On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Nick White nick.white@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Oh, and while it's maybe better discussed elsewhere, I certainly disagree with the idea of a separate interface for editors and readers. The emphasis on encouraging editing from everybody is really important, and I think it would be undermined by doing that. I'd rather have a slightly less attractive reading interface than have all editor relevant links hidden by default (not that I am convinced such a trade-off would be necessary).
I think when framed as "reader vs. editor" that's certainly a reasonable argument, but I think it's more about progressive disclosure of editing tools and links rather than treating readers as consumers. We do ourselves no favors by cluttering the initial user experience with every possible link we think could be helpful, without prioritization and gradual discovery.
One hypothesis (which I think is shared by a few people on this list, myself included) is that a default experience which includes powerful calls-to-action (to edit, upload, discuss, ..) while otherwise focusing on the most important tools and progressive discoverability will be more effective in motivating readers to become contributors than our current user experience.
The tricky part is still enabling the user, as she or he discovers the tasks they enjoy doing, to efficiently access the tools relevant to those tasks. When developing for the web, we often dismiss desktop UI patterns, but IMO there's a lot to be learned from decades of desktop UI development about how to manage complex functionality, and how not to do it.
Erik