Last modified: 2007-08-08 17:21:20 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 10628 - Allow multiple namespace selection on special pages
Allow multiple namespace selection on special pages
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-18 12:30 UTC by Rémi Kaupp
Modified: 2007-08-08 17:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Rémi Kaupp 2007-07-18 12:30:28 UTC
On pages which allow namespace selection such as [[Special:Recentchanges]], [[Special:Whatlinkshere]], [[Special:Watchlist]] or [[Special:Contributions]], the namespace selector could be improved by having instead a listbox, allowing to select several namespaces. Currently only one choice is possible, with the additional option on Recentchanges to invert the selection.

Yet it would be convenient if several namespaces could be chosen (eg only talk namespaces, or everything but (main) and Project:, etc.). If this is not easily feasible, maybe the "invert selection" button could be added on other special pages as well ? Thanks.
Comment 1 Brion Vibber 2007-07-18 18:01:13 UTC
Multiple-choice listboxes are very nonobvious to use; I would not recommend them.
Comment 2 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-18 20:28:21 UTC
Well, we have them on [[Special:Search]].
Comment 3 Brion Vibber 2007-07-18 20:31:28 UTC
No we don't. We have an illegible pile of checkboxes, though. :)
Comment 4 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-18 22:04:29 UTC
Oh, listbox.  Yes, those are nonintuitive.  How about a (legible!) pile of checkboxes instead?  Less compact but often more useful.
Comment 5 Danny B. 2007-07-21 22:59:19 UTC
I wonder, why listbox is considered as non-intuitive, but I support any way to allow multiple ns selection.
Comment 6 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-22 03:38:33 UTC
Selecting multiple items using a listbox requires knowledge of Ctrl-click and Shift-click to select multiple items.
Comment 7 Danny B. 2007-07-22 12:54:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> Selecting multiple items using a listbox requires knowledge of Ctrl-click and
> Shift-click to select multiple items.
> 

And what blocks us from putting a small short message like "Use Ctrl-click or Shift-click to select multiple items" nearby the listbox? Or using title attribute for same. Or... There are many solutions for this...

Checkboxes are not that user-friendly as listbox is (it takes ages to click on let's say 10 of them in row while in listbox it takes click and shift-click).

However, if checkboxes will be used, I'd suggest to add pulldown and button (or group of buttons) nearby allowing user to do following actions:

* Select all
* Select all subject pages
* Select all talk pages
* Invert selection

which would make it more user friendly.

Also checkboxes if used should be near to each other and not as on Special:Search where user must travel miles with mouse to check them.

I'll attach some UI proposals later.
Comment 8 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-22 20:44:29 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> And what blocks us from putting a small short message like "Use Ctrl-click or
> Shift-click to select multiple items" nearby the listbox? Or using title
> attribute for same.

Unnecessary instructions make for a bad user interface.  We should rely on what the user is already familiar with to the greatest extent possible.

> Checkboxes are not that user-friendly as listbox is (it takes ages to click on
> let's say 10 of them in row while in listbox it takes click and shift-click).

You can shift-click checkboxes too if appropriate JavaScript is used.
Comment 9 Danny B. 2007-07-22 22:26:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > And what blocks us from putting a small short message like "Use Ctrl-click or
> > Shift-click to select multiple items" nearby the listbox? Or using title
> > attribute for same.
> 
> Unnecessary instructions make for a bad user interface.  We should rely on what
> the user is already familiar with to the greatest extent possible.

Imagine site with much more namespaces than the usual set. Using checkboxes would cause unwanted stretching of page's height while listbox can always have same number of lines for height regardless the number of namespaces.

> > Checkboxes are not that user-friendly as listbox is (it takes ages to click on
> > let's say 10 of them in row while in listbox it takes click and shift-click).
> 
> You can shift-click checkboxes too if appropriate JavaScript is used.

Well, but listboxes work friendly without JS. Think about users who have it off.
Comment 10 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-22 22:39:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> Imagine site with much more namespaces than the usual set. Using checkboxes
> would cause unwanted stretching of page's height while listbox can always have
> same number of lines for height regardless the number of namespaces.

Sixteen namespaces takes up under two lines on typical resolutions.  Fifty would take up only six lines or so.  That's no more than a typical listbox, and you wouldn't have to scroll down fifty lines.  You could even allow scrolling through the checkboxes if you really liked.

> Well, but listboxes work friendly without JS. Think about users who have it
> off.

That usability concern is not sufficient to outweigh the other presented.

Listboxes will not be used, period.  Brion said so and I agree.  There's no point in discussing it further.
Comment 11 Eep² 2007-07-27 20:03:25 UTC
Checkboxes are NOT user-friendly in this instance. Listboxes are easy enough to use: click-drag the mouse cursor over multiple rows, click another row to deselect--couldn't be easier; no ctrl-/shift-click necessary. At least add an "(un)check all" checkbox to make dealing with namespace checkboxes less frustrating. Are multi-column listboxes possible? That would help with the vertical scrolling height issue anyway. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10718 for an extension request to change the namespace search selection design.
Comment 12 Brion Vibber 2007-08-08 16:50:54 UTC
No, multi-column listboxes aren't possible.

I don't think there's a good way to do this that isn't just really really disruptive -- besides, in most cases it would be even more inefficient in the database than the stuff we already have.

So, this isn't likely to happen. WONTFIXing.
Comment 13 Eep² 2007-08-08 17:21:20 UTC
Actually, there already is a good way to do it with a normal multi-select listbox as outlined at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10718. The "form#powersearch" CSS element can be floated to the right of the search results in order to cut down on the vertical scrolling with many namespaces since the search results don't use the full page width anyway. Fixing the form to the bottom right works well too:

form#powersearch {
  float: right !important;
  position: fixed !important;
  right: 1em !important;
  bottom: 5em !important;
}

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links