Well, I am very sure I joined Wikimedia due to the change in skin and liked the new skin as compared to Monobook.
Regards,Hydrizhttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hydriz > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:24:48 -0700 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Vector, a year after > > 2011/3/31 Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]>: > > The Vector skin, the main product of the Usability Initiative, was > > deployed on Wikimedia projects in April 2010. > > > > Quoting usability.wikimedia.org: "The goal of this initiative is to > > measurably increase the usability of Wikipedia for new contributors by > > improving the underlying software on the basis of user behavioral > > studies, thereby reducing barriers to public participation." > > > > In the year that passed since then, did anyone measure whether the > > usability of Wikipedia for new contributors increased? > > The usability initiative was accompanied by three qualitative studies: > > http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Evaluation_Study > http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study > http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study > > Our studies validated that the changes we made did indeed by and large > have the intended effect of simplifying the experience of new users. > With that said, the aggregate editing trends continue to be troubling. > See, for example, this page for a comparison of active editors across > languages: > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm > > .. and, of course, the editor trends study and the New Wikipedians > numbers. But, these larger trends aren't purely technical trends -- > they're social trends as well, and it's entirely possible that no > amount of technical improvement is going to even make a meaningful > dent unless/until we also make progress on making Wikimedia projects > more open and more welcoming. > > We haven't deployed some of the last-stage features of the project > yet. These include an in-editor outline of the article headings, a > tabbed view of preview/edit, and a default collapsed view of > templates. Making template collapsing work cleanly in all browsers and > for all document operations turned out to be very hard (due to the > wrangling required to make the browser's rich-text-editor behave > essentially like a beefed-up code editor), so we may not ever add that > feature to a wikitext editor (as opposed to a visual editor). The > other two features are likely doable with some more effort, but we're > prioritizing them against other improvements and the visual editor > effort itself. > > So, in sum, 1) our qualitative research has shown an improvement for > new users, 2) the quantitative trends are troubling, and it's not > demonstrable that we've made a difference either way in the larger > trends (which aren't purely technical but also social trends), 3) > there's still quite a bit of code that we may end up picking up again > but that's not currently running on WMF projects. I'm happy that we've > done Vector as a first step, but it's just that - a first step. > > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
