Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:33 UTC
The GUI could be improved significantly by using more tooltips. In particular, the icons in the GUI should have a tooltip explaining what they represent (grey minus=Unsighted version, yellow eye=Sighted version, green check mark=Quality Version). Furthermore, tooltips that show complete URLs are not very helpful and should be replaced by short explanations. This is for example the case for difflinks and links to logs in the GUI. The template MediaWiki:Revreview-quality is not in line with the rest of the messages and shows something completely different. Furthermore, it would be nice if in the GUI would explain who flagged the version you are looking at. Finally, in the new box that is shown after you flag a revision, we would like to interchange the second and third sentence. the reason is that the third and first sentence are explanatory and should be grouped together, while the second, fourth and fifth sentence provide links and should also be grouped together. Then, the current second sentence provides a link to the page with stable=1. However, it would be even better to provide a link to the specific version the user just flagged.
The problem is that MediaWiki:Revreview-quality need to convey that a static reviewed version was made *from* the revision being shown. They may not be the same due to templates and images. As for who flagged it, I am not sure if readers would really care too much for that info.
Mh, my fault, I compared MediaWiki:Revreview-quality with a template that does not correspond to the same situation. As for who flagged it, it's not really important for sighted versions, but for the type of quality versions we have in mind a de-WP, social control is important. Furthermore, the information that a version is flagged as quality gains a lot of weight if you can easily see who did it.
(In reply to comment #2) > Mh, my fault, I compared MediaWiki:Revreview-quality with a template that does > not correspond to the same situation. > > As for who flagged it, it's not really important for sighted versions, but for > the type of quality versions we have in mind a de-WP, social control is > important. Furthermore, the information that a version is flagged as quality > gains a lot of weight if you can easily see who did it. > OK, that sounds more useful. Quality revs only. As for titles, some of the links are parsed through as wikitext, and it sets the title attribute automatically. Those might be more of a pain to give tooltips.
Pending future parser and HTML title changes.
