 like we are not necessarily like going to be asking the community for answers because that's like we are, we have designers so we know like we have like the say the best practices or we have like good expertise but maybe we can start to talk together about what kind of problems that we want to solve. Because maybe the problems that we identify are not necessarily what the community is talking about. This is the simple question. The third one is something like would it make sense that instead of like people, let's say finding a bug or okay the search bar needs to change in this way or that way. So we're actually formulating our problems as stories as like not necessarily like the user story but it's more like something bigger like okay the entire experience of like the community on the phone makes you actually think that's how it actually works so you don't even get to understand a lot about how it actually like how does it actually work. If you don't see bug pages on like on the phone or on the app so you're actually getting like there's a missing message about where do people talk about and where does the conversation happen if you get it out. Actually if the village phone pages are not rendered nicely on your phone device then you're missing a dimension so how could that be a story to the mind. You know about the Mozilla identity thing like how they read this slide. So they discovered that their logos are actually, they don't tell a significant story about their openness and how does that work and what do they represent. So they hired a company to run an open process for redesigning their identity logos and the entire thing was made in the open. In the sense that people like they started posting like say defining the mission statement together and trying to see like what are the key words that they can build upon an idea from. And the process has been happening since summer and people are voting, not voting, but people are like commenting and say openly on their integrated feedback in the development process. And the final thing is our software versus our communities, I'm afraid of that. So we're been looking for reading here and we have this ongoing problem that we don't get the voice of the readers integrated in our processes. Basically because we don't know how to reach them. And basically also because our software, the way how it works right now, makes it really hard to, as I said, like if you wanted to check the village bump to see like how the discussion is running between the community, it's really not working for you as a reader. Like you're going to get like a garb of like badly rendered page under a little voice. So can we work around that or can we address this from a UI UX perspective? I talk a lot, you need to shut up. And I think you've got some food for thought and these questions you can feel free to add more questions or give some insights or some insights. When you were talking about the open design process, you said there wasn't really that good voting, but it was sort of a commenting. So I guess it's ultimately that it makes the decision like you said. That sounds good to me. Who makes the decision? Just as a general thing, I think we should speak up because if there's somebody that's hanging out, I have no idea. Then people will not hear or comment. Oh, that's why I didn't see that. Okay, I'll speak up. So you were saying like who makes the decision? Yeah, I mean I guess when it comes down to it, you're taking in suggestions from everywhere. So James, what do you think from a community perspective? If you're running this process in your community and you're making a comment and the designer kind of foundation makes another comment, how would you feel about it? In a design thing, which is like nobody would like. I think when designing a product, I think it is one thing to understand best practices and very sympathetic to that because a lot of people don't really understand what property is like. On the other hand, you do have to get some kind of validation to see if your best practices correspond with reality. That's the basic principle of validating your expectations when it's activated. And see if that best practice you had in mind is that actually what the world is still in use against it. And so design really shouldn't get back to work better. And this is something that we find working with Wickey projects that what we develop is based on what we found in people and what we will end up with. The problems people around the interface has probably just to go back and make changes on our end. Yeah, I was thinking in this case into a second question. And my thoughts on that are open agitation for sure. Because that could just as well as defining design goals, which I think are much less controversial. Then with that design goal, open design can be tied to those goals and arguments or disagreements can be resolved by tying it down. So it gives you a foundation to build on. So I think always open agitation allows open design goals to be collaboratively built. And I think it's actually complicated because there are rules. In this article in the software, for example, working in the entire system of complete single articles, you have multiple boxes, you have working boxes, you have days of time, things just gotta grow up. And people sort of think that like yes, but that isn't really the interface. And so if there's this kind of open concepts, design principles, then I think there should be coordination. One thing I wanted to do on Wikipedia is to kind of set up a UX page. I'm just talking about UX from the perspective of an editor working in the town place. What is, what should our design vision be when designing these boxes? I think it will work. What stopped you from starting a page? Why didn't you start a page? Because I haven't looked at the other things. But not because you felt discouraged that this is going nowhere? No, it's because I haven't got around to this. I think by working together it's going to lead to an overall more cohesive vision and also less complex vision. Could we for a moment define, I don't know if everybody in the room knows what open design is, the open ideations, what the difference is. I feel like this is an important point to define. Maybe contrast open design with what would be closed design. Yeah, the opposite way. So open ideation is more like us tackling the issues that we need to address, but they have to do with design. So we're talking again about your experience with browsing Wikipedia on your phone, then there are issues with that. So if we are talking about open ideation, then we can, let's say, we have us, we dedicate a space on media media somewhere in our projects, and then we are starting to list what are the issues as we see it from a community perspective and then from other user perspective and how do we tackle these issues. Versus open design is more about, okay, we already decided on certain issues and then we're starting to solve them in the open. So it's like open ideation and then there's open design. Does that make sense? Actually for me I'm kind of confused. I don't know if we, like right now with our process, if we have one, I don't know if we have open ideation or if we have open design or if we don't have any, right? It normally applies at this point. I don't think it really applies at this point. Design traditionally has been people like this team that has said this is the right way of doing things and this is absolutely it regardless of what, even if it's a totally giant experience for people who are used to editing to be able to pass 10 years and expecting a certain experience, I think. It has gotten better over time, but I wouldn't say it's anything, it's not like it's totally open about open ideation. Yeah, well there's this thing I'm not sure, like some definition is like people like to think that design is subjective by default, right? And it kind of gets hard if you're working with a community or with an open platform because then it's like you have to follow certain practices that are different. So the tricky question is like what would be the best formula for us to work on open ideation in a way that does, that makes the community feel comfortable, that they can actually address and voice their concerns as open as possible. And also designers are happy or comfortable that okay this is open and it's going both ways and it's like not that someone is telling us what to do, we know our job. One question I have is around like scoping ideation. So I think there's the perspective of like can either the full community or can we decide what we're going to ideate on and can we scope into that and then create a space for open communication in something that's, yeah, that's scoped in that broad. Not just like I don't like brown, it's not necessarily something that you can have a really fruitful conversation with, like the things that are purely about aesthetics. But if you're talking things like okay making a search experience better with on film then what are the things that you need to tackle the dress. And then, yeah. Yeah, I really like the open ideo process and they create these platforms where they have a question that they'd like to address. They were supposed to join this session by the way, but it was short news. So I wasn't good. Sorry. But yeah. Yeah, so I mean for anyone who hasn't looked at open ideo, but basically their idea is to use people throughout the world to think up great ideas to answer your heart problems. Ranging from healthcare to death with dignity, like really, really broad things and using design thinking. So I think that's also another aspect of open ideo is just introducing design thinking to a broader community as well and creating a toolkit for conversation not just necessarily like UI or UX elements. Yeah, this is like where this problem of stories thing is like, so for them it's like they put the problem in the sense of a story and then people start commenting on that and they go like on top of that. But again, the question is like your level of comfort as a designer is, if I'm understanding that correctly from you, like is really high in terms of like if you're going to define problems together to work on them, you don't feel like you're someone who's coming in your territory. Yes or no? No, I think... Or like where's the barrier because maybe... Yeah, I feel like there are two different things, like an open hub for ideation versus... Just looking at the topic first of all, I was thinking that we would be talking more about like a UI hub for kind of facilitating, having more contributors, participating in open design. And by that I mean like having a central point where we like provide our design guideline and so forth and like resources and having people be able to like understand or the ideation hub would be... I think speaking for... I'm not a designer, I'm UX engineer, but speaking for the designers in the community foundation from my experiences that when you talk about territory, the designers are more than interested on understanding the users and the users' necessities. And then comes in another point which is experience, this designing experience where as a designer you have several things already in the back of your fit to do log in contrast to somebody in an open design process who is not working as a designer necessarily. For example, looking at accessibility measurements or looking at certain technical limitations that you have to overcome. And I think this is very important to say that I think the understanding is for... I'm speaking on your behalf, the understanding is not something that we are excluding exactly. The opposite is true. We want to understand what's going on, what is the users' challenges. I think that's what the design research team does, right? That they're basically our open hub. It's not super open, it's a thing. And also like the way how volunteers are recruited is different from the way how we're talking about how our community is going to... Right, but our only interface right now for asking people to think very quickly about the products that we provide is design research. I would like to ask if you already had an experience of open ideation involving the community to make an important design decision? You would say no. I mean, then it comes down to what do you call it open ideation? I would say in parts, yes. Because we're reaching out, we try to bring out an assumption to the users and talk with this assumption that comes from our expertise with the users that are using the tools on an everyday or regular basis. And this is, in my opinion, a big important part of open ideation to get together and get on the same page. What is the problem that we are facing? What is the problem that we want to solve? Yeah, so let's phrase it differently. I think what's been happening is that we were starting with... It's usually the foundation taking the initiative to point out, okay, this is a problem, and we tell the user's story from our designer's perspective on a ticket or somewhere, and then we move on with the solution. So it's like us, after some sort of internal meeting, we're deciding what are the points versus if we have a place where it's dedicated, where it's like anyone knows that, okay, we can define broad topics, and then people are going to be listing their own perspectives. I think previously, in the iOS app at least, there are places to give feedback, but it hasn't been encouraged. There was a survey recently in the brand, and it sort of showed up in the feed, so that was one of the first time it was... Yeah, I think this relates to the software and community stuff. You cannot get everything done whenever we're close. I think it was... I was asked immediately... I know we talk about the Mozilla that any of you generally talked about, but is there any examples of open design being accessible? I'm wondering, are we trying to be straight in the ground, or are we trying to do something if something is happening? It's new. Yeah, no. I think our community is different, and also we are experimenting as we evolve with our different stuff, so I don't know if anyone has been in our exact same situation before. Is there a way to break it from? Definitely, this is what this is about. If I'm thinking from a community's perspective, the feedback idea, that mechanism seems cool. You can have a hug or a picture to create a high-level topic, and then from this experience, some products that are going to be affected by that design link to that, and say, this current experience, we think there might be improved, and here's where that discussion is happening, that there's a direct link from the image of you to the open ideation process. We have that open ideation process, and it's very centralized on that hub, on that one page. When it graduates to the design phase, we just do the fabricator and work on it there, helping people do that, transfer to the fabricator, if they want to participate, and open that. We kind of do that now in the app, and someone sends feedback in that, say, a feed tribe here or whatever, will usually create a ticketing fabricator, and then respond to them and say, hey, we've created an idea, and some of the people will come in and have the same suggestion, we point that to us to have the discussions there, but it's kind of, you know, a pause. That's really cool. But it's a format solution to have enough dedicated. Well, and if we did it, if we had consistency, we could launch this consistent way of approaching it, and all we're thinking about is that going forward, in the spirit of, like, collaboration, the key style. Just to give you a little bit of background, because, like, I've been discussing this a little bit internally, and with other volunteers, and back to your question. Yes, initially, when this started, it was like, okay, this is going to be a central page, where we're actually putting, like, all our design, let's say, resources or, like, whatever we produce that's related to design, and then we can start a discussion about, like, what's going on in this space. But actually, like, not everyone was on the same page when it came to this kind of particular discussion, because it was, like, okay, are you saying that we're actually going to, it's going to be, like, community versus designers, and we know what we're doing, so... Yeah. And that's why we thought, okay, maybe we can go, like, one level up, and then we start with ideation, which is, like, we have a common ground in ideation, and then we started half, like, we both identified the problems together, then actually identifying solutions to it to become more easier, yeah. Actually, can you talk more about, like, the background, okay? What's the, like, setting for this, like, problem? Like, is there something in a community member's product or something in a designer that I didn't find as a me? No, something I brought up. So, like, did you, like, come in from, like, a problem that, like, like, a particular situation or comment that you, like, powered by it? Yeah, we have a comment and a background, and James, and then I will give you a... Yeah, I will, too. Okay, what do you want to say? Yeah, I... The background. Yes, I can't, like, a little bit, like, a little bit lost. Uh-huh. So, what is the problem with trying to... And James, do you want to say something before I say this? Yeah, I think it's a challenge, uh... They used, uh, design thinking for... multiple libraries, thinking about how to actually design multiple libraries, and also, federal government, uh, AT&T, which is kind of a... the general, uh, government, uh, signage. They analyzed barriers that existed that provided people with access to government resources. So, they went to the federal libraries and they just wanted people to ask them, they just did a whole bunch of, like, design this again, use that to redesign these government websites. Having looked at some of these new worlds, they started with a lot of design, and they actually directly incorporated a user view back. So, I don't think we're entirely impressive to just have a whole bunch of products. Mm-hmm. My question, when we think of open design versus, like, there's designing collaboratively with volunteers who... or people who are not designers within the foundation but who want to take a design role, and then there's also, like, ingesting and building off of user feedback and, like, reaching out to users and um, discussing problems. So, one thing that I have a question about is, like, when we talk about an open design hub, are we talking about people are coming in presenting design solutions or people are coming in, I mean, like, maybe it's a multitude of things, but when I hear, you know, it's like... and I just want to make it clear that there are various ways that someone can... it's a very porous, and there's a variety of depths. So, you could have someone who comes in with... I mean, where I used to work, people would come to lunch and show me an entire mock-up of the front page of the website that I worked on, and be like, you should do this. And you took it with an open heart, huh? Yeah, yeah, I was just like, you know, I spent... I have illustrated it, so I made this for you, and I just wanted to discuss it with you, which is... I wanted to talk to people about a fully fleshed-out design that they had in their minds, but there's also a question of bringing a user feedback and bringing the user stories, and that's also part of the design process, but I haven't just sort of... Yeah, so, yeah, just to give the back to the question, what is this about? At some point, we were... like, there was this assumption, which is true, but where to start from? I don't want to be... I want to be nice, so let me find the right words. There was these continuous trials from actually designers that are no longer part of the foundation, but they were consistently pushing for some particular changes on the mobile web interface, as in adding lead image in a certain way, or some sort of thing that didn't have clear justification of like, how is this actually helping, and have like a strong opposition from the community, and so at some point it was like... we couldn't just define why we want to do what we want to do, and the community had something to add, but it was also like... it wasn't comfortable for designers to be like, okay, my idea versus your idea, and so I was like, okay, maybe we need to have a central place where we are discussing the solutions together, but then from there, it was like, okay, maybe this central place instead of like, it's a place where we're discussing font issues, and I don't know, certain layout, or whatever, maybe it's a place where we are identifying problems together and then moving the solution would be better. So when you had that argument, was it like designer wanting one implementation and community wanting another implementation? Because I think the world you're thinking about is trying to figure out the underlying need is that implementation that is backwards from the designer perspective, why do they want that? Underline you shouldn't be trying to address and how can a professional design solve a solution that addresses that need that is also consistent with your... Yeah, that's why we're talking about open ideation now, because it was backwards. This was like, okay, someone wanted to do this particular idea and there was no clear why, except for, okay, this is the trend, or this is... it's going to be better. It was like that, you know, and then you go and you make a proposal page, and then the comments like everybody's like, why? Or maybe others... the flash was going to be if someone, like, a community member who has some design ideas and then they would come up post something like, okay, I think this might... my idea is better, and then we like, okay, where do we go from here? What was the form of this? Media Wiki page. Very happily, yeah. I think Corey was first. So, I just... because I know we're not talking about this if the idea is like, oh, we've never done some of this before, but it also sounds like... to Carolyn's point, it sounds like there's some basic design stuff that just needs to be better first of like, identifying problems better and just communicating them and just better like, these are what we're working on and then just some feedback better, which are like, normal parts of the design process and like, not saying that we shouldn't pursue like, this bigger idea, but maybe we should try to first see if problems like that fixes like, and then like, kind of get to something bigger, I don't know. Yeah, that's very wonderful. Well, I don't have any experience from a point of view of the communication but I have been both here for a long time and I know the community at least the Spanish community and I know exactly what the problem was. The communities, for example, the Spanish one all I say is it's reversed to the Spanish one but maybe applied to yours too. Communities like, fight any change to present any visual editor or it's a great tool the community in the Spanish Wikipedia actually voted to not implement it, I'm not using that but we didn't activate the visual editor for a long time and anything that you wish to change, even if it's for good they will try to oppose it because they are used to the way and they're used to a new face, actually you need to keep that in mind for anything you wish to do or on any sign that because that's something to keep in mind especially if that comes from the Wikipedia population for some people there are some people who simply cannot understand why they are volunteers there are people who actually do their life working with the same person so you should not appear to actually go ahead and try to do things because of this that's the first thing they would say I would add here that there is, I understand this change of versatility or change cautiousness by users this is something that happens in every software project out there in the world with volunteers doing a lot of volunteer work even more so in a project like ours and the more I think that parts of open ideation are important for us to take the factual criticism from volunteers into our design process the more we should listen what are the things that they are coming up with as obstacles in order to not give to not give them oil to put in the fire you know so I think that understanding the users in that way is super important and I would not as I understand that and I would not see that as a surprise I think and also not as as something keeping in mind but not as a whole for the process specifically I guess so you don't get discouraged because of that but I was able to say something in contrast to this the communities actually sometimes work pretty well even on design processes one example is the main the main page about that for the PDS is actually defined by the community itself and they discuss the topic they discuss proposals and they vote and everything goes fine I think it gets implemented at that same time it happens so that's why I asked you before if you have actually had that with involving communities on decision they're not in both community because the courage to do that but if you can do it I think you should do an experiment with things I think we have actually done that and I'm kind of trying to pinpoint what the missing piece here at the moment is because it does sound like we we do reach out to community members but we have a design that we want to propose like on media we can use on Maximator so this sounds like we want a specific hub for to allow community members to contribute ideas is that sort of a missing piece yeah because for example with portal pages that we recently added badges to if you view the portal page on your mobile we have like a badge that says download we have now and we put that out to the media discussion a lot of people have opinions about what that badge whether it should appear there at all in the end we went through user testing baby testing and putting the badge so we actually have we're doing a little bit better job let's say the past maybe 8 months 10 months something like that but like still like what's happening right now is that we come up with an identified problem and then we are proposing the solution to the community and then we're asking for their feedback whether you like it or not versus I'm asking if we can take a few steps back and then we have like this central place we're actually discussing problems together so we're identifying like bigger issues like browsing or finding information or understanding about other users and then you try to granule this and then move from like into more identified little topics let's say and I think you're referring to it and say with the survey you know there was something where would you know asking users directly in the place when they're using the app or the web page is that sort of too much information to sort of then go through because it would be interesting if you take that information and then sort of put it into what you were talking about and sort of find what the biggest pain points are what's your favorite thing about the app if you could improve what would that be and bring all those answers together and finally top 10 or 15 pain points and add some data to that and make sense I think that probably the third part is by and from designers across the publishers they would also want to go through this flow go through migration and present their ideas just like everyone else it would be a it would be a way to encourage participation from the community and if we had alignment all of these standards and things to go through there's something to stop this happening it's just not everyone it's not an identified process some of the examples I've heard they don't actually sell if there was a design problem it sounds like there was a product problem saying if we wanted to be images or not they're designed after that as input into it deciding whether we want to put the apps on the portal in a product position not like really designed for input so are we really talking about a place for design input or are we really talking about a place for product input there was some design for example like not using the iOS and the Android platforms it was like primary yeah I would say it's not really a major thing people are really talking about like oh I don't like the color or maybe you're using a different iPhone logo or an iPhone that you wouldn't really use or should this exist or not or should we be making a bigger variety of decisions and the issue is that everything goes back to fabricated to get it done so there's this fragmentation like oh we're having this discussion here and then up to somebody who's in charge to translate all the comments into the ticket yeah so I'm the fundraiser and we have pretty much the historically most hated design generating tea in we're proud of it as a community member definitely not but so we face one of the biggest challenges in that our work is purely led for the most part 90% of our work is led by a testing because ultimately that is our goal our goal is to raise money by the board and the executive and we reach that and we take into account we will give like 10% leeway so if we have like a variety of ideas and the community is very aware of this we will choose the least worst option that gives us the necessary game the trouble we have is that any such process that would be created we would need to eventually submit ourselves to and this is where there would be hesitancy from fundraiser because when you're you're always taking into account that you want to be able to achieve a certain aim whenever you make a change on an interface and some of that will be driven by any testing but also there is the general look and feel of the site and we try our best looking a lot at the last couple of years to try and rein in some craziness that can happen in a band but we we are sometimes beholden to a testing which doesn't necessarily bring the best outcome so I'm just going to be noting a hesitancy of I think it's a good process like I don't get me wrong like fundraising and trying more and more to find newer and newer ways of incorporating community and stuff like that but data data driven is always useful or at least being able to have a data driven conversation because it removes I'm actually talking about this earlier on I love A.B. testing because it doesn't matter if I'm wrong but you don't have capacity to read us everything right well but we need more capacity to be able to do that A.B. testing because the more data driven conversations people can have the less ego that can come into those conversations which is for a community member sat on the other side that would be my fear is that it's ego driven by the foundation are you starting to wear A.B. yeah what that makes me think of is that the process itself is probably okay but you just need mechanisms to shortcut like you have a data that supports this idea to this decision and other people could disagree but the shortcut would make precedence I think that transparency would allow people to come to terms with those kinds of shortcomings I wanted to say something about what you were saying about product decision versus design decision so actually how do we break this into pieces like I mean that's why we're talking about open ideation things like you're actually identifying problems and then if you have like a well crafted problem then from there you can move into ways of like solving it through I don't know through a product if it's going to be sold through a product or if it's a different design tweak does that make sense I was thinking about follow up actions from the different comments here as well I think that there's framing it as a product problem overlaps very often with the ideas that we're seeing and we also as designers and people of the design team try to get the product ideation so far in the process in the Big Media Foundation that design comes in earlier to identify problems earlier to come of our experience with users and say this is probably bullshit even if there was other examples in the past where designers wanted to have the ego fulfilled probably I don't know so this is one of the things I think that moving the design part further earlier in the process is an action item in my opinion then what you said then about how we are what this platform should be one of the problems with the design team is our limited resources with every team in the foundation so a lot of this communication is extra communication on top of our pile of tasks and then I would ask for the boundaries what are the design problems where we are searching for the real open aviation process and where are things that we can say okay before expertise given we might go through them and just do it are you stuck picking those? oh that's what the ego part is about? yeah yeah yeah yeah before we fight for what I forgot well the first one is you try doing something to not do it with wishes but with experience what are the most hated things about the yeah the only thing that we usually get stuck with with this particular approach is really nice is how we can integrate readers so the classical problem so it's like if you're solving reader issues and you're asking the community so you're talking to the wrong audience right now it's like but I don't know maybe we need to start somewhere then I wonder how a wish list could go alongside with design research when I have my only translations of fear around doing everything within our already defined paradigms we are just going to miss out on voices and that's the beauty of an in-app survey or something like that is that you can reach many people and potentially use an in-app survey as a way to scope what the specific parts of the hub are about and then from there also as a funnel to get new voices yeah and that's the only it's like there's a worry it's still very new to the foundation I just want to see that as well it was a big learning curve for me to like figure out where certain communications are going to have to figure out where that is I can only imagine if I'm someone who is just a a light reader of Wikipedia that that's a pretty large task to ask but at the same time if we create a whole new hub that isn't connected to fabricator how do we keep on top of it as well so I just don't know how to meet in the middle between getting really caught up in the tooling that we already use and having something that's successful to new people okay so we have Dames and Joe there was an extension that was developed on Quick Surveys which I think was helped to address the idea of getting feedback from readers and all of a sudden it's a solution to the problem and why is it a little more common okay but you were talking about Quick Surveys it's like the thing that asks like a single question why you're browsing yeah could be I'm not like where did this go right now but you can certainly check what you were saying in terms of sort of integrating fabricator I think fabricator is an API so we could build a site that was a nicer interface for readers and a more understandable reader to make something simple as like here's a list of problems that move other animals and sort of integrate digital tools in the fabricator or even if you know you can comment directly on some of that stuff I was going to offer if we can bring a little feedback and all that increasing the work times too much we can focus them by looking at analytics like for example with policy pages of crazy on mobile we can see lots of people using this stuff but not so many people using it on mobile and they'll put a page there so if we not they'll probably have a problem or we can work on styling our templates so that they are more mobile friendly right for example another comment is I've heard the word publicator several times I think it's some mistake thinking publicator why you're thinking how to approach users especially non-technical users if you wish to hear from them I think we should try to adapt ourselves to the ways people communicate Facebook to the WhatsApp you can read WhatsApp WhatsApp number where people can write to Wikipedia this is a problem they have using the app Facebook we have like 5 million followers but they are most like 3 million they're coming from India and they're Brazilian so it's like it has a very specific demographic which makes it hard to do you know that those of your people because Facebook is a big problem of their experience also that and same for Twitter also it has certain demography so we tried this outreach and it was not super good but if you think there are perhaps these people that are part of the website they may interact are you saying that we want to make a pattern that takes you to Facebook? it's risky I'm out of here I'll see you later you actually need to try to think in this kind of solution because if you always try to make people they are not 8 or 8 months old you cannot also like isolate them completely because then it's like you have to let Wikipedia tell its story right? Wikipedia is complex and this is it it's not a social media thing it's Wikipedia so if we are paking its identity in order to make it look cool for everyone I don't think this is the we need to make things like easier in terms of like okay you don't have to create an account on media if you don't have to know how to like edit but I think at the end of the day you also don't have to to go on Facebook I don't know he's saying for better or worse things are how they are and we don't have a good experience when people provide feedback and instead other people make places for that and if we are really interested in gathering feedback from people especially if we don't seem to be able to use our our software we don't have to think out of hand to say no I just feel like that's the idealism and to show you conversations about that I don't mean to I just thought for a second if we were actually going to do a better thing we're also saying the same thing here the whole point of this discussion is that designers dismissed out of hand and at the same time we're saying we're dismissing to be back out of hand because it's not on the platform so you know what I mean it's kind of weird there's again with the limited resources issue I need to cut off a little bit because we had a product that rolled out that had the feedback implemented and the team slowly decided to to turn it down because they've received so much feedback that they couldn't process anything else anymore so it's also about what kind of feedback are we gathering and how are we gathering the feedback that it's really high quality in relation to them all It was the same as the answer for feedback this is essentially why I switched off because there was a lot there but it wasn't high quality it wasn't useful to the community do you want to say something about that? I just so it says open up space for Wikimedia but is it for Wikimedia only or is it for Media Weekly it's mainly like our say our I mean the goal if it's like products and design decisions it's mostly like Wikipedia stuff or whatever my issue is that when you say community is that your audience or is there a difference between the audience and the community that's a good question actually because if we are the community is loud that's what I hear and there is the audience silent crap we don't know how to incorporate their voice unless we use different channels and I said Media Weekly only because when it's not Wikimedia smaller Wikis are in different world of their own different design problems so I think it would I would think Wikimedia probably would be more like everyone to work in the same process doing it in our world but it would be appropriate so I came into this thinking that it was more about a USUI hub to a single place where we would have resources to help volunteers wishing to contribute design versus what we are essentially entirely talking about an open ideation hub which I think is quite separate especially since we talked about how a lot of the ideas are looking through would be more product I think that's my problem I would say because initially when I started this discussion last year it was about US and UI issues so we were talking about a UX UI hub and then after the discussion was smashed we were talking about ideation so I think we have I don't know 5 minutes we have like 5 minutes we should stop at like 5 minutes but just to comment on what you said in terms of if it solves for Wikimedia to solve it for others how do you make it possible to solve it what I'm trying to say is that we don't really see Wikimedia moving to be honest that much because you know like and I understand your problem I come from like small kids we're not we don't have the same issues which is yours? I work on a smaller Wikimedia we're a very easy farm so we I understand that you have a huge bigger problem and push back and all that and it's difficult and we see that things don't move as quickly as in other communities I think it's another layer of the problem that different Wikis have different personalities and it's also like what works for one doesn't work for the other but since for the sake of time if we want to recap then the outcome from the session is that we are open to work on idea things together so we can have like a center of place where both community and foundation are identifying problems like I say big picture and then from there we can move into smaller more identified tasks that either be like product or design aspect from there and then there is the other layer which is like how you incorporate like the larger audience and honestly I don't think like with our current software capacity I don't know what we can do we can use our session media and also blogging which is like one other aspect we can use these as much as possible but I think we're always going to be missing something so it might be that our first use case is to how to ideate on how to incorporate our larger audience and things does that make sense yeah yeah there were several wish list efforts that happened over the history and it was quite critical pretty cynical until the past year some of the things actually were not done and that really helped to like snowball into this year's community and I'm very hopeful that this year the sort of thing that you have to accomplish something with the changes we're proposing why do I feel like keep my head just go thing but I think it is so important like are we promising design feedback and ideation and promising that every piece of feedback will be responded to is probably a pretty hard promise I just feel like how can we in order to have a success like the community wish list how can we scope in such a way that what we are capable of is honest and clear to people who are willing to communicate with the foundation my opinion we can just pick a case and do like a small pilot experience experiment and then we move from there we can give statistics on one percentage of feedback is being looked at by the team you can see that goes down that's going to be natural so when people see like there's a high level of activity you can see just to make a point on this as someone who has been part of a team that has repeatedly tried to involve community processes I would probably say that maybe one in 200 ideas by the community actually makes it into a fun year as a band and that is very frustrating for the community because as far as they see it they see that their ideas aren't being incorporated and so managing expectations and actually being very clear as to how are you contributing to my process and being very honest and very open and say you know this is part of a process you are one person and you can give me a thousand ideas and none of them may ever make it into a product but you have to communicate that because otherwise you are just going to destroy any good will well that's the beauty of the community wish list and open idea and the communities foundation they all are basically democratic voting systems so that there's a number behind each idea as well so you have buy in it's not just like oh I'm someone who has time or a lot of interest and I come up with a thousand ideas and you have to engage with the community yourself as a community member as well plus there's a difficulty of scale as to who you are engaging with similar numbers like every few hundred people you engage with you already get one person who actually responds so that's like another scaling down so it looks like maybe we can start with a pilot do you want to say something also just that your people say our feedback is incorporated we're not paying attention to it but design is as much about saying yes although it wasn't incorporated we do force the design decision to educate people on that it's out of here but it's important people's design is incorporated on Microsoft.com so it's better than that so maybe just better documentation of things that were termed out like maybe it's worth finding a fabricator task putting in what is termed out and then maybe defining it just so that it's easy to find that suggestion in the future I would like to put that this is the overhead we are dealing with so much overhead on this idea very cautious but I think we can move forward into creating this space and start to ideate on the problem of creating a broader audience I have a little announcement I want to thank you for taking notes and I want to apologize if I sound lost or stupid at any point because I woke up at 1.30 am so this is like I'm in a different dimension by now so I feel what you were saying about the title versus the actual conversation versus everything so I'm really thanks for bearing it with me with my different isolated dimension and I think you wanted to introduce that is the computer connected? yes wait so we're just surveying it for a time so see if this works also one color from IRC where you're studying that up I suggest talking to people like this in all of my keys and mails or whatever go past your code stop focusing so much on ideas ideas about process and problems and what made it and how does it determine what's in it yeah I would say don't worry people are frustrated or except they're not being included there's some percentage of that that's always going to happen the focus on it that was in our computer I think Bob was about to share my other point which was trying to ensure that they're common language so would you pour me your it's just about the website that I want to share so the thing is the design team came together a few a few months ago and was working with so I was leaving and facilitating the process was working on a new approach to a style guide for Wikimedia products that is more in the open than before what we've what the point that we've taken is currently it's very hard for developers and designers to participate and contribute to the style guide so we wanted to get away as a trial as a trial from Garrett and put it on GitHub so there's a lower hurdle for people to contribute and this thing is now living under that address it's in the where's that where's the forward slash where's the forward slash this one forward slash this one okay would you like that put it where's the minus where's the minus where's the minus I'm searching for minus I'm serious where's the minus I'm actually thinking about just get that is it this is that what you want Vulcan yes just because there aren't that's interesting so I have yeah so so this is a collection of our results and agreement so far and we are happy to hear from your feedback from your problems that you have from your feedback this is meant to be guideline for Wikimedia products in general with small exception of apps but mobile web web and all the other products that we have and again meant to be more inviting, more open way of letting people use our resources so the resources are in the GitHub package as well and contribute and discuss with us the style guide then the style guides before also very important accessibility was a big big topic that we are aligning our measurements to web content accessibility guidelines and to certain technical limitations this is a style guide that is meant to work for mobile and for desktop so responsive for us also a big issue in our conversations there is ongoing conversations this is going to be built further but I wanted to present it to you as an introduction point and would be happy to hear from you there is which has all the elements of variables so whatever implementation you use you can refer to that