Talk:Beta Features/Archive

Please share your feedback about Beta Features.

How to channel feedback?
I think that the intention is to gather as much quality feedback for the particular features as possible. Therefore we should promote links to feature descriptions, talk pages but I think we should also point to BugZilla components where some issues can be quickly filed; also a link to BugZilla existing issues isn't a bad idea either.

But below introductory text we have links that says:

About Beta Features | Leave feedback

I think we should get rid of them or at most embed them into the introductory text (for those who want more about WMF initiative). I believe we should be promoting particular features, not a particular WMF programme, which is irrelevant to 95% of users. We probably don't want feedback accumulating on Talk:About Beta Features.

Also when I read on About Beta Features "Can you help us test Beta Features in coming days?" I have some trouble guessing is it about some features du jour we are testing right now (Formulae, etc.) or is it about Extension:BetaFeatures as a little supporting tool?

For example right now I am much more concerned with getting the preferences page and translations right and much less about actual features to be deployed and tested.

« Saper // talk » 00:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Name
Horrible, end-user-unfriendly name. We are scratching our head already how to translate it not to scare anybody with the IT slang. « Saper // talk » 23:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What would be better name? Experimental features? I don't think that it's a unfriendly name, but translating maybe can be hard for some languages (e.g. if they don't have suitable word for beta). --Stryn (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have Gadgets, so may be Experiments ? « Saper // talk »  13:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Experiments was the original name, it was changed due to possible confusion with "Labs" which is a separate project.—
 * Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that, honest! Still much better name than the current one. I dislike the word "beta" going mainstream (I think it was Google's fault:). I had also some other ideas, like testing ground (or similar) that that should be easy to convey to other languages/cultures (Poligon in Polish for example). Are we soon going to run out of words to describe tinkering? I hope, not! « Saper // talk »  23:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure "Experimental features" would not cause confusion with Labs (although "experiments" would), and I think translating that is easier than translating "Beta Features" (unless we consider "beta" to be a word in all languages, but that's just not true). "Experimental" describes the features better than "Beta", since that they are in beta is only relevant to developers (and may in fact not even apply to all of these features) while that they are experimental is what is relevant to users. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

HTML
This is ugly (taken from my experimental deployment):

w3m for example does not really get it:



There is lots of classes and metadata but simple spaces between "information" and "discussion" are missing, not sure why we have  twice; lots of paragraphs which we don't want.

« Saper // talk » 23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkboxes
…were originally imagined to be on a white background (beta features wasn't in prefs at that point) so it wasn't explicitly called out that they should actually have a white fill in all states, without the white fill they don't really look like controls (hover state would probably help too)— Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not like them as they are inconsitent with the rest of the interface. « Saper // talk »  23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism to mark a feature as depending on another
Beta Features might need to have a mechanism to describe a feature as depending on another. The VisualEditor Formula feature, for example, depends on the VisualEditor feature being enabled on wikis where it is opt-in. One solution is to prevent the user from enabling a feature before all the features it depends on are enabled, and another is to automatically enable the features required, with or without notifying the user that the other features have been enabled. Yet another is to put the features that depend on a feature under the feature they depend on and to indent them to show this. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)