[Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
70 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Tom Morris-5
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function. Honestly,
> people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.


I'm no great shakes as a programmer (in fact, I'm an exceptionally lazy programmer), but I know why it takes so long to develop a WYSIWYG editor: because doing it properly is actually kind of a hard problem. And as the Mythical Man Month points out, you can't just keep on adding programmers if you want it done faster. Software development teams don't actually scale that well.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Andreas Kolbe-2
It shouldn't take five years though, should it? And there are dozens
(hundreds?) of jobs in queues, waiting to be done, which can't be done
because nobody is free to do them.



On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Tom Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> > WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function. Honestly,
> > people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> > structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.
>
>
> I'm no great shakes as a programmer (in fact, I'm an exceptionally lazy
> programmer), but I know why it takes so long to develop a WYSIWYG editor:
> because doing it properly is actually kind of a hard problem. And as the
> Mythical Man Month points out, you can't just keep on adding programmers if
> you want it done faster. Software development teams don't actually scale
> that well.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

geni
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sounds great. And as we discussed, the Commons front end could really do
> with work too.

Not much point until the backend is sorted out. Basically you need to
turn mediawiki into a true content management system rather than a
wiki moving in the direction of being a CMS.


> I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> WYSIWYG editor, for example,

Because given current mediawiki markup it probably isn't possible even
in theory. Mediawiki markup with ParserFunctions installed is probably
Turing complete and wikipedians have taken advantage of is. As a
result trying to create an WYSIWYG editor that will interact with the
current article set is probably impossible. WYSIWYM may be a better
approach.


> or a new Commons search function.

That largely goes back to mediawiki not really being designed for image hosting.

However even if it wants image searching is a hard problem. Stock
photo agencies do better than most but thats because their
photographers have a direct financial incentive to make their pictures
findable. For any other images archive expect to do a lot of digging.
Of course for most people simply typing what you want pics of into
wikipedia is the best approach. For example typing "Sutton Hoo" into
wikipedia produces a pretty good set of images.

>Honestly,
> people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.

Its more than a few I'm afraid . And in any case you've got the
problem that there isn't much of a pool of people who really know
their way around the mediawiki codebase.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Mark
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
>
I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
falling into the trap of the "user-friendly", invisible-interface
ideology, which does it by assuming users are unable to meaningfully
control computers, and therefore must be fed the correct results by
experts who know how to operate computers. That way lies just a
different version of stratification.

I'm somewhat partial to Jeannette Wing's view that "computational
thinking" should attempt to decouple minutiae of programming (e.g.
knowing how to debug C, which can be an expert skill) from the idea of
being able to critically consider and control computers in the sense of
executing processes (which needs to be widely available). The idea (as
Ted Nelson also argued earlier) is to devolve as many tools as possible,
to whatever extent possible, towards as many people as possible, which
"user-friendliness" paradoxically doesn't really do (Lori Emerson has
been pushing this argument, fwiw).

How that precisely should operate on Wikipedia is a tricky question, of
course. I would personally like to see us better enable the "potentially
programming public", for one thing, where "programming" is taken in a
broad sense.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Mark <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
>>
>>  I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
> falling into the trap of the "user-friendly", invisible-interface ideology,
> which does it by assuming users are unable to meaningfully control
> computers, and therefore must be fed the correct results by experts who
> know how to operate computers. That way lies just a different version of
> stratification.
>
> I'm somewhat partial to Jeannette Wing's view that "computational
> thinking" should attempt to decouple minutiae of programming (e.g. knowing
> how to debug C, which can be an expert skill) from the idea of being able
> to critically consider and control computers in the sense of executing
> processes (which needs to be widely available). The idea (as Ted Nelson
> also argued earlier) is to devolve as many tools as possible, to whatever
> extent possible, towards as many people as possible, which
> "user-friendliness" paradoxically doesn't really do (Lori Emerson has been
> pushing this argument, fwiw).
>
> How that precisely should operate on Wikipedia is a tricky question, of
> course. I would personally like to see us better enable the "potentially
> programming public", for one thing, where "programming" is taken in a broad
> sense.
>
> -Mark



Mark, you say "knowing how to debug C, which can be an expert skill" ... I
hope you are aware that about half of our overall global target audience
wouldn't even know what C is, let alone know how to write something in it
or debug it. I think I understand what you mean with user-friendliness
being potentially restrictive, and I have nothing against some advanced
functions being available to buffs: but that's really the bells and
whistles, which should come after the basics.

Take application software like MS Word – you can do all the basic stuff
just by clicking, and you don't need to know anything about programming
whatsoever. That's the basics. It's what any product that wants to survive
needs to offer. You *can* also program fairly involved macros in MS Word:
that's the bells and whistles. People who are into macro programming will
consider that a vital function, but 95% of Word users will probably never
program a macro in their lives. (If memory serves, later versions of Word
didn't even include the Developer tab with all the Visual Basic functions
in the default installation.)

User-friendliness that will make the programming-illiterate comfortable is
not a trap but an absolute must.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Kim Bruning
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:11:57AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> It was not a small laptop screen, the screen was big enough...
>
> I blogged about it and included screenshots.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2012/07/can-everybody-read-wikipedia.html


That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
browser window narrower.

* If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"... well...
  ARGH
* Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including us WIMPs
  who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
  want to or not."   I KEEEEL YOU
* Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including some sane way to
  do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
* Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
> browser window narrower.
>
> * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> well...
>   ARGH
>

Most people never resize their browser windows.
If your answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.


> * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including us
> WIMPs
>   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
>   want to or not."   I KEEEEL YOU
>

It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
lede better".


> * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> some sane way to
>   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
>

Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
that's not the point.


> * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
>

Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".

Michel
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Deryck Chan-2
I think the clear moral of this story is that, as accommodating and
reader-friendly you can be, you just can't make everyone happy.

We should listen to all opinions and suggestions, but expect to decide most
of the time that the suggestions are simply dumb or unhelpful.

On 25 July 2012 16:22, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
> > browser window narrower.
> >
> > * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> > well...
> >   ARGH
> >
>
> Most people never resize their browser windows.
> If your answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> us
> > WIMPs
> >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
> >   want to or not."   I KEEEEL YOU
> >
>
> It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
> lede better".
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > some sane way to
> >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> >
>
> Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> that's not the point.
>
>
> > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> >
>
> Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
> not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
>
> Michel
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function. Honestly,
> people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.


"I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
not to be the case.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Deryck Chan-2
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> > WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function. Honestly,
> > people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> > structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.
>
> On 25 July 2012 16:41, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
> not to be the case.
>
> I realised both that it was an incredibly difficult problem, and that WMF
is really serious about getting on with it, when they decided to hire James
F. to take charge of the project.

Deryck
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Svip
Svip, 14/07/2012 16:04:
> I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about,  [...]

I love it when someone starts a thread like this, because we always talk
about how horrible our wikis are and we end up with yet another shiny
Magnus tool which proves how amazing and open they and their community are.

Back to the article, its value is shown by puzzling truisms like this:
«Facebook -- and Twitter, and Tumblr, and similar sites -- have built
followings in part because of their exceedingly simple interfaces. They
are intuitive and, thus, inviting».
Twitter is well known for being one of the websites with the most
horrible interface ever, whose success relied on third party's apps – no
need to comment.
Facebook has been proved to be used more by necessity and habit than by
appreciation, because it has a very low (and decreasing) user
satisfaction but almost a monopoly (so far):
<http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/facebook-google-plus-survey/>.
And frankly, user-friendly? I need more manuals etc. reading for
Facebook than for our wikis, and I don't even use it.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Hoi,
Most people are stupid and they still deserve a great reading experience..
Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge with everyone. When people
fail to read Wikipedia.. and they do..  there is a reason to do better for
them. Any effective measure that provides a better experience for all the
different screens helps us share with more people.

Even stupid people deserve to be educated... eh especially stupid people
deserve to be educated ...
Thanks,
      Gerard

On 25 July 2012 17:22, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
> > browser window narrower.
> >
> > * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> > well...
> >   ARGH
> >
>
> Most people never resize their browser windows.
> If your answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> us
> > WIMPs
> >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
> >   want to or not."   I KEEEEL YOU
> >
>
> It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
> lede better".
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > some sane way to
> >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> >
>
> Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> that's not the point.
>
>
> > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> >
>
> Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
> not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
>
> Michel
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Thomas Morton
One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
seperate editing and reading.

I know the point is to make editing easy - and to encourage readers to
become editors. But realistically most of them will not - and we could do
significantly better in streamlining our anon. front end.

Tom

On 25 July 2012 20:33, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Most people are stupid and they still deserve a great reading experience..
> Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge with everyone. When people
> fail to read Wikipedia.. and they do..  there is a reason to do better for
> them. Any effective measure that provides a better experience for all the
> different screens helps us share with more people.
>
> Even stupid people deserve to be educated... eh especially stupid people
> deserve to be educated ...
> Thanks,
>       Gerard
>
> On 25 July 2012 17:22, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make
> the
> > > browser window narrower.
> > >
> > > * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> > > well...
> > >   ARGH
> > >
> >
> > Most people never resize their browser windows.
> > If your answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> > reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
> >
> >
> > > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> > us
> > > WIMPs
> > >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether
> they
> > >   want to or not."   I KEEEEL YOU
> > >
> >
> > It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> > Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make
> the
> > lede better".
> >
> >
> > > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > > some sane way to
> > >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> > >
> >
> > Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> > that's not the point.
> >
> >
> > > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> > >
> >
> > Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use
> is
> > not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
> >
> > Michel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> > > WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function.
> Honestly,
> > > people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> > > structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.
> >
> > On 25 July 2012 16:41, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > "I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
> > not to be the case.
>



In the case of the sensible Commons search function Niabot proposed, the
problem did sound rather easy to solve.

From memory, the answer was: "Everybody is busy with other stuff. Nobody
has time to look into this. We've got so much to do ..."




> > I realised both that it was an incredibly difficult problem, and that WMF
> is really serious about getting on with it, when they decided to hire James
> F. to take charge of the project.
>



So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.

Wikipedia is about as user-friendly as Wordstar was in 1985.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

David Gerard-2
On 25 July 2012 20:48, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
> for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
> acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
> Wikipedia is about as user-friendly as Wordstar was in 1985.


Before you start in the usual fashion of "assume bad faith and
extrapolate from there", I suggest you do a bit of reading
(mediawiki.org, wikitech-l and *especially* wikitext-l) and find out
what the actual problem was and why this is actually a hard problem.
Here, I'll start you off:

1. No language definition.
2. Huge corpus of existing text in said undefined language that must
continue to work.

Now how about you stop ranting about how everyone must have just been
terrible and come back with a description in your own words of the
actual problem and what you expect would be a good plan of attack on
it. Who knows, you might come up with something new, good and useful.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Brandon Harris-4
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton

On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

> One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
> seperate editing and reading.

        This is actually something I am looking at with a powerful microscope.

        There are actually three major activities, and they should be considered "modes of operation":

                        1) Reading/Exploring
                        2) Editing/Uploading
                        3) Curating/Patrolling

        We'll be launching (very soon now, I promise) a "Curation Mode" for new page patrolling that starts us down this path.

---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
> seperate editing and reading.
> I know the point is to make editing easy - and to encourage readers to
> become editors. But realistically most of them will not - and we could do
> significantly better in streamlining our anon. front end.


I would disagree. We need to make it easy for people to hit "edit",
and we need to make it easy for them to be able to do something
useful.

(This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
to an article.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Thomas Morton
On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
> > seperate editing and reading.
> > I know the point is to make editing easy - and to encourage readers to
> > become editors. But realistically most of them will not - and we could do
> > significantly better in streamlining our anon. front end.
>
>
> I would disagree. We need to make it easy for people to hit "edit",
> and we need to make it easy for them to be able to do something
> useful.
>
> (This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
> for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
> to an article.)
>
>
Yes.

We also need to be understanding of the "99%" - the ones who just want to
read.

Our interface should suit the reader - with a prominent prompt to edit.
Which once clicked opens things up into the world of editing Wikipedia.

But if you don't click that prompt then you don't get useless fluff to
distract you.

This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
enough :)

Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David,

Here is a different approach. Ask the Foundation's paid programming staff
if there is ever so much for them to do that other things they know should
be done, or that other people have asked them to do, fall by the wayside;
or how often it happens that project dates slip and deadlines are not met
because they get called off their jobs to deal with something else. Things
like that.

If the programming staff (hello?) say there aren't any significant problems
of that sort, and that having their own staff that they could delegate
parts of their work to would not lead to more things getting done, but
would only result in them sitting around playing cards, I'll shut up about
this.

Andreas

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:56 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 July 2012 20:48, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
> > for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
> > acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
> > Wikipedia is about as user-friendly as Wordstar was in 1985.
>
>
> Before you start in the usual fashion of "assume bad faith and
> extrapolate from there", I suggest you do a bit of reading
> (mediawiki.org, wikitech-l and *especially* wikitext-l) and find out
> what the actual problem was and why this is actually a hard problem.
> Here, I'll start you off:
>
> 1. No language definition.
> 2. Huge corpus of existing text in said undefined language that must
> continue to work.
>
> Now how about you stop ranting about how everyone must have just been
> terrible and come back with a description in your own words of the
> actual problem and what you expect would be a good plan of attack on
> it. Who knows, you might come up with something new, good and useful.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > (This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
> > for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
> > to an article.)
> >
> Yes.
>
> We also need to be understanding of the "99%" - the ones who just want to
> read.
>
> Our interface should suit the reader - with a prominent prompt to edit.
> Which once clicked opens things up into the world of editing Wikipedia.
>
> But if you don't click that prompt then you don't get useless fluff to
> distract you.
>
> This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
> enough :)
>

I totally agree.
With the one caveat that it's both tempting and dangerous to speak of or
design for "the average reader".

The average car driver, as the joke goes, wants a car that's fast and
flashy, and comfortable and safe, with a large trunk and room for kids,
that looks sexy, gets great mileage and does 0-90 in however few seconds is
impressive enough. And then you end up with The Homer (
http://imgur.com/PO22S) -- a car that should in theory be everything for
everyone, but in fact is nothing for no-one. :)

And that's why interaction designers develop personas and write scenarios
of use, do mock-ups and prototypes, etc. etc.

Michel
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
1234