On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau...
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The square frowny face is the opposite of thank no? That is the impression the UI gives to me.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau...
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The smiley icon makes perfect sense for thanks, since we're trying to convey positive communication. It doesn't make sense to convey a smile on a generic "registered user" icon I think, and is unusual. On most mobile experiences I am used to (Dropbox, Spotify, Snapchat, Instagram, Gmail, Twitter, and more) users are represented either by a neutral emotion human face or an avatar. Adding a positive emotion for no functional reason on the registered user icon feels gimmicky, and like a waste of a design tool that we can and should be using to increase positivity around actions.
On 13-10-22 11:53 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The square frowny face is the opposite of thank no? That is the impression the UI gives to me.
At first glance, I thought the frowny face was a glitched image. After a few seconds, I realized it's a (slightly ambiguous) flag.
Possibly removing the face-elements would help?
Is "flagging a problem" a fairly universally used symbolism nowadays? Youtube uses a flag icon, with a mouseover text of "Report". I think the wavyness of their flag symbol is a bit more instantly-intuitive.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau...
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I want May to weigh in on this, but she's having some issues joining the list, will be resolved soon.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
On 13-10-22 11:53 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The square frowny face is the opposite of thank no? That is the impression the UI gives to me.
At first glance, I thought the frowny face was a glitched image. After a few seconds, I realized it's a (slightly ambiguous) flag.
Possibly removing the face-elements would help?
Is "flagging a problem" a fairly universally used symbolism nowadays? Youtube uses a flag icon, with a mouseover text of "Report". I think the wavyness of their flag symbol is a bit more instantly-intuitive.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-** mobile-design-pau.pnghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau.png
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I've re-opened the "thanks icon is creepy" bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
I think it's a serious problem.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I want May to weigh in on this, but she's having some issues joining the list, will be resolved soon.
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Quiddity pandiculation@gmail.comwrote:
On 13-10-22 11:53 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The square frowny face is the opposite of thank no? That is the impression the UI gives to me.
At first glance, I thought the frowny face was a glitched image. After a few seconds, I realized it's a (slightly ambiguous) flag.
Possibly removing the face-elements would help?
Is "flagging a problem" a fairly universally used symbolism nowadays? Youtube uses a flag icon, with a mouseover text of "Report". I think the wavyness of their flag symbol is a bit more instantly-intuitive.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-** mobile-design-pau.pnghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau.png
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I'll say the same thing i said in the bug:
"I don't want to be dismissive but we have so many more important conversations to be having and issues to be resolving than this. If there was some outpouring of user complaints and issues over this (like there was over the use of a heart) i'd be more inclined to focus more effort on it, but that simply hasn't happened."
As far as the use of a smiley face for both user and thank, Ryan, I can see your point that it *could possibly* be confusing, but as much as I was a bit reticent about it originally I prefer the smile to an anonymous person shaped blob that you see on 90% of sites.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I've re-opened the "thanks icon is creepy" bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
I think it's a serious problem.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I want May to weigh in on this, but she's having some issues joining the list, will be resolved soon.
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Quiddity pandiculation@gmail.comwrote:
On 13-10-22 11:53 AM, Jon Robson wrote:
I think this is known and intentional (as thanks relates to users). I personally feel the icons are sufficiently different although maybe both having a smile is the cause of conflict. Designers what is your opinion?
The square frowny face is the opposite of thank no? That is the impression the UI gives to me.
At first glance, I thought the frowny face was a glitched image. After a few seconds, I realized it's a (slightly ambiguous) flag.
Possibly removing the face-elements would help?
Is "flagging a problem" a fairly universally used symbolism nowadays? Youtube uses a flag icon, with a mouseover text of "Report". I think the wavyness of their flag symbol is a bit more instantly-intuitive.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Recently on mobile we switched our iconography used to represent a user from being a simplified head and shoulders to being a square smiley face. Unfortunately, the square smiley face is already being used to represent the thank action (via the Thanks extension). You can see an example of these two UI elements being used on the same page in this design mock-up for the mobile media viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-** mobile-design-pau.pnghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media-viewer-tools-mobile-design-pau.png
As you can see, it's a bit confusing having 2 square smiley faces in the same interface representing separate things (not to mention the square frowny face for the flag action).
I would suggest that we change one or the other. Since the thank iconography has already been through much debate and revision (originally being a red heart, then a green heart, then a smiley face), I would favor changing the user iconography back to a head and shoulders. Thoughts?
Ryan Kaldari
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
"I don't want to be dismissive but we have so many more important conversations to be having and issues to be resolving than this. If there was some outpouring of user complaints and issues over this (like there was over the use of a heart) i'd be more inclined to focus more effort on it, but that simply hasn't happened."
This isn't a bug resolution, it's a prioritization. It's already a lowest
priority enhancement - but there are three people in our community (out of how many who are aware of this icon, I don't know) who think it merits improvement.
All I did was reopen a bug that was closed without proper resolution. Feel free to have all the more important conversations you want.
- Trevor
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I've re-opened the "thanks icon is creepy" bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
I think it's a serious problem.
I think we need to separate out the discussion for each of the icons. It sounds like the consensus right now is that...
-- Some people don't like the user icon, independent of thanks -- Some people don't like the thanks icon, independent of the what the mobile user icon is. -- Doesn't sound like a lot of people think the original problem Kaldari and Jon brought up (that right now they look somewhat similar) is that big of a deal. Jared echoed this just now and I agree.
If the above is accurate we can call the case closed on Kaldari's original question. ;)
The smiling registered user icon might seem like a random idea but it isn't. Reason we decided to go with a more uplifting face is to help make WP a friendlier environment (yes small, but still a step towards somewhere). We want people to assume good faith on other users' actions but that is alot of times harder than it sounds. When someone makes an edit that you might disagree with and when you make an effort to find out who this user is, you are greeted first with a smiley and then a name, reminding you this is a person of emotion, be nice!
I don't know where I stand on whether it's confusing or not, and that's because I don't know how users are reacting towards them.
The flag icon with sad face, I wasn't aware that we were using that as a final icon. I will have to speak with Pau first to see his thoughts on them. My hunch is that he used it as a placeholder. We have a flag icon used on Flow that should be used everywhere else flag action is needed.
mm
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I've re-opened the "thanks icon is creepy" bug.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
I think it's a serious problem.
I think we need to separate out the discussion for each of the icons. It sounds like the consensus right now is that...
-- Some people don't like the user icon, independent of thanks -- Some people don't like the thanks icon, independent of the what the mobile user icon is. -- Doesn't sound like a lot of people think the original problem Kaldari and Jon brought up (that right now they look somewhat similar) is that big of a deal. Jared echoed this just now and I agree.
If the above is accurate we can call the case closed on Kaldari's original question. ;)
-- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, May Tee-Galloway mgalloway@wikimedia.orgwrote:
The smiling registered user icon might seem like a random idea but it isn't. Reason we decided to go with a more uplifting face is to help make WP a friendlier environment (yes small, but still a step towards somewhere). We want people to assume good faith on other users' actions but that is alot of times harder than it sounds. When someone makes an edit that you might disagree with and when you make an effort to find out who this user is, you are greeted first with a smiley and then a name, reminding you this is a person of emotion, be nice!
I am fully in agreement with your goal, but I think this is just a wrong way to go about it. It is just too obvious and weak a method for engendering a nicer community.
People are nice to each other when they have empathy. People have empathy for each other when A) they know who someone is B) are able to put themselves in their shoes. I am not able to empathize with a generic smiley face. I'm able to empathize with a unique individual. So I think the smiley face icon both defies the normal design pattern here and doesn't accomplish the intended goal.
This is similar the exhortation to "Be nice!" in the Flow input area. Wikipedia editors (new and old) are very smart people. They are just as likely to feel talked down to and insulted by cutesy instructions like this, and may in fact be meaner in reaction to it ("You can't tell _me_ how to talk to people."). We can collectively think of more effective ways of creating more friendly discussion spaces and creating empathy in general.
Steven, it sounds like you're proposing we allow for user customizable photo avatars.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, May Tee-Galloway <mgalloway@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The smiling registered user icon might seem like a random idea but it isn't. Reason we decided to go with a more uplifting face is to help make WP a friendlier environment (yes small, but still a step towards somewhere). We want people to assume good faith on other users' actions but that is alot of times harder than it sounds. When someone makes an edit that you might disagree with and when you make an effort to find out who this user is, you are greeted first with a smiley and then a name, reminding you this is a person of emotion, be nice!
I am fully in agreement with your goal, but I think this is just a wrong way to go about it. It is just too obvious and weak a method for engendering a nicer community.
People are nice to each other when they have empathy. People have empathy for each other when A) they know who someone is B) are able to put themselves in their shoes. I am not able to empathize with a generic smiley face. I'm able to empathize with a unique individual. So I think the smiley face icon both defies the normal design pattern here and doesn't accomplish the intended goal.
This is similar the exhortation to "Be nice!" in the Flow input area. Wikipedia editors (new and old) are very smart people. They are just as likely to feel talked down to and insulted by cutesy instructions like this, and may in fact be meaner in reaction to it ("You can't tell _me_ how to talk to people."). We can collectively think of more effective ways of creating more friendly discussion spaces and creating empathy in general.
-- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Steven, it sounds like you're proposing we allow for user customizable photo avatars.
Now you're just trolling me. :) For those not in the joke: we've had long discussions about this before. I am not in favor. I won't hijack this thread for discussing the pros and cons of avatars. If mobile wants to try it as a beta/alpha experiment to replace the smiley face, god be with them.
Steven, joke aside, you have a good point. it IS easier to empathize with a human face rather than an approximation of one, I think we're all in agreement over this, even if we're not in agreement over how to do that.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Steven, it sounds like you're proposing we allow for user customizable photo avatars.
Now you're just trolling me. :) For those not in the joke: we've had long discussions about this before. I am not in favor. I won't hijack this thread for discussing the pros and cons of avatars. If mobile wants to try it as a beta/alpha experiment to replace the smiley face, god be with them.
-- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On my desk there is a book called “Understanding Comics”. It has a whole section that goes into how various degrees of fidelity with comic drawings, icons, and photographs create empathic connections.
I would encourage everyone to read this. Your take away is likely going to be that you shouldn’t show any kind of facial features at all, nor should you pick a color for your icon other than black, white, or grey.
On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
Steven, joke aside, you have a good point. it IS easier to empathize with a human face rather than an approximation of one, I think we're all in agreement over this, even if we're not in agreement over how to do that.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On 13-10-22 03:54 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
On my desk there is a book called “Understanding Comics”. It has a whole section that goes into how various degrees of fidelity with comic drawings, icons, and photographs create empathic connections.
I would encourage everyone to read this. Your take away is likely going to be that you shouldn’t show any kind of facial features at all, nor should you pick a color for your icon other than black, white, or grey.
Seconded. This is one those books I believe everyone should be assigned once in middle school, and again in high school. It is dripping with insights. I've gifted a few copies to teacher-friends.
Hi,
There are different topics discussed here:
*Similar icons*
Similar icons are not bad thing per se, provided that (a) they are distinguishable, and (b) the similarities and differences create a system that makes sense (in which case facilitate learnability).
For example, the Facebook app for Android (view examplehttp://i.imgur.com/7efCJFw.png) shows the following icons: three lines (hamburger) to represent a list of options, a human silhouette to represent friend request notifications, and the human silhouette with three lines to represent your list of friends.
In our case, a callout represents a message, a smiling face is a user, and a smiling face within a callout represents sending a message of gratitude to a user. So I think that it makes sense for the representations of such elements to have much in common.
The relevant question here in my opinion is whether this system works. For that, personally I really like to evaluate icons in context: ask a user a task that requires identifying, understanding, and using the icons, and identify problems.
*Faces in icons* Faces are a powerful tool to attract our attentionhttp://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DesignPrinciples_AnthorpomorphicForm_McCloudFaceShapes.jpg, so they should be used with caution. Many sites use your own picture to represent you as a user. Seeing your own picture is very effective to attract your attention. Using a face to represent the user goes along those lines as an alternative to use profile pictures.
A face also adds a human touch. Chromehttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/03/why-cant-error-messages-be-fun.html or YouTubehttp://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c19df53ef0168e89f2426970c-pi use them in error messages. The Android contacts and the messaging app iconshttp://developer.android.com/design/media/iconography_launcher_example2.png may be the closest examples to our context (use of faces related to communicating with people).
*The flag icon*
Adding a face to the flag icon was just an attempt I did to extend the system (that probably went too far). The rationale was just to present "thank" and "report" as alternative actions. Although we want to move from a mental model of voting (e.g., thumbs up/down), I wanted to keep the UI compatible with users that came with that mental model.
If a regular flag is used, actions will look independent (and not helping to understand one another). However, it provides two bigger benefits: (a) avoid having too many faces, (b) consistency with flag icons used in other contexts. So I'm happy to replace this with the standard one.
Pau
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
On 13-10-22 03:54 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
On my desk there is a book called “Understanding Comics”. It hasa whole section that goes into how various degrees of fidelity with comic drawings, icons, and photographs create empathic connections.
I would encourage everyone to read this. Your take away islikely going to be that you shouldn’t show any kind of facial features at all, nor should you pick a color for your icon other than black, white, or grey.
Seconded. This is one those books I believe everyone should be assigned once in middle school, and again in high school. It is dripping with insights. I've gifted a few copies to teacher-friends.
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Thanks Pau, thats a helpful overview of the issues at hand.
* * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Pau Giner pginer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
There are different topics discussed here:
*Similar icons*
Similar icons are not bad thing per se, provided that (a) they are distinguishable, and (b) the similarities and differences create a system that makes sense (in which case facilitate learnability).
For example, the Facebook app for Android (view examplehttp://i.imgur.com/7efCJFw.png) shows the following icons: three lines (hamburger) to represent a list of options, a human silhouette to represent friend request notifications, and the human silhouette with three lines to represent your list of friends.
In our case, a callout represents a message, a smiling face is a user, and a smiling face within a callout represents sending a message of gratitude to a user. So I think that it makes sense for the representations of such elements to have much in common.
The relevant question here in my opinion is whether this system works. For that, personally I really like to evaluate icons in context: ask a user a task that requires identifying, understanding, and using the icons, and identify problems.
*Faces in icons* Faces are a powerful tool to attract our attentionhttp://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DesignPrinciples_AnthorpomorphicForm_McCloudFaceShapes.jpg, so they should be used with caution. Many sites use your own picture to represent you as a user. Seeing your own picture is very effective to attract your attention. Using a face to represent the user goes along those lines as an alternative to use profile pictures.
A face also adds a human touch. Chromehttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/03/why-cant-error-messages-be-fun.html or YouTubehttp://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c19df53ef0168e89f2426970c-pi use them in error messages. The Android contacts and the messaging app iconshttp://developer.android.com/design/media/iconography_launcher_example2.png may be the closest examples to our context (use of faces related to communicating with people).
*The flag icon*
Adding a face to the flag icon was just an attempt I did to extend the system (that probably went too far). The rationale was just to present "thank" and "report" as alternative actions. Although we want to move from a mental model of voting (e.g., thumbs up/down), I wanted to keep the UI compatible with users that came with that mental model.
If a regular flag is used, actions will look independent (and not helping to understand one another). However, it provides two bigger benefits: (a) avoid having too many faces, (b) consistency with flag icons used in other contexts. So I'm happy to replace this with the standard one.
Pau
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
On 13-10-22 03:54 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
On my desk there is a book called “Understanding Comics”. Ithas a whole section that goes into how various degrees of fidelity with comic drawings, icons, and photographs create empathic connections.
I would encourage everyone to read this. Your take away islikely going to be that you shouldn’t show any kind of facial features at all, nor should you pick a color for your icon other than black, white, or grey.
Seconded. This is one those books I believe everyone should be assigned once in middle school, and again in high school. It is dripping with insights. I've gifted a few copies to teacher-friends.
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
-- Pau Giner Interaction Designer Wikimedia Foundation
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 10/24/2013 07:45 AM, Pau Giner wrote:
If a regular flag is used, actions will look independent (and not helping to understand one another).
I would argue that's a good thing in the case of thank/report. "Thank" means you like the image (in theory, like it enough to thank the author for it, but not sure if people draw this line).
"Report"/"Flag" doesn't mean you dislike the image (-1). It mean the image is genuinely abusive (side note, where do these flags go?)/violates the terms of the community.
Matt Flaschen
J: Haha! S: Yes it's a small move, we saw it as a possible opportunity. I'd disagree saying those listed are the only ways people are willing to be nice, your environment affects your behavior too. I am nice alot of times only because I want to feel nice, not because I empathize or know you, alot of times it's also because I see a smile on someone's face that makes me think the need for me to be not nice maybe is not so important after all. This may not be perfect but we're experimenting until users start screaming no.
As of now, compared with the generic silhouette, smiley offers more opportunity. (They're both generic right?!) We hope to continue to get more feedback and iterate from there. I hope that sounds reasonable.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Steven, it sounds like you're proposing we allow for user customizable photo avatars.
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, May Tee-Galloway < mgalloway@wikimedia.org> wrote:
The smiling registered user icon might seem like a random idea but it isn't. Reason we decided to go with a more uplifting face is to help make WP a friendlier environment (yes small, but still a step towards somewhere). We want people to assume good faith on other users' actions but that is alot of times harder than it sounds. When someone makes an edit that you might disagree with and when you make an effort to find out who this user is, you are greeted first with a smiley and then a name, reminding you this is a person of emotion, be nice!
I am fully in agreement with your goal, but I think this is just a wrong way to go about it. It is just too obvious and weak a method for engendering a nicer community.
People are nice to each other when they have empathy. People have empathy for each other when A) they know who someone is B) are able to put themselves in their shoes. I am not able to empathize with a generic smiley face. I'm able to empathize with a unique individual. So I think the smiley face icon both defies the normal design pattern here and doesn't accomplish the intended goal.
This is similar the exhortation to "Be nice!" in the Flow input area. Wikipedia editors (new and old) are very smart people. They are just as likely to feel talked down to and insulted by cutesy instructions like this, and may in fact be meaner in reaction to it ("You can't tell _me_ how to talk to people."). We can collectively think of more effective ways of creating more friendly discussion spaces and creating empathy in general.
-- Steven Walling, Product Manager https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 10/22/2013 06:11 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
This is similar the exhortation to "Be nice!" in the Flow input area. Wikipedia editors (new and old) are very smart people. They are just as likely to feel talked down to and insulted by cutesy instructions like this, and may in fact be meaner in reaction to it ("You can't tell _me_ how to talk to people."). We can collectively think of more effective ways of creating more friendly discussion spaces and creating empathy in general.
I don't actually agree with this. It may seem that people are too smart to simply do what they're requested to (be nice because they see text that says "Be nice!"). But all of modern advertising offers a counter-example. With repetition, people begin to absorb messages. If we're careful, we can use this for good.
Moreover, there are other examples of this style UX in successful site. For example, Stack Overflow has "Questions need votes, too", which is pretty self-explanatory (vote up or down on questions occasionally).
It shows up only if you actually don't vote on questions much (this model probably doesn't work for "Be nice"). And it seems to work (for me, and at least some people who I saw comment about it); it would be interesting to see stats.
This is not to say this is the only technique that works.
Matt Flaschen
The thanks icon is (allegedly) disturbing, though.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51927