@MdsShakil @Ladsgroup @The wub We've posted potential designs for this work on the project page - please let us know what you think!
Topic on Talk:Moderator Tools/Content moderation on mobile web/Diff
These mockups look good to me, and I think the new designs are clearer. Especially like having a link back to the history. I prefer having the user details collapsed by default, but could we include the user's edit count there too? It's nice that admins will have access to change the visibility of revisions.
One request: can we add tags to the edit summary as well? phab:T298174
@Samwalton9 (WMF) LGTM, I agree with The WUB.
The design looks good but:
- It is confusing admins with users who have rollbacker right, rollbackers should also see the new design.
- Rollback should be the first option for admins/rollbackers. I use that waaaaay more than I use revert.
@The wub We weren't sure of the value of displaying edit count in the current diff UI, but we can absolutely explore adding that back in to the new designs. And yes, tags definitely need to be added, we keep talking about them but not being too sure where to add them, perhaps in the Edit summary section? Do you think they should be visible all the time, or perhaps behind a click?
@Ladsgroup We used admin/non-admin as a shorthand for showing basic features vs all features; Rollback visibility would definitely be visible based on the project's user rights. Interesting - I wondered about Rollback as a 'main' button too. I'll have a think about what we could do with that. I'm concerned three buttons in the tray might make it a bit full, or require us to go to two rows, and swapping Undo and Rollback might be confusing. Ideas welcome!
Three buttons is not that bad specially given that it's going to be for smaller set of users. But if I have to pick one of these two buttons, I'd go with rollback instead of undo and leave the undo to the menu (basically swapping rollback and undo buttons in the designs).
@Samwalton9 (WMF) I just felt that if we have the edit count available, it might fit well in "user details" otherwise that section is only links to other places rather than actual details. Personally it's not something I rely on too much, but maybe other people would miss it.
Tags should be always visible I think, since they can be in a small font and don't take too much space. Along with the edit summary makes sense.
And I think I agree with Ladsgroup that rollback should be the visible button when it's available. As on desktop diffs it should also indicate when more than just the current edit would be rolled back using MediaWiki:Rollbacklinkcount.
I am glad the silly byte count was removed, but I agree within the user detail, keeping the contributor count is important. When I see someone with lower edit count, I try to take extra care to avoid wiki slang/jargon in my edit message.
I do think more main buttons for admin/roll backers would not be excessive, given their proficiency in editing but on other hand, how often would blocking or rolling back be done on mobile anyways? If it takes one extra click, and prevents accidents, that’s not bad. Shushugah (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing @Shushugah! Do you find the user groups list helpful too, or do you primarily use the edit count?
@Samwalton9 (WMF) I'm not opposed to user groups (would you show ALL user groups even?) but in most cases, edit count (oh boy, we're getting political about editcountitus) is a reasonably proxy substitute and more detailed. For example, someone with 500+ edits is almost always ECP, although someone could have an alt/new account with fewer than 500 edits and still be granted ECP, but that's an edge case. Knowing someone is a rollbacker, admin, etc..isn't relevant or shouldn't be, when determining consensus. That's a risk in itself, that user groups give impression that some editors are "super"/more preferred editors, but still I think edit count can give a slightly more accessible playing field than hat collecting does.
Ironically knowing someone makes 500,000 edits tells me more about their edit habits (gnome/bot/automated) versus someone making several thousands. Both are valuable contributors (assuming no abuse of course).
The Age of account can be useful combination too. Someone making 400 edits in one month, is different for me, than someone making 300 edits across 3 years. Although my account is good example where I made 3 edits in 2015-2017 and then 500 edits in month of 2018.
To conclude, I am fine with including everything, but if you wanted succinct descriptions, I'd include/prioritize edit count (within the detailed description, and leaning towards omitting user group info)