通知/排序方案

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Notifications/Sorting schemes and the translation is 70% complete.

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎français • ‎polski • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

总而言之,任务是决定不同类型的通知如何排序。比如将新用户讨论页消息、编辑被回退以及有链接至用户创建页面的页面被创建进入两组。 目前的排序有一些问题

之前曾有两个建议。 在获得部分反馈后,我们决定只保留一个备选方案作为当前方案(2016年4月)。 团队需要您对它的反馈(您的偏好或关注点)。 一种比较推荐的做法是我们从紧急程度进行分组(示例)。

请在Phabricator taskMediaWiki.org分享您的反馈。

需要解决的问题

目前有两种通知的浮动菜单,一种用于提醒,一种用于消息。 不同的通知类型显示在不同的菜单上。 There have been criticism over time that the scheme for dividing up the messages is unclear and/or inconsistent. 批评主要有:

  • Ideas of "urgency" and "requiring follow up" are mixed together, making it difficult to explain or predict why different items are in each flyout.
  • 目前,在打开弹出菜单时,“提醒”项目会自动“标记为已读”。 Yet some of these require follow-up or other action to be fully understood (e.g., Mention), so this feature's value is not always clear.
  • 因为“提醒”被视作“紧急消息”,“感谢”及其他项目在那个弹窗中不合适。

目標

  • To create a scheme that is easy to understand, learn, and predict.
  • To give editors clearer information about their new notifications.
  • To reduce unnecessary distraction from non-urgent notifications.
  • Something that works well for editors who get large (and small) quantities of notifications.
  • Something that scales well, as new (requested) notification types are created.
  • Something that scales well, once cross-wiki notifications are available.

类型

See examples of the most common notification types at: File:Notifications Catalog.png

选项

  1. 目前
  2. 紧急通知与非紧急通知相对
  3. (曾经提出但现已放弃)需要跟踪与不需要跟踪相对(是否需要回复或类似操作)

(This table has no annotations, and just shows the most common notification-types. See a more detailed version here at googledocs which also includes a 3rd and 4th (more complicated) alternative.)

两种将通知拆分成2个不同弹出菜单的备选方案
#1: 目前分组 #2: 紧急通知与非紧急通知相对
查看此排序方式在实际操作中的示例
提醒 消息 提醒 一般通知
欢迎(welcome) 讨论页留言 讨论页留言 欢迎(welcome)
编辑还原 Flow新话题(flow-new-topic) 编辑还原 页面链接
页面链接 Flow帖子回复(flow-post-reply) 提及 感谢
提及 Flow帖子编辑(flow-post-edited) 用户权限更改 Flow感谢(flow-thank)
用户权限更改 Flow主题更改(flow-topic-renamed) 来自其他用户的电子邮件 Flow新话题(flow-new-topic)
来自其他用户的电子邮件 Flow提及(flow-mention) Flow帖子编辑(flow-post-edited) Flow帖子回复(flow-post-reply)
感谢 Flow提及(flow-mention) Flow主题更改(flow-topic-renamed)
Flow感谢(flow-thank) 内容翻译的首次翻译(cx-first-translation)
内容翻译的首次翻译(cx-first-translation) 内容翻译的第十次翻译(cx-tenth-translation)
内容翻译的第十次翻译(cx-tenth-translation) 内容翻译的第一百次翻译(cx-hundredth-translation)
内容翻译的第一百次翻译(cx-hundredth-translation)
分析 分析
优点 缺点 优点 缺点
Ideas of Urgency and Follow up are mingled in ways that are inconsistent, making this difficult to explain or predict. Division, while subjective, is clear and will track with some users' expectations (given the red badge color). The division is subjective. Given differing working styles, some users will disagree with assignment of individual items.
Because some "Alert" items require follow-up and are not self-contained (e.g., Mention), ability to Mark as Read on open is of questionable value Factor of urgency may provide an aid to triage ("check these first")
Because alerts are perceived as Urgent, Thank Yous and other items seem out of place.
一般点 一般点
In this scheme, an effort was made to determine the messages that users would want to know right away vs. those that they may regard as less pressing. Urgency was more or less arrived at by consensus in consultation with various team members. 用什么标注这些:“提醒”的确恰当,因为它展现了紧急性的含义。 但多数提醒本应是一般消息(例如编辑用户讨论页)。 Suggest "Notices" as not sounding to deprecatory but connoting a lower level of urgency.
The red, "Urgent," badge color for Alerts is recommended for this scheme. In labelling the non-urgent items, we need to be careful that some groups (e.g., Translation) don't perceive that we are labelling their activities less important.
Many of the Urgent (Alert) items require follow-up (e.g., edit-user-talk), so use of automatic Mark as Read is not recommended.