Sharing Settings: Move "Add more" button into "Edit sharing buttons"

[sixhours]

Problem: The "Add "more" button" adds clutter to the screen and can be moved within the edit sharing buttons as an another option.

Steps to reproduce:
1/ visit sharing > sharing buttons

[alaczek]

Agreed this looks cluttered, and since the "drawer" with social media services that shows up when you click either button looks identical, it can be hard to tell the difference without carefully reading the description.
I'm wondering though if tucking "More" button config under single "Edit" button won't make it more difficult to discover. I guess it depends on how we implement it - did you have any ideas around that?

[scalarbane2]

Hello all, I tried three different ways we can represent this. Let me know your thoughts on this and the best way to move forward.

[sixhours]

I think the above is a good starting point!

Gideon and I talked about this in Slack, and he brought up a good point, that it would be good to have some data on the More button before we proceed. I pinged Robert F. to get an idea of whether we can/should track data on the use of the More button specifically, since he recently added tracking information for the Edit button.

[sixhours]

Checked with Robert and he confirmed that it's OK if we add a separate Tracks event for the More button. That should be our next step here.

[sixhours]

Now that we have Tracks flags added, I'll move this to On Hold and we can wait a couple weeks to see if anyone is using this button.

[sixhours]

It's been a month since we added the differentiated Tracks flags, so I checked on the stats; about 16% of folks who view the Sharing Buttons section click the "Add More button" button and save their settings. The overall number of daily clicks on that button is around 200 uniques.

With that in mind, I think it's safe to move under the "Edit" button without too much disruption. What do y'all think?

[sixhours]

It may also be worth waiting until after we've conducted a Calypso UX audit to make any decisions, since this flow could qualify for an audit and get redesigned entirely; thoughts @lcollette ?

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been 180 days with no activity. You can keep the issue open by adding a comment. If you do, please provide additional context and explain why you’d like it to remain open. You can also close the issue yourself — if you do, please add a brief explanation and apply one of relevant issue close labels.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been 180 days with no activity. You can keep the issue open by adding a comment. If you do, please provide additional context and explain why you’d like it to remain open. You can also close the issue yourself — if you do, please add a brief explanation and apply one of relevant issue close labels.