On 19 September 2012 17:27, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 19:27, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>> On 17 September 2012 18:03, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:

>>> They were designed to be used, after all.
>>> I also haven't seen any solid argument for collapsing any navboxes by
>>> default (except perhaps those in the topnav which pop up on mouseover).

>> It was one of the usability ideas from the Vector team. Apparently
>> features confuse users.

> I think it's not unreasonable to say "every extra word in the interface
> makes the interface a tiny bit more confusing" - one of the eternal
> problems of our interface is excessive and disorienting clutter. It's great
> if you're used to it - it's always impressive to watch an experienced
> Wikipedian navigate a site in an entirely different language and script
> just by knowing where things are - but it's a pretty daunting thing to
> start with.
> I don't know if a collapsed toolbox is the best way to do it (perhaps a top
> drop-down, like the gadgets option, would be better) but it's an attempt at
> solving the overload problem.

That there was a plausible reason to hide functionality doesn't mean
it actually works out to be a good idea, and it arguably not working
out to be one is the point of this thread. It turns out that if you
obscure functionality, people don't know it exists and their use of
the site is hampered. We do need to convert readers to editors, after

- d.

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to