koen.de.jong wrote:

Yep, that was me. IMHO the separation of presentation and content and the separation of content and interface are both very important.

People expect they can change everything inside div#content so they get confused. They expect there is a magicword or template that is used to display the AFT.

The AFT should be directly beneath div#content so that the top (almost) touches the bottom of the border around div#content.

The screenshot is just a quick example, I gave it a couple of pixels of padding at the top because I thought that looked better.

If the link above does not work try http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Article_feedback/Please_stop/reply_%2851%29

Until this is fixed, users can use the following workaround on vector.js:

$(function() {

$('#mw-articlefeedback')
    .prependTo('#footer')
    .css('font-size', '0.8em');

});

Created attachment 8875
AFT inside of the article's content is really wierd!

Attached:

(In reply to comment #3)

Created attachment 8875 [details]
AFT inside of the article's content is really wierd!

and looks like an advertisement, as pointed out on
[[mw:Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Please stop/reply (94)]]:

"I'm trying to articulate what I don't like about the feedback panel. Perhaps its because it's an advertisement/promotional style thing which is stylistical masquerading as content. Perphaps if it was flashing yellow/red "You're the 1,000th visitor to this page..." I might pay less attention."

Attached:

As AFTv5 is under development it might be better to just notify them(WMF) about this issue so its taken care in the newer versions

I do not believe this should be done. There's an associative reason why the AFT feature is included inside of div#content, and that is because the article ratings are *part of* the content.

We have a singularly difficult interaction problem already with associating actions and events about the content of a page with the content of the page already. It is one of my hopes to reduce this complexity, and I do not believe that increasing it is the correct solution.

Moving it outside of div#content will bury it, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

Recommend CLOSE:WONTFIX.

Seriously, when people saw articles like
http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=8875
they asked which template was that which was suddenly included in the page content and which they were not able to edit/remove.

Hmm, I think I like the idea of moving the tool outside of the content area.

(In reply to comment #6)

I do not believe this should be done. There's an associative reason why the
AFT feature is included inside of div#content, and that is because the article
ratings are *part of* the content.

Except they're not part of the content at all. Turn them off and what's lost? :-)

Have you looked at attachment 8875? Are you happy with how this looks? I'm not sure if this tool _must_ be outside the content area, but I do think its current placement and positioning is less-than-ideal.

Did you look at attachment 8739? I think this looks better and has better placement. Maybe not perfect, but a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Ultimately, It's a matter of weighing cost and benefit. The benefit to people rating articles doesn't justify the current cost of intruding on the content area.

Note: other parts of the software are still in the content area; e.g., the new messages bar (bug 12681).

(In reply to comment #8)

Note: other parts of the software are still in the content area; e.g., the new
messages bar (bug 12681).

Just because we do things wrong in some places doesn't mean we have to do them wrong in others.

IMO, both sides of this argument are wrong. If we were strictly following our DOM conventions (which we rarely do), AFT would be outside of div#bodyContent, but inside of div#content. div#content is for any content related to the article/page, while div#bodyContent is for the article itself. Right now we include AFT inside of both div#content and div#bodyContent.

Current DOM:
<content>

article title
<bodyContent>
    article
    AFT
</bodyContent>

</content>

Correct DOM:
<content>

article title
<bodyContent>
    article
</bodyContent>
AFT

</content>

I don't think the footer would be the right place, as nothing interactive should be in the footer. It's just for disclaimers, links, and information.

(In reply to comment #10)

IMO, both sides of this argument are wrong. If we were strictly following our
DOM conventions (which we rarely do), AFT would be outside of div#bodyContent,
but inside of div#content. div#content is for any content related to the
article/page, while div#bodyContent is for the article itself. Right now we
include AFT inside of both div#content and div#bodyContent.

This bug doesn't really have to do with DOM conventions. You can have the code anywhere in the page source and it can be repositioned with CSS. This bug is about where the code is showing up on the page for readers. Or at least that's how I read the bug.

Created attachment 11640
AFT inside help page content

Great! Now it is placed in the middle of the text:
[[Help:Edição patrulhada#Edições em páginas novas ou primeira edição]]
(permanent link:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajuda:Edi%C3%A7%C3%A3o_patrulhada&oldid=33051534#Edi.C3.A7.C3.B5es_em_p.C3.A1ginas_novas_ou_primeira_edi.C3.A7.C3.A3o
)

Attached:

(In reply to comment #12)

Created attachment 11640 [details]
AFT inside help page content

I wouldn't say "middle of the text" for the bottom (only above the categories), but of course it's still part of the content div.

Attached:

(In reply to comment #12)

[[Help:Edição patrulhada#Edições em páginas novas ou primeira edição]]

Correct link:
[[pt:Help:Edição patrulhada#Edições em páginas novas ou primeira edição]]

(In reply to comment #13)

I wouldn't say "middle of the text" for the bottom (only above the
categories),
but of course it's still part of the content div.

The form is not only inside the content div, but also before some sections of text (loot at the vertical scroll bar in the screenshot).

mybugs: Sorry I got you wrong initially. I hadn't realize that this link is part of the Help.

Confirming that "AFT" box is in the middle for your example.

The extension homepage at [[mw:Extension:ArticleFeedback]] says
"This extension has been archived. This extension has not been maintained in some time, and no longer supports recent releases of MediaWiki.
The following other choices are still available: [[mw:Extension:ArticleFeedbackv5]]"

Furthermore, ArticleFeedback (version 4 or earlier) was removed from all Wikimedia wikis in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/98074/

It is currently unlikely that there will be any further active development of ArticleFeedback (version 4 or earlier).
Closing this report as WONTFIX to reflect reality.
Please feel free to reopen this report in the future if anyone takes the responsibility for active development of ArticleFeedback (version 4 or earlier) again.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.