Excellent! Thanks for putting this together.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Daisy Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > Please find the goals for and top-level findings from guerrilla testing > description editing on Wikipedia Alpha below. More in-depth information > including tasks/questions posed and raw notes on the 5 participants can be > found here > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Testing,_March_24,_2015:_Description_editing>. > There may be typos and small formatting errors (I'll be proofing the page > in the next hour). > Happy quarterly planning--Daisy > --- > Goal > > The goal of this research was to observe people interact with the CTA > ("Tap to add a description!") line in the header under article titles in > Wikipedia Alpha. After tapping the CTA, users experience 3 editable > scenarios: 1. an meaningful description suggestion, 2. a blank form field, > and 3. a random/irrelevant description suggestion. > > 1. Do users notice the CTA prompt? How effective are they in > triggering action? > 2. How do users feel about the CTA? > 3. How effective are descriptions that are auto-generated and > meaningful? Do they assist users with finalizing the description or confuse > users as to why they are prompted to edit a description that is already > automated and correct? > 4. How effective is not giving a user a pre-populated description > field? > 5. How effective are descriptions that are auto-generated and random? > 6. How do users feel about the process of editing description lines > overall? > > Findings: Patterns Observed > > 1. 3 of 5 users required some level of facilitator prompting to notice > the CTA. > 2. Interactivity breakdown: > 1. 2 users would most likely overlook this field, 2 users might > notice/interact depending on the situation, and 1 user was not sure. > 3. All users either specifically indicated field interaction was easy > and intuitive or had no specific complaint or struggle that was observed. > Only 1 user was briefly confused about the blank SF description field, > thinking he couldn't type because he didn't see a blinking cursor. > 4. 3 scenarios feedback breakdown > 1. Meaningful description suggestion > 1. most helpful: 2 users > 2. most helpful, but pointless because I can't see it on page: 1 > user > 3. confusing: 1 user > 2. Blank > 1. fine if you know about topic: 1 user > 2. fine and having the CTA here made most sense: 1 user > 3. most engaging: 1 user > 4. easiest: 1 user > 3. Random/irrelevant description suggestion > 1. if visible, could prompt action: 2 users > 5. 2 of 5 users expressed some level of confusion around why the > CTA hides the description. One user was confused about why he was prompted > to action when the description was correct on Picasso. Another user was > confused about the same thing, and also mentioned that he would be much > more likely to take action on the random article if he could see that the > description was incorrect. The latter also mentioned that the CTA really > only makes sense on the SF blank description page. > 6. 1 user was confused about whether these descriptions were for > himself or for all of Wikipedia. > 7. No users indicated confusion about the CTA pop-up language. > > > -- > Daisy Chen > Wikimedia Foundation > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > *https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>* > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l > >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
