Hi,

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Pau Giner <pginer@wikimedia.org> wrote:

I created versions of the different options we are discussing (to try, access beta wiki with the test users indicated below):

A: Panel opens with both up and down arrows (user: mv-both, password: 123)
B: Up and down keys act as default for scroll (user: mv-none, password: 123)
C: Provide image and data on a continuous page (user: mv-page, password: 123)

I'm ok with A or B. I think A provides a better solution to the user intent (view the metadata), while avoiding diverging from the standard scrolling direction too much. If A still generates confusion, I'm ok to default to the browser defaults, but I think the line-by-line increment will led most people to unnecessary additional key presses.

I think that changing completely the metaphor we are using (as in C), will bring more problems than benefits (e.g., what to do with the controls over the image).

I'll do some quick tests with some users, but feel free to provide your impressions when trying the above.

Option B seemed the best to me based on these prototypes.

With Option A, it was slightly confusing that the same button opens and closes the metadata panel for the cursor keys, but the opposite direction is needed while using the mousewheel or the pagedown/page up buttons, and the space key did not work to close the metadata panel as would have been expected (it has no directional alternative).

With option B, the directions were as I would have expected (down button opens, up button closes, same with page down and page up, and the mousewheel;again the space button was an exception). Visually, I would have preferred the smoother style of movement one gets with using either the page down or the space button. (Using the cursors was less smooth than using the mousewheel, which in turn was slightly less smooth to be entirely pleasing.)

It is probably an artifact of the prototype, but Option C did not work well while using the non-cursor options because the page does not end at the end of the content and there was a huge black area.

Best regards,

Bence

Pau

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Quiddity <pandiculation@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14-06-06 02:34 AM, Gilles Dubuc wrote:

I think that picking isolated websites (gmail or medium) isn't enough to
get a sense of what the average user's expectation is. These two
particular examples aren't necessarily the best for other reasons:
Google products and Gmail in particular have always had very
engineer-minded keyboard shortcuts because engineers rule the culture at
Google. That's not necessarily the best thing for accessibility if you
don't have that culture. As for Medium, it's too new to have proven
itself as something with good accessibility. Maybe a lot of people are
getting confused by medium's interface, we wouldn't know.

Possibly, it would help to re-word the way we're understanding these 2 examples, into the abstracts that they represent:-

In line- or list-item-highlights, like email programs (Thunderbird, etc), or file managers, or spreadsheets, or drop-down menus:
- Clicking the keyboard down-arrow will move the highlight downwards by exactly one (1).

In full-window-highlights, like a PDF-viewer, or image-viewer, or webpage:
- Clicking the keyboard down-arrow will make the content scroll-upwards. (by a variable amount, depending on OS, program, and user-settings. Sometimes 1 line, sometimes 3 lines, sometimes x pixels.)

(and similar results for left/right arrow-keys)

HTH.

_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia

--
Pau Giner
Interaction Designer
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia