This particular study is focused on measuring the image load time, which we view as the most critical factor for providing an acceptable performance to end-users.

We will also run a separate survey to find out if end-users find this experience useful, or if they have important issues we should address. (1)

That qualitative feedback will be reviewed in conjunction with the first quantitative results, as well as discussions with our communities, in order to determine our next steps for this project.

I look forward to learning more from our users very soon!

On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm confused. Too many questions, too many arbitrary definitions, axioms. No falsifiability. I understand the idea of defining a minimum quality standard to respect, it might even be the only way, but it's a thicket that moreover only indirectly verifies what we're actually interested in.
At its root is simple, we need to know if readers enjoy the images/media more or get annoyed and don't look at them because they're too slow. (Measuring the value they get from the media, or attach to the page in consequence hence becoming more likely to visit the project more, is less clearcut.) So maybe there is some simple check for this, if surveys don't work maybe just the total number of requests or something.

Nemo

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

_______________________________

Fabrice Florin

Product Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)