On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Steven Walling <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote: > > > - instead of guessing about user preferences, you could just create a > > simple survey which shows them the same text with two different font > > stacks > > side by side, and ask them which is more readable. This is good for > > making > > aesthetic decisions more objective, and also for catching weird issues > > with > > old machines, CJK fonts etc: you can add a comment field to the > survey, > > and > > if the browser is sufficiently modern to support canvas elements, you > > can > > even save a snapshot if the rendered text; you can skim through the > > survey > > replies which are different from what you have expected, and look for > > display problems. > > > > Are you volunteering to build such a survey tool? ;-) > > We don't have a powerful/easy to use/not annoying/privacy-respecting survey > tool that can do side-by-side comparisons. This is why the feature was > launched using Beta Features for five months first. Putting out in opt-in > mode and gathering feedback via the channels we have now is the most > efficient way to make a change that doesn't have a big WMF team assigned to > like Multimedia or VisualEditor. > > When it comes to using a survey to catch problems early and gauging > preferences, a survey still very much suffers from the self-selection bias > that all opt-in options have. It's just the name of the game. When you move > something from opt-in to opt-out you reach a wider audience and encounter > new complaints/questions/bugs. > What would be a good design for such a survey? Would it be a good idea to ask surveyees which scripts they regularly read, and for each of those scripts prepare a bit of text, including hard parts (combining characters and the such), style it with fontx, sans-serif, and ask questions about the qualities we are looking for? If so, what would be the questions to ask? When I read the former tests, base questions seem to be * How would you rate the readability of this font? very/completely unreadable - somewhat unreadable - not specifically readable or unreadable - well readable - very well readable * How would you rate the neutrality of this font? (I don't really know what this means exactly, so a different phrasing is probably better, maybe something like "do you think this font has a specific style", where less is better?) Very neutral/not a specific style at all - somewhat neutral/no of a specific style - not neutral or non neutral/not much of a specific style - somewhat non-neutral/a somewhat specific style - very non-neutral/a very specific style/you just showed me papyrus * Does this font look authoritative? Very authoritative - somewhat authoritative - neither authoritative nor non-authoritative - not very authoritative - not authoritative at all/I just told you you're showing me papyrus * Does this font seem to render correctly? yes - no Is testing like this a road we want to go down at all? If so, is this specific format a good idea? Can we improve this idea to make it good? I don't mind making this in the weekend if it is a good idea. --Martijn > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
