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
"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
Clicked edit on the MC Shan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
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.
Wikipedia: Ocaasi <http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi>
Facebook: Jake Orlowitz <http://www.facebook.com/jorlowitz>
Twitter: JakeOrlowitz <https://twitter.com/JakeOrlowitz>
LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitz<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=197604531>
Cell: (484) 684-2104
Home: (484) 380-3940