Last modified: 2014-09-01 20:01:58 UTC
The design and accessibility keywords aren't sufficient to cover cases where usability is the main hurdle. Be it an existing implementation that is hard to use and needs input to improve it, or a new feature/bug that is blocked on having an intuitive interface. In cleaning up bugs I often see this word in the title but would be interested in giving it its own keyword for interested parties (especially the Wikimedia UX team) to look at.
I'm against this. I have not seen a single bugtracker where users understood the narrow frame of "usability". Instead, everything was randomly tagged with that keyword. "The server was down so I couldn't use it, hence a usability issue" style. In my understanding, an intuitive interface needs proper design. If the "design" keyword is not sufficient, please elaborate why that is the case.
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #1) > I'm against this. > I have not seen a single bugtracker where users understood the narrow frame > of "usability". Instead, everything was randomly tagged with that keyword. > "The server was down so I couldn't use it, hence a usability issue" style. > > In my understanding, an intuitive interface needs proper design. > If the "design" keyword is not sufficient, please elaborate why that is the > case. One could make the same argument about lots of components and keywords (accessibility, design, javascript, parser, i18n; VisualEditor; Page editing; Any of those will be affected by other factors). I don't see how it's relevant that users may use it incorrectly. That happens all the time. That's why we triage bugs. Anyway, not my problem.
My main question was how/why the design keyword is not sufficient and what's the differentiation that users would need to understand to set those two keywords correctly.
