[Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Eugene Eric Kim <eekim at blueoxen.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM,  <susanpgardner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry for top-posting.
>>>
>>> Austin, think about who "everyone" is.  The folks here on foundation-l are not representative of readers.  The job of the user experience team is to try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with. People here have given some useful input, but I think it's far from obvious that the user experience team has made a "mistake.". (I'm not really intending to weigh in on this particular issue -- I'm speaking generally.)
>>
>> Sue, you appear to be making the assumption that the folks here are
>> writing from a position of their personal preferences while the
>> usability team is working on the behalf of the best interests of the
>> project.
>>
>> I don't believe this comparison to be accurate.
>
> I agree that this comparison is inaccurate, but I disagree that this
> was Sue's assumption. All she said was that vocal outcry on a mailing
> list should not be construed as community consensus. I hope that no
> one disagrees with this.

"All she said", no. She didn't state that. You're putting words in her mouth.

Perhaps I'm guilty of the same crime. But What Sue said was

"The folks here on foundation-l are not representative of readers.
The job of the user experience team is to try to balance all readers'
needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve making decisions
that not everyone agrees with."

I read that as contrasting the purposes of the UX team and the people
commenting here.  I am unable to determine any other reason for
bringing these two statements together except for the purpose of
drawing the comparison I suggested was being made, even with your
proposed alternative.

We all communicate unclearly at times, — and I am more than willing to
accept that I saw a comparison there which was not intended.

In the interest of good communication I hope that you will take the
time to consider how I could have come to the understanding that I
did.   I'm sure many other people on this list had the same
understanding.

What we have here is a nearly unanimous response with respect to the
disposition of the interwiki links. If you'd like me to bring this to
the larger community I can do so but my understanding was that the
normal community process was already quashed with respect to this
change.

While no single forum is indicative of a consensus of the entire
community, the broadness of the response here is a strong indicator.


[snip]
> The bad thing is the us versus them tone in this and other messages.
> There is a larger question about ownership and decision-making that is
> subtle and hard, and we need to continue to work these out. Since I'm
> going to put myself in the vocal minority and disagree with most of
> the points in this message, I'll start with what I agree with. :-)

I don't believe that there is anything particularly subtle here.  We
have many community processes in which foundation staff are welcome to
contribute to as peers with a common interest.

When you fail to do so you have created the "us" vs "them" by your own actions.

Rather then trying to draw "us" vs "them" lines in the sand, I am in
fact pleading that the foundation discontinue doing so.

In order to do that I must first acknowledge the division which I
believe has already formed. [more on this later]

>> I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers,
>> and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design
>> principles used on the site.  I know I am.
>
> Absolutely. Assume good faith. I know you and many others feel the
> same way about the UX team

Absolutely.

I would suggest that the broader community (and not necessarily the
participants here) has greater experience than the usability team, and
even the portion of the community represented here has a more diverse
composition than the UX team.

However, if we were to combine the two— we would have something
strictly superior to the component parts.  Unfortunately, we're still
able to speak about the community and the UX teams as distinct
entities.  This division will continue so long as the relationship is
viewed in the context of "decision"/"feedback" rather than as a
dialogue between peers.


> That said, keep in mind that most people assume that everyone thinks
> like they do. This is not an us versus them thing; this is a natural,
> human thing. I heard a great tip from a psychologist once: If you want
> to know what people truly think, ask them what they think other people
> think.
[snip]


While we are on the topic of lessons in human nature, please allow me
to introduce the list to the fundamental attribution error:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

We all may find it informative.


> Given this quirk of human nature, we need more rigorous ways of making
> decisions than polling people, especially small, self-selecting
> groups. Being data-driven is one of those ways. But being data-driven
> is hard, too, because you still have to interpret the data. Which
> brings me to...
>
>> I was alarmed when I heard the click rates: 1%.  That's an enormous
>> number of clicks, considerably higher than I expected with the large
>> number of things available for folks to click on.
>
> Agreed. 1% is absolutely a large number of clicks, especially given
> our overall traffic. Someone in a different message also pointed out
> that click rates alone don't tell the whole story; if they did, then
> one could argue that we should eliminate the Edit button.
>
> Good design isn't just about following the user path; it's also about
> guiding the users in a way that's appropriate to the mission of the
> work. In that vein, I think the substance of most of the messages in
> this thread have been very positive. It's resulted in data (such as
> Max's numbers) that have helped to round out everyone's understanding
> of the issue, but most importantly, it's resulted in critical context
> as to why people may be acting a certain way and why these things
> matter in the first place.


I do not believe that I am understanding the point you are making here.


The group collected on this list appears to generally hold the view
that we the interwiki links are something we should be emphasizing
beyond the level justified by their usage.

You agree that 1% is a rather large amount of usage, as Tim pointed
out— it would compare favourably to the edit feature.