Great stuff, +1 to everything everyone else said.
Guided tours! I think a Guided tour for user sandbox, and a Guided
tour for editing your user page would really help. They would feel
related, reinforcing the idea "It's all editing pages, your new skills
apply everywhere."
When the happy day comes where we have a bunch of Guided tours
available (these editing tours plus watchlist plus whatever), how does
a user keep track of the tours she's taken, or go back to them?
Notifications can help, and maybe Getting Started could morph to have
alternative tasks "Try editing your user page", "You can play in your
sandbox", "Check out the Community Portal" that appear in place of [No
thanks, return to ] on subsequent visits. The long-term answer is
likely to be a user dashboard.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jacob Orlowitz <jorlowitz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hey folks, another interview, probably my last before
moving on to usability
testing the TWA script. This one also includes some feedback on Getting
Started. --Jake (Ocaasi)
You can edit: "I learned that is was a community based effort. It's that
site every one can edit. I think is great...with many people looking at the
same subject, you have a better change to get the length and breadth of the
subject...the opportunity to look from various vantage points. It does
credibility issues, but I notice there are checks and balances. It's a mild
concern, a mild risk, not so much a concern for general information
gathering--as a source I'd have more concern and want to verify it.
Go to Wikipedia: Types in
Wikipedia.org. "I'm Happy that it's high up in
Google search results."
Sign up for an account: "I would 'eyeball' the login info. I glanced at the
username policy... I get that. Not going to add email now, maybe later. I am
kind of protective about my email address. I'm concerned about Hacking and
Phishing, through no fault of Wikipedia's, but I'm concerned Wikipedia could
be a target. Captcha is not a concern, but it's an inconvenience, and we'll
get past it one day with technology.
Getting started page: "It's clean and clear on 3 points with color-coded
icons. If I'm editing, these are functions of contributing... Honesty, I'm a
little confused. It tells me that as of having an account I have established
that these are three things that I can do, but I don't know what the 3
things under the icons are [the article links]. I still don't know what the
[article titles] are. I would have to click, I assume they're blue so I can
click on them." Clicked through to MC Shan article. "I forgot what I was
supposed to do and the articles had changed in the list Getting Started list
when I went back." Used browser forward button to return to MC Shan article.
"Now I see that these are articles that have the copyediting tag. It appears
to me now like it's randomly giving pages that have a need for the heading
[fix grammar & spelling, but the link is not clear. I wish the green pencil
link was also present on the article [but the citation template does not use
that icon]. The graphics and the language don't match between Getting
Started and the article cleanup templates. I want to see the same icon and
language. I don't want to have to keep clicking back and forth to the
getting started page. I want to participate but make the edit button more
inviting. I'm kind of shy, but I'm close. If you just give me a little push
I might participate. The Getting Started icons I like, they're great map
markers. Make the 'you can assist by editing it' be green and have the same
Getting started green pencil icon, maybe at a 45 degree angle like 'here,
take it, try it'. Further suggestions: Have the user sandbox upfront on the
Getting Stared page, and also the watchlist. "Those are engaging. Make them
very easily accessible."
Clicked edit on the MC Shan article [recommended by Getting Started], saw
the editing page: "Oh god, you just scared me. Yikes, goodbye. Looks a
little too code-y and like I might break something. Also, I'm not very
connected to MC Shan. The curly brackets [header templates] are
intimidating. I'm concerned about these double brackets, too. Do I need to
know how to edit to contribute? I feel like I could copy and paste without
breaking something, and that I might actually succeed. I feel like I could
contribute to the [infobox] without breaking it. I want to make a
contribution but I absolutely don't want to break something in a public
space--it's like the motto, first, do no harm. It feels like there's limited
places I might feel ok contributing: after = signs [in infoboxes], that
seems really easy, next level is adding to a list by copying and pasting,
and then, getting into the paragraphs--not so sure about that. I don't know
what those double brackets are. I would have to commit my time to a learning
curve that I'm not so passionate about, would determine whether or not I'd
invest in learning it. I don't think they would set something up that was
too easy to break, but I would expect that lacking double brackets wouldn't
have the functionality. I don't know what all the apostrophe's are."
Create your userpage: "I see I don't have a userpage, but it's giving me
the
option to start one. It's got this sort of blank text editor. Am I creating
an actual article-like page, am I going to be indexed in the search? It says
userpage but it's mildly confusing. I dont know what belongs on a userpage,
maybe optionally qualifying yourself (as in credentials), more information
about you and what your background is. I don't know what 'watch this page'
means, and I don't want to get lots of alerts. "Oh, can somebody else make a
change to my userpage... maybe I have to watch this page. So now I'm making
a commitment, someone could write something about me. Made word bold, "Oh
good grief. I wanted it to be WYSIWYG, I wanted it to turn bold. "I'm
feeling like it's not very userfriendly, it's kind of geeky. I would be
willing to overlook it if I was compelled about the information... I would
overcome it." Tried to undo italics, instead it inserted double italics,
then quadruple italics. Manually deleted the quotations. "It seemed a little
'literal'".
Leave me a message: "I expect the talk page to have comments at the bottom,
like an online article. I don't see a chat or message something. 'Talk' I
would think... I don't know what that is. Talking is usually done over the
phone, or in person. It doesn't feel like it has to do with written
messages. I see conversation threads, I would expect to have an 'add' or a
'comment' function underneath the table of contents. I'm a little befuddled,
a little lost. I'm looking for something that gives me an indication to Add
something. I probably would go to the Help at this point. All it feels like
I can do is edit an existing section....I don't think I want to add a new
section... Edit is for something already existing." Told her New Section was
the way. "I would change from 'New section' to 'New Talk';
'section' makes
it feel like I'm creating a whole new section. Creating a new talk page
makes sense to me. Stick with the word 'Talk'.... I feel ok about signing my
own post, but it would be a little more useful if it said 'sign your posts'
near the signature button. I'm curious if it would prompt me to add a
signature, but it doesn't prompt me. Hmmm... I wonder if in the preview it
should indicate that the comment is unsigned. If signing is good practice,
is there a reason you don't do it by default?"
Add a sentence with a reference in your sandbox: Found 'Cite', then clicked
[named reference]. "I'm feeling like I need a url". Even with a url named
reference doesn't work. Had to do a captcha so it saved. Told her to use the
template dropdown menu. Reference worked.
Received a welcome message (unplanned): "I like it, I feel like it was
standard issue, but I appreciate it." Informed it was an actual editor who
did it.
What would you change: "The obvious WYSIWYG. All the fundamentals are there.
No more 'confetti of apostrophes'. It feels like to be a contributor you
have to be a geek. It's just polishing stuff. I want to see more consistency
and leveraging common terminology. There's a very inconsistent use of
Create.Read.Update. and Delete [database functions you're trying to
control]]. I see different function words like 'dismiss'. That's not a huge
technological thing, just consistency about the tools you already are using,
renaming, repositioning--bringing them to the forefront. You have to manage
real estate, find the priority functions and present different ways to
execute it (links, words, icons, tabs) in multiple different ways."
--Female database designer from Philadelphia area, BS in communications, in
her 40's, on April 11 2013.
--
Jake Orlowitz
Wikipedia: Ocaasi
Facebook: Jake Orlowitz
Twitter: JakeOrlowitz
LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitz
Email: jorlowitz(a)yahoo.com
Skype: jorlowitz
Cell: (484) 684-2104
Home: (484) 380-3940
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee