Topic on Talk:Flow Portal/Archive2

Well, here is some feedback. In short, I Oppose the Flow idea.

From the description, it sound too much like it will be exactly like a Google+ stream, mixing everything together.

• Neither indentation with colons nor signature requirements are opaque. They are different from other sites, but it is not at all difficult to grasp and get a handle on. There is plenty of documentation on how to do it, and it is easy to pick up from how other editors do it.
• I agree it is not 100% clear where to hold conversations. Most editors specify in their talk page where they want the conversation to take place. This shouldn't be an issue. Talkback templates do the job just fine.
• Knowing what a watchlist is is not as big a deal as it is made sound. Any editor wishing to seriously edit will find the outline of the star on the top of the page and realize it is for their watchlist.

Why the pictures? Are we a social network now? Will we be forced to add a profile picture?

This sounds a lot like it will take away some of our abilities to manage/moderate/deal with our talk pages. Definitely not good.

I would suggest the focus of flow be more along the lines of additional features, such as private messages, instead of increased user-friendliness. If flow is just for user talk pages, new editors will still have to learn how to use the current system for article talk.

I'm not advocating "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Focus the features development on helping active, experienced users, not limiting them. The biggest problem with editor retention is not the difficulty of the interface, it is policy and the bureaucracy of WP that make it so unwelcoming. The steepest learning curve are all the rules, not the UI. Don't make it harder for experienced editors.

You've got to be kidding, right? "Talkback templates do the job just fine." No, they don't. They're garish and dumb, and you have to remember to clear them out manually or leave them cluttering your talk page. (By "dumb", I mean they're kludgy; they're a hacker's solution to a software problem.)

Everything else you mention resolves to "users will pick it up eventually". Sure, a lot do -- you and I are evidence of that. But how many give up in frustration before figuring it out? That's what we don't know. There are so many people with the knowledge and desire to help WMF projects, but they get intimidated by overly-complicated technical obstacles, of which there are many... and user-to-user communication is one of them.

"The biggest problem with editor retention is not the difficulty of the interface, it is policy and the bureaucracy of WP that make it so unwelcoming. The steepest learning curve are all the rules, not the UI."

You're only saying that because you picked up the UI easily. Not everyone is as adept as you or I. Besides, there's nothing WMF can do about rules; that's up to the individual editing communities.

Sorry for the late reply. Don't come to MediaWiki all that often.

No, no kidding. They do the job just fine. Now, that's not to say they could not be improved. I would like to see it so that something equivalent to TB templates is automatically inserted in a user's talk page when anyone comments or replies to that user anywhere on the wiki. They are very easy to use if you use Twinkle.

My biggest concern about this proposal is that usually, in software, when user-friendliness is increased, abilities are taken away from power users. Take a look at Ubuntu's switch to Unity. CCP's obsession in EVE with the captain's quarters. There are many, many examples. CCP had a bucket of cold water thrown on them when they realized how pissed off their users were. Canonical has yet to realize their mistake. The bulk of WP editing being done by experienced users, I think the focus should be on helping them. By no means am I advocating to leave things as currently are and forget the newcomers.

I did not pick up the UI easily. Take a look at my WP editing history on toolserver. See all that time I didn't edit? Discouraged by the UI and the policies.

WMF can and will do what they want. But they will loose experienced editors if they take away some of the tools they are used to.