Parul Vora wrote:
Thanks for all of the feedback, comments, and support. I just wanted to
let you know that our full report (including highlight videos!!) is now
up our the Usability Initiative's project wiki:
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/UX_and_Usability_Study
It may be too late
2009/5/8 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
I am wary of this: Users often missed the ‘edit’ buttons next to each
section, clicking on ‘edit this page’ all the way at the top. In my
experience, users do exactly the opposite, and I have seen new users who
know how to edit sections asking how
Brian wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists. It's
unscientific thinking and it's going cause to you waste money. You're
2009/5/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I will have no part in your efforts to redefine the scientific method on its
talk page.
Fortunately you don't need to. People who have put far more effort
into the subject than you are ever likely to do so have pretty much
shot apart the idea of a
Ok, I'll agree that the motiviations and size of this pilot study are
reasonable. Then I'd just like to know how much money was spent getting
these answers. If you're not planning to measure the subjects
scientifically and you just want to figure out what the big issues are then
the premise of
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
You don't have to be an expert (more formally defined as someone with ten
years of experience in a field) to spot unscientific thinking. I don't
think
you're an expert either so maybe you should just leave expertise out
Really, I admit that? Where.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
You don't have to be an expert (more formally defined as someone with ten
years of experience in a field) to spot
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Parul Vora wrote:
Thanks for all of the feedback, comments, and support. I just wanted to
let you know that our full report (including highlight videos!!) is now
up our the Usability Initiative's project wiki:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists.
Experience shows
El 5/7/09 5:36 PM, geni escribió:
2009/5/8 Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu:
This usability study is so tiny. I want MediaWiki to be really, really good.
Please tell me you guys hope to go large scale with the remote testing
setup.
Nit just mediawiki. Looks like we need to improve the paths
El 5/8/09 9:21 PM, phoebe ayers escribió:
About this: on en:wp, at least, under user preferences/gadgets, users
can turn this on themselves by clicking the Add an [edit] link for
the lead section of a page box. Is there any particular reason not to
turn this on by default for everyone? Could
Hi All!
Thanks for all of the feedback, comments, and support. I just wanted to
let you know that our full report (including highlight videos!!) is now
up our the Usability Initiative's project wiki:
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/UX_and_Usability_Study
- The Usability Team
Parul Vora
This usability study is so tiny. I want MediaWiki to be really, really good.
Please tell me you guys hope to go large scale with the remote testing
setup.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Parul Vora pv...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi All!
Thanks for all of the feedback, comments, and support. I
2009/5/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
You went from 2,500 subjects to just 10?
For a software test, which this mostly was, 5 is enough for excellent
results in most cases.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
That may be true. This study does not allow you to draw that conclusion,
however.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:36 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
This usability study is so tiny. I want MediaWiki to be really, really
good.
Please tell me you guys
2009/5/7 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Based on these criteria, the 2,500 users that responded to our survey were
filtered down to 500 viable subjects based on their answers to these
questions. The team, along with B|P, partnered with Davis Recruiting to
contact, filter, and screen these
This all goes back to how you aim to quantify improvement in usability.
These samples sizes are so small that it will be hard (or even impossible)
to evaluate your progress based on statistical significance. You've got to
prove to us that its really getting better, and doesn't just look prettier.
2009/5/7 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
This all goes back to how you aim to quantify improvement in usability.
These samples sizes are so small that it will be hard (or even impossible)
to evaluate your progress based on statistical significance. You've got to
prove to us that its really
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists. It's
unscientific
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists. It's
I will have no part in your efforts to redefine the scientific method on its
talk page.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the
Sounds easy. I wonder why this study doesn't mention a p value. The grant
must not have been large enough to fund someone with any experience using R,
or god forbid, a pencil.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Brian
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Parul Vora pv...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all!
The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted a user research study with
SF based Bolt Peters in late March to uncover barriers new editors face.
We are in the process of completing a full report on our methodology,
Will the final report include a note about how unwelcome User:NawlinWiki
made the study participants feel when he indefinitely blocked their accounts
for abusing Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=User%3AUsability_Tester_3
I know a new GUI is being worked on. For the moment I hacked the
following JavaScript suggestion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/newbiehelp.js
This adds a how? link into the edit tab, and launches a floating
panel with some extremely general content:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Will the final report include a note about how unwelcome User:NawlinWiki
made the study participants feel when he indefinitely blocked their
accounts
for abusing Wikipedia?
We, the usability team, with lots of help
Hi all!
The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted a user research study with
SF based Bolt Peters in late March to uncover barriers new editors face.
We are in the process of completing a full report on our methodology,
process and analysis, but wanted to share with you some of the major
27 matches
Mail list logo
