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
Hello,
the results Parul and the team shared with us touched some frustrating
memories of mine. I often found it difficult to explain to Wikipedians
how hard it is to edit, and that we should consider to modify some of
the MediaWiki.
A couple of years ago I had a usability test of my own, when
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
david gerard writes:
No, no. All wikiprojects could be merged into *Wikibooks* if one were
so inclined. The encyclopedia is clearly only one book in the library,
it's just by far the biggest one.
Indeed. Or into Wiktionary, since it's all just a matter of defining
in detail various keywords,
13 matches
Mail list logo
