On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>wrote:
> Fabrice Florin, 15/03/2014 00:13: > >> We would appreciate your advice on our upcoming research study of image >> load times on Media Viewer. [...] >> *I. Goals* >> The goal of this study is to determine whether or not Media Viewer is >> loading images fast enough for the majority of our users in most common >> situations. >> >> As a typical user of the Media Viewer, I want images to load quickly, in >> just a few seconds, so I don't have to wait a long time to see them. [...] >> >> Definitions: [...] >> *II. Questions* [...] >> >> *III. Outcomes* [...] >> > > I'm confused. Too many questions, too many arbitrary definitions, axioms. > No falsifiability. I understand the idea of defining a minimum quality > standard to respect, it might even be the only way, but it's a thicket that > moreover only indirectly verifies what we're actually interested in. > At its root is simple, we need to know if readers enjoy the images/media > more or get annoyed and don't look at them because they're too slow. > (Measuring the value they get from the media, or attach to the page in > consequence hence becoming more likely to visit the project more, is less > clearcut.) So maybe there is some simple check for this, if surveys don't > work maybe just the total number of requests or something. > > Nemo > (Cross-posting to multimedia list since I think my reply there was bounced.) Hey Federico, I hope you'll forgive me for some shameless (but brief) thread-jacking that won't answer any of your questions but instead raise a couple of tangential points. Apologies for the derail. I regret not being subscribed to the multimedia list (a mistake I plan to rectify immediate after sending off this e-mail) and thus not having had the chance to respond sooner. I haven't yet had a chance to review the results, but I did have a chance to closely review the instrumentation code that the Multimedia team devised for collecting these measurements, and I can tell you that it is extremely sophisticated, making use of a web performance API, the specification of which has graduated to W3C recommendation status *last month*. I don't know yet if any errors were made in the statistical sampling and aggregation of data (and I want to be careful not to suggest that there have been any), but I do want to stress that this represents a major technical achievement and that I think we will glean a lot of insight about the performance of multimedia content on Wikimedia wikis from this infrastructure for years to come. So, kudos for that! --- Ori Livneh [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Multimedia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
