Last modified: 2014-09-08 22:58:08 UTC
This is similar to Bug 69711. Steps to reproduce: 1. Type some text: "Foo bar baz bat" 2. Add a citation. 3. Finish typing the sentence. 6. Oops, where did the citation go? Results: When you exit the ref dialog, the new ref text remains highlighted, and typing results in it being overwritten by your next character. Expectation: after I've made a ref, de-select the ref and put the cursor at the end, so I can keep writing or add a second ref.
In VE, new stuff always gets selected after you insert it – images, references, templates, comments, …. Do you think that design decision should be reversed, or do you think that there is something special about references that deserves different treatment?
I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement, and I can recall situations where the fact that an object remains selected was useful -- going straight back into a cite to fix an error I just realized I made, for example. For some things, such as links, I think it's definitely better to deselect -- it's absolutely normal for a user to want to continue typing. For templates, I can see an argument for keeping the selection. Citations seem to me more like links than templates in this way. I think the design question is: what would a user who is expert in VE want the system to do to maximize productivity? I think the answer is going to be to leave it unselected more often than not. One other thought: just as there's a "Save" and also a "Save and new" pair of buttons in some interfaces, there might be a "Save and add another citation" button on the interface, or something along those lines. But perhaps that's a separate enhancement suggestion.
(In reply to Mike Christie from comment #2) > I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement, and I can recall situations > where the fact that an object remains selected was useful -- going straight > back into a cite to fix an error I just realized I made, for example. For > some things, such as links, I think it's definitely better to deselect -- > it's absolutely normal for a user to want to continue typing. For > templates, I can see an argument for keeping the selection. Citations seem > to me more like links than templates in this way. > > I think the design question is: what would a user who is expert in VE want > the system to do to maximize productivity? I think the answer is going to > be to leave it unselected more often than not. That's a reasonable way of looking at it; I think I agree. There are some possible issues with block images (where, especially if you have a long infobox on a short screen, the content may have been inserted off-screen), but maybe we should optimise for the most common case? Will ask others on the team to weigh in, but broadly this seems sensible. Thanks! > One other thought: just as there's a "Save" and also a "Save and new" pair > of buttons in some interfaces, there might be a "Save and add another > citation" button on the interface, or something along those lines. But > perhaps that's a separate enhancement suggestion. (Yes, this should be a new bug, but…) Hmm. I think that "Save and also add a new one" is really rare for inserting content, and really confusing. Wouldn't it be better to have easily-rememberable keyboard shortcuts instead?
On reflection I agree; "Save and add another" isn't a common case. I'll see if I run into situations where that would be a useful option and will post an enhancement request if I do.
(In reply to Mike Christie from comment #4) > On reflection I agree; "Save and add another" isn't a common case. I'll see > if I run into situations where that would be a useful option and will post > an enhancement request if I do. Thanks! :-)
> Do you think that design decision should be reversed Yes. Unless I'm likely to need that thing to be selected when I'm done (e.g., if I'm likely to create a link *and* italicize it – which isn't a likley case), then I want it to be de-selected by default.
