This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
(this paragraph copied from Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal#Wikiportal_box_templates) I've created a set of templates for creating 'boxes' in wikiportal pages. Currently, the portals have boxes that are hard-coded into the portal pages themselves. This makes those edit pages unreadable, the color schemes are hard to change, and many of the boxes have css errors in them that cause content to overflow out of the box (becoming unreadable) in browsers like Firefox. Those interested should have a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/box-header.
This sort of thing may be useful in that editors won't have to be exposed to html, they could just use a template for whatever they'd like, and there'd be no worries as to accidentally "screwing up". Slike2 29 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)
I just discovered this "phenomena" thanks to User:Ali K and have copied a few onto my User:AlMac. I notice that some of them suffer from color combination problems like I have seen other places, plus some complicated images need to be a bit larger to figure out what exactly they mean ... like am I seeing fingers dipped into a project, or someone's pants falling down, here?
This user is involved with the Usability WikiProject |
User:AlMac|(talk) 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Ali K I got a fix for the picture. I am a total amateur when it comes to images.
This user is involved with the Usability Wiki Project |
User:AlMac|(talk) 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say that I approve of these boxes. The color schemes are not appealing, and the image suggests that we serve the disabled, when in fact that is a very small percentage of those we wish to help (i.e. everyone). –MT 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This user answers questions at the Reference desk. |
I had thought the user box concept was an elegant way to communicate with some brevity, worth sharing the idea. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I took your suggestions, added the new logo, but kept the disability icon that I like to have there, and with help from User:Cernen got something else that works.
This user is involved with the Usability Wiki Project |
User:AlMac|(talk) 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Another thing I loved, and plagarized, for my Talk Page, which I suspect was originally developed for the Help Desks, is this box now at the top of my Talk page.
^^^(Software coding technique plagiarism from EWS23 who plagiarized (spelling?) it from Redwolf24 who plagiarized it from Linuxbeak)^^^
The coding connects to My Talk Page ... you tweak if for where you copying it to User:AlMac|(talk) 10:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a complete aesthete and will help out with making the look and feel of Wikipedia more consistent wherever possible. I've organised the talk page template standardisation and am now working on article template standardisation. If anyone has further suggestions about how to make this place more "usable" (with regards to appearance) then I'll lend a hand. Very worthwhile WikiProject, this one. violet/riga (t) 30 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. For one thing, many templates or charts, etc., do appear to fit on the pages well. I don't know whether that's because of my browsler or what. But I'm also slightly wary of the potential for over-standardization. I'm not saying there's an immediate danger of that, just something maybe to keep in mind. Maurreen 9 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
Following up on the note above about template standards and aesthetics, I wrote to Violetriga and suggested that a running list might be compiled of visually unappealing pages. Then anyone with the inclination and ability (which is not me) could fix them.
Violetriga suggested figuring out what such a list might cover and a few example pages.
In my view, the main problem is templates that crowd each other or other material, mainly body copy, on pages. The problems I perceive might or might not be related to my browser.
Here are a few examples:
Thoughts? Maurreen 9 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit this. Maurreen 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. It seems like 150-180 px would be a good general default upper limit for image widths. Maurreen 02:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). I thought it might be of interest to the partipants on this WikiProject. violet/riga (t) 16:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What are everyone's concerns in regards to usability, and what does everyone hope that this project will do for them and for wikipedia? Myself, I'd like to see some standards regarding the (mis)use of html and css, since I've seen an unnaceptable amount of pages that look broken and unreadable on my browser. Educating users, or preventing them from dealing with these sorts of things are two of my goals. I've also seen a large amount of pages that look quite bad, usually due to color or by setting up things like tables in a manner that is completely inconsistant with wikipedia's style. I'd also like to see some order imposed on the hundreds of template boxes, perhaps defining an 'approved' set, with a style to match. And, of course, I'd like to see wikipedia become even more easy to edit. –MT 04:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:Customisation as a simple description of how a user can tailor their editing experience. People here might be interested in expanding it, so do please take a look. violet/riga (t) 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
What's the difference between these two groups? Wikipedia:Usability vs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability — RDF talk 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a simple, clean, better version of the Upload page(which currently, according to various new users, is not at all clear) at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Simple_version. I am trying to get enough support for it to get it implemented. Please go there and express your support, if you feel so moved. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I just read the Wikipedia:Usability/Areas bit and I like the idea of having tabs as a side bar for navigation. Not letters like a paper encyclopedia, but as a way to browse sections or categories. Seems like a great idea. Has it been suggested anywhere else? 194.200.237.219 12:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
(Note. This interaction was copied from a Village pump proposal. — RDF talk 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC))
This is a proposal to address the difficulties many users experience when they try to thematically navigate Wikipedia after they leave the Main Page: add Categorybrowsebar-like wikilinks to every wikipage. This proposal is an update based on feedback for similar proposals at related discussion pages.
Specifically, the current proposal is to include the navigation elements contained in Template:Categorybrowsebar that used to be located on the Main Page (now a template is no longer used - causing "navigation bar drift" ;-) and other high-level pages it links to. In this template, the first line focuses on the main categories while the second line focuses on browse options. Adding the elements to the Mediawiki:Monobook.css style sheet (or wherever it actually needs to go) would allow Wikipedia to have a topical, top-level navigation scheme, based on the primary categorization scheme, that would help users move about logically and quickly from any page. Other benefits of this implementation would be that Template:Categorybrowsebar can be removed from a prominent position on several high-level pages, similar browse links can be removed from the Main Page, and the ever-insidious navigation bar drift can be eliminated.
The proposed basic approach is to use this (template:eight portals links) across the top of a page. Then add the browse options to the sidebar navigation box. The layout could look something like this. (Keep in mind that the following top-level heading actually is part of this proposal.) — RDF talk 14:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind. Using color tabs is a better idea! :-) — RDF talk 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
navigation
-unsigned
I assume this is a proposed changed to the navigation box? I think that it's a good idea. –MT 09:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Future projects and tasks seem to be the same thing. How about combining them and then naming the section "Projects"? Have them (the projects) start as red links with a brief description, and as people start to work on them they'll have their own pages, just as the Main page project does.
Speaking of which, AlMac comments (which takes up 70% of this page) is about ripe for archival, which I'll do if noone objects. –MT 10:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
the OpenUsability project did a study on the German Wikipedia's usability. You can find the report in English here: http://www.openusability.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=703
Best regards, --zeno 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Although I understand that there are many important things to do right now, so this seems very trivial, but I've made a logo that can be used to represent this WikiProject. The green represents the user, and the multiple paths represent the web of information that Wikipedia provides. The center path is the clearest one, representing the goal of this project. It also resembles a flower in shape. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
I created this diagram to show how the Main Page gives access to Wikipedia. I bolded the line I think that any new user should follow. It continues into the Tutorial and is unfinished from there. Among other things I think it shows how Wikipedia:Where to ask a question is missused, as well as the WP:FAQ. Help:Contents, and Wikipedia:Village Pump is underlinked, and a few pages are not directly available as they should - WP:About and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (perhaps these should be merged somewhere?). Anything I've missed that should be added to the diagram? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There was a discussion about text contrast at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Increase_wikitable_contrast_2. A couple of editors suggested that text contrast in wikitable is insufficient. The stylesheet changes the background for tables from the default white to a grey #f9f9f9. That setting #f9f9f9 was explicitly copied from [1].
One editor pointed out that other elements in Wikipedia style reduce contrast (e.g. table of contents). So I am asking here in case we have to consider them all together.
A change to that value #f9f9f9 would be be an easy way to improve accessibility. An editor even suggested removing it entirely (so it becomes white). Would anybody like to comment? Bobblewik 15:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this article, that I thought Y"all might be interested in if Y"all not already seen it. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been revamped. Take a look. Please post comments on the draft's disussion page. Thanks. Go for it! 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that the browse options on the top line of the bar are essentially Wikipedia's defacto Table of Contents, which has been added as a box to the new Main Page redesign draft in order to (hopefully) make it the official Wikipedia TOC. Go for it! 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The browsebar above, and all the pages specified on it have been upgraded and adapted by a team of navigation nuts (User:Cyberjunkie, User:Fplay, and myself) to provide a high-quality top-tier navigation structure (or User Interface) to Wikipedia. We're still working on the polishing touches, and could sure use your feedback. Go for it! 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the features we've built into this system is that the navigation bar on the Main Page now points to Portals rather than categories. The portal mirrors have been removed from the category pages, to allow the category pages to focus on what they were designed for: providing direct and immediate access to categories! As mentioned previously, all the main portals have been upgraded, to more effectively provide a "portal" or front door to their respective subject areas. Go for it! 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The navigation bar itself is now "space-context specific", so in portal space, the subjects on the bar point to portals, while in category space, they point to categories. We've also changed the ambiguous word "browse" in the bar to "categories" to avoid confusion (and on the bar on the Main Page). Go for it! 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Now, if it isn't too much to ask, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE COMPLETE THE UPGRADE TO THE BROWSEBAR ON THE CURRENT MAIN PAGE?
Go for it! 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Trevor. The person who removed Art and Philosophy cited the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Art packs a lot of punch for being only 3 letters, while Philosophy is on the same level as Science, both of which rank above Mathematics on the hierarchy of fields. See ya at that discussion! Go for it! 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply at FPC Talk drumguy8800 - speak? 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look: Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft
Go for it! 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This problem is rather big and I predict massive opposition to the solution, so I've been hesitant to bring it up as I lack the time to properly defend the position. But, that's not a good way to go about things, so at the very least I should throw it out and see what people think. The biggest usability problems with the English Wikipedia right now are, in my opinion, caused by one thing:
Wikipedia editors use up critical resources (e.g. the main page, the portals) to suit their own desires, and not those of the typical user. It's much like having a chef who ignores your order, and serves his favorite dish instead. Not exactly, because our users don't and are probably incapable of making a proper "order", but I hope you get my point.
My position on this is rather extreme. Everything below that textual header on our main page is useless, as is most of the content on every portal. Let's be quite honest, the only people who care what the latest featured article, the selected anniversaries, and the latest facts from the latest articles are trivia enthusiasts and Wikipedia editors. Sadly, I don't believe that that is our main audience. And yet it's taking up the entire main page, save for four weak lines at the top.
Imagine yourself to be the typical Wikipedia user - one that is not familiar with the main page. What would they expect there, and what would be most useful to them? Assuming they have some definite purpose, and are not merely looking for time to kill, what they need is a page with tools that will help them get to their destination as quickly as possible.
I've gone through (too many) alternate language wikipedias to see how things are done there. Here are the notable results:
Design
Interesting features that may merit consideration
And of course the others I've found that seem to have some form of decent navigational aid... [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
Perhaps we will find this commentary useful. –MT 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Because of internal changes to Wikipedia's template code, some editors are systematically changing the way that a number of reference templates work. Junk code is being inserted into the text of the page, and then hidden using CSS. There is an alternative solution, but this method appears to be chosen because it is easier to implement, and accessibility is being ignored. This is appallingly contrary to the principal that Wikipedia should be accessible to all users. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Journal reference#Junk code, and make your opinion heard. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:42 Z
EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. There's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia concerning the placement of the Spoken Wikipedia template. I thought that some of this project's editors might be interested, since it's an issue related to usability (especially for those who cannot see well enough to read the articles and depend on the spoken versions).
Some are in favor of placing it in the External links section, akin to sister projects, but others are worried about users being able to find it there. There used to be a link for the spoken version up at the top of articles, in the top heading, but it was removed because of some technical issues. Comments, opinions and ideas are welcome. Thanks! ~MDD4696 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of discussion over redesigns of the Main Page, and my question is what should the ultimate aim be? Should it be to have something as simple as possible that as many people as possible can use (call this the MAIN PAGE)? Then fix this in stone, but make clear that it is a simple template that most people should modify to create their own main page. Anyone who comes along with a bright idea or personal preference for layout, can then create their own version (probably in their user space) and use it as their personal "entry point". Kind of similar to using RSS feeds, or having a skin. This would avoid the countless edit wars I've seen over minor points of style and trying to fix a page to suit a few types of users, rather than leaving it flexible enough for all users to use it in their own way. Maybe I'm missing something and this wouldn't be workable, or is already possible, but I'd sure like to see a range of styles and "Main Page" designs available to pick and choose from. You would also be able to change things over time as you moved around different areas of Wikipedia, altering your personal "home page" to 'retire' the old interests and add the new ones. 62.31.128.13 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There is another alternative to worrying so about what exactly is presented on the Main opening page— Which I agree should be a cross between something that showcases the capabilities of Wikipedia (which is an argument for the current layout including the "article of the day," etc.) and a guide to how to obtain the information (a non-contributing) user might be looking for.
My solution would be to provide a repeat user with a "Toolset" page one can open upon (that one could bookmark), and that one can (1) modify in accordance with one's wishes, and (2) provide a rigorous "Starter toolset" into the heart of wikipedia.
One example is Wikipedia:Starter toolset, which I am in process of majorly upgrading. Suggestions are strongly solicited. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The new project to take care of projectboxes. There are a lot of usability issues there, so some participants of this project may want to join. Zocky | picture popups 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have some questions about the possibility of users configuring the main page to fit their own tastes, and was wondering what options were available to users right now for accomplishing this. Please click on the heading above to see my questions on this subject. I look forward to reading your replies. --Go for it! 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically this isn't improving the usability of Wikipedia itself, but is about improving ways to search Wikipedia. It is also really only for those doing LOTS of searches on Wikipedia, but I thought the following links to mozdev.org might be of interest [19] and [20] (to do wikipedia searches through Google). If you have Firefox, you eventually end up highlighting something, right-clicking, and selecting a Google search of Wikipedia for the highlighted term. Something I find useful anyway. See also Wikipedia:Browser_notes#Search_Plugins Carcharoth 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Great project, I really liked your redesign of the Main Page. I hope you will work afterwards on a redisign of Wikipedia:Featured articles before its 1000th article. CG 15:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index
Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology
Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers, at
That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. So if you use the above bar, you need to let us know. Or if you just have an opinion, like how to gather appropriate feedback (!) drop on by and tell us. Do non-editors use the bar? And how do we find this out?! --Go for it! 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Template talk:Editor toc#Two help templates. I feel there is a trend on Wikipedia to overuse templates which results in cluttered pages from the top, sides and bottom. Comments there are appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a question: how to interpret these rules in audio version of Wikipedia? AirBa 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to move "Main Page redesign" to past projects, and amend our current project to be the community portal redesign.--Quiddity 08:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in reading this paper which I (Alain Désilets) co-wrote. It is a very detailed account of the usability problems encountered by Grade 4-6 children in using a wiki to collaboratively write hypertext stories [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.209.207 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC).
What I found whas that link creation was the #1 source of problems, followed by a number of distant seconds (hypertext authoring, image upload, etc...)
The children I observed were not using MediaWiki, but most of what I observed seems independant of the wiki engine.
Perhaps the member list should be alphabetical and not chronological? I'd also enjoy seeing a stricter formatting of names - [User:X|X]] [User talk:X|(talk)], but I doubt that those with special formatting attached to theirs would agree. And perhaps cleaning out the inactive members would be of some benefit. –MT 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I posted a VPt that went to archives without a reply. Where should i try next? --Quiddity 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Highlight_search_box
An interesting usability-related discussion (font size for footnotes) is going on here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (.references) --Francis Schonken 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive#Site Javascript:
text-transform: lowercase;
(or for anyone browsing with CSS off). — Ian Moody (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)— Ian Moody (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)