On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Nick White <nick.white(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Oh, and while it's maybe better discussed
elsewhere, I certainly
disagree with the idea of a separate interface for editors and
readers. The emphasis on encouraging editing from everybody is
really important, and I think it would be undermined by doing that.
I'd rather have a slightly less attractive reading interface than
have all editor relevant links hidden by default (not that I am
convinced such a trade-off would be necessary).
I think when framed as "reader vs. editor" that's certainly a
reasonable argument, but I think it's more about progressive
disclosure of editing tools and links rather than treating readers as
consumers. We do ourselves no favors by cluttering the initial user
experience with every possible link we think could be helpful, without
prioritization and gradual discovery.
One hypothesis (which I think is shared by a few people on this list,
myself included) is that a default experience which includes powerful
calls-to-action (to edit, upload, discuss, ..) while otherwise
focusing on the most important tools and progressive discoverability
will be more effective in motivating readers to become contributors
than our current user experience.
The tricky part is still enabling the user, as she or he discovers the
tasks they enjoy doing, to efficiently access the tools relevant to
those tasks. When developing for the web, we often dismiss desktop UI
patterns, but IMO there's a lot to be learned from decades of desktop
UI development about how to manage complex functionality, and how not
to do it.
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation