing the current user preference that now controls display of both AFT4 and AFT 5.

Overlay form
By default, the the feedback form would appear at the bottom of all article pages. Once a user clicks on a feedback link, the feedback form would appear as an overlay, moving from the bottom of the page to a location near the link, while the background is grayed out. If this proves difficult on some platforms, a fall-back option is to simply include a jump link to the feedback form at the bottom of the page.

Feedback links on talk pages
We are also discussing placement options for a new feedback link on article Talk pages for phase 1.5 or later. This shows three different ways in which a feedback link could be placed on the Talk page, linking to the feedback page where all reader posts are listed. It appears that this can be implemented via gadgets or hooks, and may not require Mediawiki core code changes are required for this requirement.



Feedback page
The feedback page will show feedback posts for a given article. Its contents will vary for different user groups, as outlined below:
 * Basic feedback page (reader view)
 * Advanced feedback page (editor view)

Readers will get fewer tools than editors with rollback or oversight privileges. Different views for different user groups are shown in the next section. To learn more about proposed access and permissions to feedback features by user group, read the Access section below.



Basic feedback page (reader view)
''' Note: the features on this page are currently under discussion. The actual nature of the feedback we receive from readers (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, what users actually comment on, etc.) will influence the design of the feedback page, so this preliminary design is likely to evolve once we start testing the first feedback forms.'''

The feedback page will display a list of the feedback posts for an article, as shown in the updated wireframe above (created with Balsamiq Mockups) -- as well as earlier mockup and earlier wireframe). Note that this wireframe doesn't show editor tools - see separate wireframe in next section. The feedback page will be a stand-alone page, much like the Moodbar Dashboard (and we borrow as much code as possible from that Moodbar extension). For the duration of our tests, this special page will not be connected to any of the standard tabs from the article page (Article | Discussion ... Read | Edit | History). However, we will provide text links to the article and talk pages at the top of that special page. (see below)

Anyone will be able to view this feedback page, as well as filter or sort its posts, and tag the posts to indicate if they are helpful or abusive. Editors and administrators only will also be able to use the special tools on this feedback page, enabling them to hide or feature some of the posts (see Access section).

The feedback page can be accessed in two primary ways: by clicking on the text links in the feedback forms, or on a link to be added on the talk page.

The feedback page will include an overview panel at the top of the page, to provide overall info about the feedback posts for this article:
 * Page label ('Special page' for now)
 * Page title (e.g.: 'Feedback: Golden-crowned Sparrow')
 * Number of posts (excluding any hidden or deleted posts)
 * Feedback icon (e.g.: happy, sad or confused face based on rating average)
 * Feedback summary (e.g.: '75% found what they were looking for' for option 1)
 * Add your feedback (button linking to the article page, with form overlay)
 * Links to other related pages:
 * View article
 * Discussion
 * Help

The feedback page will also support navigation functionality, to sort or filter the list of feedback posts:


 * 1. Sorting ('Sort by: ...') - predefined set of options (text links with toggle function -- or up/down arrows next to links):
 * - - - Sort by Date   - - - -
 * Newest - show the most recent posts first (default)
 * Oldest - show the earliest posts first
 * - - - Sort by Rating   - - - -
 * Highest - show the posts with the highest article ratings first
 * Lowest - show with the lowest article ratings first
 * (e.g.: based on average of 'Yes/No' responses for whether or not they found what they were looking for -- for feedback form option 1)
 * - - - Sort by Helpfulness   - - - -
 * Helpful - show the posts with the most 'Yes' answers first. Note: the exact functionality behind "helpful"/"not helpful" is TBD.
 * Unhelpful - phase 1.5 - show the posts with the most 'No' answers first
 * (based on average of 'Yes/No' responses for whether or not this post was helpful)


 * 2. Filtering ('Show filters') - this feature would display a special panel of checkboxes with these predefined set of options. The final list of filters will be determined once the comment streams are analyzed.  Here is a preliminary list:
 * - - - Filter by Quality   - - - -
 * Comments only (this would be checked by default at launch)
 * Featured feedback (hand-picked by editors)
 * Helpful feedback (recommended by community)
 * Active feedback (posts with the most comments or tags by community)
 * - - - Filter by User Group   - - - -
 * Feedback by Editors/Admins only
 * Feedback by Registered Members
 * Feedback by Anonymous Users
 * - - - Filters for editors   - - - -
 * Unhelpful feedback (tagged by community)
 * Feedback flagged for abuse (tagged by community)
 * Feedback hidden by editors (only shown to users with special access)
 * Feedback un-hidden by editors (only shown to users with special access)
 * Feedback posted on Talk page - phase 2
 * Feedback posted on To-Do List - phase 2
 * Feedback that has been resolved - phase 2
 * - - - Filters for oversight   - - - -
 * Feedback deleted by admins with oversight (only shown to users with special access)
 * All - unfiltered (only shown to users with special access -- see section below)
 * - - - Future Filters   - - - -
 * Most Relevant (this could be default listing in phase 2 - show Featured first, then Most Helpful with comments, then Most Recent with comments)


 * Comment display. Each item in the feedback page list will display:
 * Logged user name (or IP address), with link to user page
 * 'Yes/No' answer: 'found what they were looking for' -- or overall article rating from option 3
 * Timestamp (show 'x days, hours, minutes ago' -- all the way up to 48 hours, then just show date and time)
 * Full Comment - phase 1.4
 * Truncated Comment - phase 1.5 (show first 500 characters, then users have to click 'More' to see the rest)
 * 'More' button showing expandable sub-section with feedback details (collapsed by default), including:
 * Permalink to that particular post
 * Tag this post (funtionality TBD)
 * User tags for this post (if applicable)
 * Add a comment - phase 2
 * Comments on this post (if applicable) - phase 2
 * Expanded feedback (if applicable) - phase 2
 * Form Option(s) Used (if applicable)
 * Evaluate this feedback post (funtionality TBD)
 * 'Is this feedback helpful?' with 'Yes/No' buttons
 * Number of answers (with color coding to indicate if it was found helpful or not?)
 * Link that shows names of evaluators (with their yes/no vote) - phase 2
 * Abuse Flags: (for any user to flag spam or offensive comments, functionality TBD)
 * Flag as abuse - a text link (functionality TBD)
 * Number of flags (in parenthesis)
 * Link that shows names of flaggers - phase 2
 * Diff link (e.g.: '152 edits since this post'
 * (links to a comparison page showing the difference between the article at the time the feedback was posted and its current version.)
 * Editor tools in right margin (see below) - only visible to editors or administrators. (see next section)
 * Help icon - a question mark icon linking to help page explaining how to use this page's features

Add Comments In phase 2, this page's functionality will support nested comments (that will be reflected both in the database schema and in code infrastructure), but this functionality will not be available in the interface for the first phase. The infrastructure should not impose limits on the depth of the comments tree. If such limits are to be introduced at later phases of the project, they shall be set in the code/configuration.

Pagination The feedback page would display up to 50 feedback posts by default (this number could be changed by Wikimedia based on user feedback, but no need to give user control of number of posts right now.) In phase 1.4, a "Show more" button at the end of the list would load additional posts, same amount, and, again, display the "show more" button at the end of the list. In phase 1.5 or 2.0, pagination features could be included at the bottom of each page, as needed (instead of a 'Show More' button, which may not be as practical for this purpose).



Advanced feedback page with editor tools (oversight view)


This editor version of the feedback page includes special tools, which would only be visible to editors and administrators, as shown in the updated wireframe above (created with Balsamiq Mockups) -- as well as earlier mockup] and [[:commons:File:Article-Feedback-Page-Simple-Wireframe-Admin-Tools-V5-11-10.png|earlier wireframe) Note that the basic version of this wireframe in the previous section doesn't show these editor tools. To learn more about proposed access and permissions for these editor tools by user group, read the Access section below.

These editor tools would include these features for each post:
 * A label to show if this article has been HIDDEN by any editor or administrator (or FEATURED)
 * Hide - mark the post as hidden.
 * (functionally, the comment is not deleted from the database, just not displayed unless you are an editor or unless a specific filter is selected; a 'Hidden' label is then shown next to post for editors.)
 * Show (for changing the status of 'featured' or 'hidden posts' back to normal 'listed' status)
 * Feature - in phase 1 of the project this will promote the post to top of page, as well as include a 'Featured' label next to post.
 * Delete - permanently delete certain content for legal reasons - only available to small 'oversight' group [not shown in this wireframe]


 * TBD Moderation tools. The following moderation tools are under discussion:
 * Post to Talk page - Link to post item to talk page (manually at first - automated version would be for phase 2)
 * Add in To-Do list - Link to add item in to-do list (manually at first - automated version would be for phase 2)
 * Issue Resolved - Link to indicate that the issue has been resolved  (manually at first - automated version would be for phase 2)
 * Email this user - Link that opens your email application with that user's email filled in (only show this if an email address is available for that purpose) - phase 1.5
 * Feedback history - Link that shows editor activity (e.g.: 'Last modified by', showing last editor name and date)

Here is an older wireframe that shows all these admin tools together (only focus on tools in the right sidebar)



Access and permissions

 * Any user can post feedback about an article, whether they are logged in or not.
 * Users can post multiple comments per article, if they have several suggestions. We may consider throttling is spam becomes an issue.
 * For logged in users, feedback is posted under their user account (the IP address shall still be recorded, but available only to users with CheckUser permissions).
 * For anonymous or logged out users, feedback is posted under their IP address.
 * Anyone can view the feedback page, including blocked users.
 * Anyone can rate any post on the feedback page ('Was this feedback helpful? Yes / No').
 * Readers can flag a post for abuse, but cannot hide or delete posts unless they have rollback or oversight privileges.
 * Rollbackers (editors with rollback privileges) can hide offensive posts from view by readers (and/or view hidden posts).
 * Only editors with oversight privileges can permanently delete posts (and/or view deleted posts).
 * Blocked users who cannot edit on Wikipedia may not post feedback either

Different user groups will have access to different tools, as shown in the comparative wireframe below, and in the following matrix table.



Here is a preliminary matrix listing key user groups and AFT features under consideration, with proposed access levels shown in green for each item.



Please note that this matrix is for discussion purposes only and is likely to change based on responses from the community as well as Wikimedia decision-makers. Some features listed above are still under consideration and may not be included in our first releases. This chart is based in part on this page for Wikipedia-EN User Access Levels.

Our overall goal is to tie-in with existing Wikipedia user groups and processes, rather than create new processes from scratch. For example, the current 'rollbacker' group (users with rollback permissions) would be enabled to hide (or show) offensive posts, as well as view hidden posts. And the current 'oversight' group would have the right to permanently delete (or undelete) posts containing illegal material (e.g. posts with links to child pornography).

Blocked users would only be able to view the feedback page, but not post any comments or ratings. Users who think their IP address is blocked unfairly may request special access from Wikimedia. These ideas are for discussion purposes, and will be the subject of an upcoming Request for Comments in January 2011.



Abuse/Spam Filters
Because Wikipedia gets so many visitors, it is likely that a good portion of the feedback will include abuse, spam and junk posts. To filter some of this unusable feedback, we are researching automated filtering technology which could help identify questionable comments as they are posted, based on their contents, sources and/or destination. This software could either flag these comments for review by an editor -- or prevent users from posting them in the first place, for clear machine-detectable policy violations.

We expect to use a number of different software tools to parse all comments, looking for a variety of telltale signs of abuse, spam or junk:
 * offensive words (e.g.: 'f*** you')
 * links to known spam sites
 * gibberish (e.g.: the same character repeated more than 10 times?)
 * email addresses (e.g.: anything with a '@' symbol?)
 * posts from repeat offenders (e.g.: users with 10 or more feedback posts flagged for abuse this month?)

In a first phase, we will investigate the feasibility of leveraging these two popular extensions of the MediaWiki software:


 * AbuseFilter by Andrew Garrett (Werdna)
 * SpamBlacklist by Tim Starling

In the next phase, we will aim to use and/or adapt these tools for AFTv5 purposes, and integrate them with the feedback forms and feedback pages, as needed and where practical.



Expanded Feedback


For phase 2 of this project, we are considering an expanded feedback form, which could let readers suggest specific improvements, rate article qualities or share their expertise. The preliminary wireframe above assumes that an expandable/collapsable text link enables users to display this form ('Tell us more').

Feedback inputs
For each article, the following feedback user inputs shall exist:
 * Text comment
 * Yes/No Answers (option 1 only)
 * Comment tag, one and only one of: (option 2 only)
 * Suggestion
 * Question
 * Problem
 * Praise
 * Ratings (option 3 only)
 * Overall rating



Other data
Feedback records will also include for each post:
 * time-stamp
 * yes or no votes given by other users for this post
 * abuse flags from other users about this post
 * admin status: whether this post has been hidden or featured by moderators

Other feedback items from expanded forms may include, if applicable (phase 2):
 * Checked suggestions for improvement (e.g.: "Need more links")
 * Commenter's source of knowledge on the subject (pre-defined options TBD)
 * Section which the user is giving feedback about (if that option is available in expanded feedback, or recorded through link placement next to edit button)
 * Number of words or characters in user comments
 * Comments made by other users in response to this post

To learn more about proposed access and permissions to feedback features by user group, read the Access section below.



Technical requirements

 * The AFT v5 shall be developed using much of the existing AFT implementation (MediaWiki extension). However, the AFT v4 tool will remain a separate code module, and the two will co-exist on the same server. Some of the current functionality v4 functionality will continue to be supported in v5, e.g.:
 * Feedback tool can be disabled in user preferences for registered users
 * Source control requirements:
 * Core - use v1.18 (REL1_18)
 * Extensions - from trunk
 * AFT being developed as an extension, branched from trunk
 * The AFTv5 shall be able to install together with AFTv4. Only one (i.e. either AFTv4 or AFTv5) shall be displayed on the page. To further clarify, the AFTv5 shall replace AFTv4 on a predefined subset of articles for the period of testing.
 * However, the same user preference used to disable AFTv4 shall also be used to disable AFTv5.



Platforms
We aim to support the following web browsers for phases 1.0 and 1.5:
 * Internet Explorer 8+
 * Firefox 3+
 * Safari 5+
 * Opera 10+
 * Chrome 5+

We will focus our testing on these top browser versions for Wikipedia:
 * IE 8			(17%)
 * Chrome 14	       (16%)
 * Firefox 7		(11%)
 * IE 9			  (6%)
 * Firefox 3		  (5%)
 * Firefox 6		  (2%)

These will be tested on these desktop platforms:
 * Windows	(78%)
 * Mac		 (8%)
 * Linux		 (3%)

We are not currently planning to support IE6, IE7 or mobile platforms for phase 1.0, and will not show the forms at all on these unsupported platforms.

In future versions, we will aim for 'graceful degradation' in unsupported platforms, and are working on a good definition for testing that objective.

Data collection
The feedback forms will collect a variety of data for later analysis, including: (all items are phase 1.0 unless otherwise noted)
 * Article title
 * User name (if logged in)
 * User IP address
 * Original post date/time stamp
 * Modified post date/time stamp - phase 2
 * Feedback form version last used
 * Yes/No answer (if using option 1)
 * Overall rating (if using option 3 -- or average if using current form)
 * Detailed ratings (if using expanded form) - phase 2
 * Comment (in their entirety)
 * Number of words in comment - phase 1.5
 * Feedback type (suggestion, question, problem or praise, if using option 2)
 * Email address (if provided in email call to action) - phase 1.5
 * Edit status (attempted or completed, indicating if user edited the page using option 4 or call to action)
 * User status (visitor, anonymous, registered, editor or admin at the time of first post)

This section has been expanded into a separate Data and Metrics requirements page.