On 5 June 2010 01:03, Howie Fung <hf...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > First, some background on the problem we're addressing and the design > principle that we used. Every situation is unique, but in the case of > the interwikilinks, we believe the sheer number of language links, > especially within the context of an information-heavy page, makes users > "numb" to the list. When people see large collections of things, they > tend to group them all together as one object and not identify the > individual parts that make the whole.
"We believe" = no data, then? In a list of language links, people will immediately notice the one that they can read: their own language, i.e. the one they're looking for. > While we did not explicitly test for this > during our usability studies (e.g., it wasn't included as a major design > question), we did exercise judgement in identifying this as a problem, > based partly on the applying the above design principle to the site, > partly on the data. You've just said it was on "judgement" and *not at all* on any data. > Thank you for your input. This is implemented in each wiki's [[MediaWiki:vector.css]]. As such, if a wiki votes to reverse this interface change, and your proposed "compromise" solution - will they be able to do so, or will the Foundation impose the change upon them regardless? i.e., is this content control by the WMF? I ask based on the preremptory tone used by Trevor Parscal in reverting the original change. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l