G'day Luna,
I do think it's worth pointing out that literally
every time I've
mentioned
dislike of infoboxes to non-WPians, the reply has been along the
lines of
"Why not? They're AWESOME!" I try to explain the objections, but
usually the
person is so set on the accessibility front that they can't see why
anyone
would want to avoid the boxes.
It's not just bots that want information in an easily parsed format.
I think my perspective as (let's face it) an ex-Wikipedian is pretty similar to that
of the common or garden-variety non-WP reader these days. (This may be why I've
become significantly more of an inclusionist since I stopped creating --- and deleting ---
articles). I tend to find the infoboxes alternately annoying and silly or practical and
awesome, depending on my frame of mind and purpose. If I'm after specific information
--- e.g. a recent case where a colleague and I were arguing over the population breakdown
of the UK --- the infoboxes save me time and prevent confusion. If I'm just reading
for the heck of it (cf. xkcd's "hours of fascinated clicking") they tend to
be distracting. This is especially jarring in the case of subjects whose details
don't break down easily into infoboxes, like real people.
As a reader, it's cool to quickly find the national motto of Burundi or the height of
Centrepoint Tower without having to read through paragraphs of text. I love infoboxes!
But also as a reader, it's distracting to have a professional wrestler's
"coach" or actress's bust size floating in the corner of the screen. I hate
infoboxes! I guess you can break that down to say: it's nice when there is a
consensus view of what a given infobox should say; it's less nice when the people who
populate the infoboxes have different interests and values from you.
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula