Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Box templates

(this paragraph copied from Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal#Wikiportal_box_templates) I've created a set of templates for creating 'boxes' in wikiportal pages. Currently, the portals have boxes that are hard-coded into the portal pages themselves. This makes those edit pages unreadable, the color schemes are hard to change, and many of the boxes have css errors in them that cause content to overflow out of the box (becoming unreadable) in browsers like Firefox. Those interested should have a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/box-header.

This sort of thing may be useful in that editors won't have to be exposed to html, they could just use a template for whatever they'd like, and there'd be no worries as to accidentally "screwing up". Slike2 29 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Yeah, that's called a meta-template. Great idea, but unfortunately we have a poor implementation, which means they cause lots of server load. Until this is fixed, we are recommended not to use them. See Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. (Also see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates if you want to see a lot of vehement fighting.)  :-\ - Omegatron June 30, 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Ah, I see... that's really unfortunate. What if we used some of those templates directly? Or say, we made a "box header" template with relevant display params, and it was used using ((subst:___}} and the like? That way we could have some code set aside that was checked for being proper, and then people wouldn't have to worry about typing out all that html and getting it wrong. Slike2 30 June 2005 02:29 (UTC)
I agree completely. It's too bad. I wish I knew how to code...
Right, you can avoid getting yelled at by always using subst: - Omegatron June 30, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

User Boxes

I just discovered this "phenomena" thanks to User:Ali K and have copied a few onto my User:AlMac. I notice that some of them suffer from color combination problems like I have seen other places, plus some complicated images need to be a bit larger to figure out what exactly they mean ... like am I seeing fingers dipped into a project, or someone's pants falling down, here?

This user is involved with the Usability WikiProject

User:AlMac|(talk) 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Ali K I got a fix for the picture. I am a total amateur when it comes to images.

This user is involved with the Usability Wiki Project

User:AlMac|(talk) 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't say that I approve of these boxes. The color schemes are not appealing, and the image suggests that we serve the disabled, when in fact that is a very small percentage of those we wish to help (i.e. everyone). –MT 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I get your point that the disabled symbol gives impression that we exclusively try to help the disabled. But when found in combination with other boxes, it is evident that we can help a spectrum of people.
This user answers questions at the Reference desk.

I had thought the user box concept was an elegant way to communicate with some brevity, worth sharing the idea. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I took your suggestions, added the new logo, but kept the disability icon that I like to have there, and with help from User:Cernen got something else that works.

This user is involved with the Usability Wiki Project

User:AlMac|(talk) 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New Message to Bottom

Another thing I loved, and plagarized, for my Talk Page, which I suspect was originally developed for the Help Desks, is this box now at the top of my Talk page.


^^^(Software coding technique plagiarism from EWS23 who plagiarized (spelling?) it from Redwolf24 who plagiarized it from Linuxbeak)^^^

I think it'll be very hard to say who originally coded it. The one on my page was coded by myself and has been stolen plenty of times since, but bears a striking resemblance to the one above.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I came up with this design from scratch. Any connection to your particular box is coincidental at best. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The coding connects to My Talk Page ... you tweak if for where you copying it to User:AlMac|(talk) 10:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template standardisation/my contribution

I'm a complete aesthete and will help out with making the look and feel of Wikipedia more consistent wherever possible. I've organised the talk page template standardisation and am now working on article template standardisation. If anyone has further suggestions about how to make this place more "usable" (with regards to appearance) then I'll lend a hand. Very worthwhile WikiProject, this one. violet/riga (t) 30 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

I think this is a good idea. For one thing, many templates or charts, etc., do appear to fit on the pages well. I don't know whether that's because of my browsler or what. But I'm also slightly wary of the potential for over-standardization. I'm not saying there's an immediate danger of that, just something maybe to keep in mind. Maurreen 9 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Following up on the note above about template standards and aesthetics, I wrote to Violetriga and suggested that a running list might be compiled of visually unappealing pages. Then anyone with the inclination and ability (which is not me) could fix them.

Violetriga suggested figuring out what such a list might cover and a few example pages.

In my view, the main problem is templates that crowd each other or other material, mainly body copy, on pages. The problems I perceive might or might not be related to my browser.

Here are a few examples:

  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style -- Templates and table of contents box in introduction.
  2. North Thoresby -- Photo separates articles first two words by a few inches.
  3. Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest -- One table is atop another.
  4. Ernesto Geisel -- For about five inches, a table forces a column on the left to have only about one word on each line.

Thoughts? Maurreen 9 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

A list like that would be a great idea. I edited the thoresby article, could you see if that helped? As for the other ones, I'm not experiencing problems. What browser and version are you using (usually in help > about), and what screen resolution are you running on? Is your text enlarged? (And display issues are never related to the browser, they're always related to site creators not taking into consideration a certain popular or standards compliant browser :) –MT 00:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
North Thoresby looks much better! Thank you.
My browser is Internet Explorer version 5.0. I don't know the answers to your other questions, but the settings must be whatever the default is; hope that is helpful. Maurreen 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Guideline possiblities

Please feel free to edit this. Maurreen 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. Image width
    1. I see 300px as the maximum thumbnail width. 200px appears to be the standard, though 180px is the thumbnail default. If anyone could find pictures that are of decent form and bigger than these limits, that would be helpful. - M
  2. Template width, at Wikipedia:Template standardisation
    1. 85% is a good width, but if there's a case where it needs to be extended to 90% so that one word at the end doesn't wrap on 1024px width resolution, then 90 it should be. Nobody would notice the difference unless the templates were stacked, which they shouldn't be. I think a guideline should exist that if there are more than two templates that should be applied, the editors should just use a custom template, but extreme caution should be taken in terms of the wording (it should be derived from the other templates, with no connotative change to the messages). -M
    2. I think I agree with your basic point. Would a 90 percent default ensure that no words are wrapped around, or would it be better to separate these templates from the text some other way? Maurreen 02:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    3. The color and how they're used at the top, or that they are italic, these things do a fair job of seperating them. The width is good for making it look nice, to a greater extent even than not having a word that doesn't wrap oddly. I don't know if a strict width guideline needs to exist, due to reasons above. I think it would be ok to say "85%, unless changing it will make it look better on popular resolutions, in which case 80-90% is acceptable". But then again, the wrap can be solved by shortening the message, which usually turns out for the better, or by applying a 'nowrap' to the last few words, with a span tag. I'm pretty impartial on this, these are just some thoughts. –MT 03:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Using tables for templates - It's generally better to use the div tag as opposed to the table tag for anything which is not an ordered 'array' of information. An infobox built as a table, for example, would be appropriate, but a notice would be better as a div. Tables are a bit easier to read in terms of wikicode, but it's not like they should be edited all the time and by everybody. It's not that big a deal atm, but it would be nice to have. –MT 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Images in templates - I don't think images in templates should be very tall. About as high as they are wide would be good, I think. I have a larger screen, so something like the chemistry template looks overly tall, and wasteful, on my screen. To get a general idea of what it looks like, click here, it should be two lines with a big space at the top and bottom. I don't think you need that weird contraption anyway, three beaker/flasks/glass chemistry containers would have been enough (any template picture should not need to be over around 50x50px). –MT 02:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Table widths

Examples?

Do you have examples that demonstrate these? I'm not very technical. Maurreen 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm feeling a little slow today, what do you mean by that? Do you mean how to set out table widths, and if so, what would you like to see? –MT 03:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I mean, for instance, images of 300px, 200px, 180px, etc. ... images, templates, what-have-you that would be good examples showing what would be the result of following the guidelines. Does that make sense? Maurreen 05:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I'll make some at /examples –MT 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It seems like 150-180 px would be a good general default upper limit for image widths. Maurreen 02:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think 200ish is good. My monitor is pretty big, so 150px images look strangely small. I added a screen width test to the examples page. –MT 00:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
According to your screen-width test, I have no more than 800px. Thanks for putting that up. Maurreen 07:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists of works

I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). I thought it might be of interest to the partipants on this WikiProject. violet/riga (t) 16:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Project

What are everyone's concerns in regards to usability, and what does everyone hope that this project will do for them and for wikipedia? Myself, I'd like to see some standards regarding the (mis)use of html and css, since I've seen an unnaceptable amount of pages that look broken and unreadable on my browser. Educating users, or preventing them from dealing with these sorts of things are two of my goals. I've also seen a large amount of pages that look quite bad, usually due to color or by setting up things like tables in a manner that is completely inconsistant with wikipedia's style. I'd also like to see some order imposed on the hundreds of template boxes, perhaps defining an 'approved' set, with a style to match. And, of course, I'd like to see wikipedia become even more easy to edit. –MT 04:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about improving navigation, and helping newcomers to feel useful and welcome. I really think we should consider merging this project with a few others that are closely related - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which AlMac had touched on above. Just a thought. Quinobi 06:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Customisation

I've created Wikipedia:Customisation as a simple description of how a user can tailor their editing experience. People here might be interested in expanding it, so do please take a look. violet/riga (t) 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is nice; I hope you continue to work on it, as there are many tweaks that can be added, especially as you have made a start with JS (and CSS?), which I deliberately avoided on my Starter toolset— however, I shall promptly add Customisation. (You are British or Canadian?) ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Two competing "projects"?

What's the difference between these two groups? Wikipedia:Usability vs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability — RDF talk 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's propose a merge, I'll propose the merge on the "member" section (merging that section of the other page into the member section of this page seems most obvious?) - I suppose wikipedia:usability can still be useful to contain recommendations, tips & tricks, etc... from the merged project. --Francis Schonken 18:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tom and I setup the Wikipedia Usability Group... but I had no idea this one existed! Clearly the only sensible thing to do is to merge them - so I've just doubled your member count :) Will work more on merging content together soon. Cheers, Tom- 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Simplifying the Upload page

There is a simple, clean, better version of the Upload page(which currently, according to various new users, is not at all clear) at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Simple_version. I am trying to get enough support for it to get it implemented. Please go there and express your support, if you feel so moved. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Areas" comments

I just read the Wikipedia:Usability/Areas bit and I like the idea of having tabs as a side bar for navigation. Not letters like a paper encyclopedia, but as a way to browse sections or categories. Seems like a great idea. Has it been suggested anywhere else? 194.200.237.219 12:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Not yet (that I know of). I'm in the process of putting together a proposal but it's still very rough. Will post here soon though. Any suggestions on where else to post it? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Color Tabs is up for comment. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Although I despise them , aren't the category links on the main page for that purpose? - Kookykman|(t)(c)
Yes and no. They are for navigation, but the tabs would be available for use from wherever you may be. You don't need to go to the main page or find WP:Browse to begin. They're also more than just the main categories listed on the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Add Categorybrowsebar-like wikilinks to every wikipage

(Note. This interaction was copied from a Village pump proposal. — RDF talk 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

This is a proposal to address the difficulties many users experience when they try to thematically navigate Wikipedia after they leave the Main Page: add Categorybrowsebar-like wikilinks to every wikipage. This proposal is an update based on feedback for similar proposals at related discussion pages.

Specifically, the current proposal is to include the navigation elements contained in Template:Categorybrowsebar that used to be located on the Main Page (now a template is no longer used - causing "navigation bar drift" ;-) and other high-level pages it links to. In this template, the first line focuses on the main categories while the second line focuses on browse options. Adding the elements to the Mediawiki:Monobook.css style sheet (or wherever it actually needs to go) would allow Wikipedia to have a topical, top-level navigation scheme, based on the primary categorization scheme, that would help users move about logically and quickly from any page. Other benefits of this implementation would be that Template:Categorybrowsebar can be removed from a prominent position on several high-level pages, similar browse links can be removed from the Main Page, and the ever-insidious navigation bar drift can be eliminated.

The proposed basic approach is to use this (template:eight portals links) across the top of a page. Then add the browse options to the sidebar navigation box. The layout could look something like this. (Keep in mind that the following top-level heading actually is part of this proposal.) — RDF talk 14:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the current discussion on the usability, usage and content of the {{browsebar}} See the Template_talk:browsebar - The DJ 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Catbar(edit talk links history) is under Tfd review at the moment, it's the worst idea after WP:HIDE I've heard of. -- Omniplex 12:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Search box


 
I think a more prominent search box would be more useful than those category links. Angela. 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Angela, would you keep the Browse links in the navigation box? An important role of a navigation scheme is to help show users what's available. I don't have a problem placing the seach box across the top of the page (on a single line), but I still believe the site should offer its main categorization scheme on every page. As far as placement goes, putting top-level categories across the top (with a search box) and browse options down the side still makes sense to me. — RDF talk 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not Angela, but I think your proposal goes too far... pick ONE addition to the navigation menu that accomplishes your goal best, and then you might be able to build consensus for it. My vote goes to Browse contents. Mamawrites 08:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree the Wikipedia:Browse link alone would be enough. Perhaps the new Wikipedia:Usability project could look into this. Angela. 22:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. Using color tabs is a better idea! :-) — RDF talk 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your favorite article starts here

Bla bla bla bla bla..... This is part of the above proposal. — RDF talk 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


navigation

-unsigned

I assume this is a proposed changed to the navigation box? I think that it's a good idea. –MT 09:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the list is a little bit too long - 14 items ... --132.230.166.155 10:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Future projects and Tasks

Future projects and tasks seem to be the same thing. How about combining them and then naming the section "Projects"? Have them (the projects) start as red links with a brief description, and as people start to work on them they'll have their own pages, just as the Main page project does.

Speaking of which, AlMac comments (which takes up 70% of this page) is about ripe for archival, which I'll do if noone objects. –MT 10:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

archived up to and including "differences". –MT 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

OpenUsability

Hello,

the OpenUsability project did a study on the German Wikipedia's usability. You can find the report in English here: http://www.openusability.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=703

Best regards, --zeno 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Logo?

Although I understand that there are many important things to do right now, so this seems very trivial, but I've made a logo that can be used to represent this WikiProject. The green represents the user, and the multiple paths represent the web of information that Wikipedia provides. The center path is the clearest one, representing the goal of this project. It also resembles a flower in shape. - Kookykman|(t)(c)

It's nice, I like it. FireFox -CVU- 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! I've been making a bunch of logos for WikiProjects recently, and this is my favorite one so far. Notice the use of the Wikimedia colors. - Kookykman|(t)(c)

A diagram to help us

I created this diagram to show how the Main Page gives access to Wikipedia. I bolded the line I think that any new user should follow. It continues into the Tutorial and is unfinished from there. Among other things I think it shows how Wikipedia:Where to ask a question is missused, as well as the WP:FAQ. Help:Contents, and Wikipedia:Village Pump is underlinked, and a few pages are not directly available as they should - WP:About and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (perhaps these should be merged somewhere?). Anything I've missed that should be added to the diagram? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to reply to a remark at Wikipedia:New user log by someone who did not yet have an account, wanted an account, was having a hard time figuring out how to get one. In the process, I found that the link labeled as newcomer help did not go to something like Wikipedia:Why create an account? but really went to clueless newbies which I think has a role to help people who have an account and are needing serious help. Having had so many of my edits deleted, I am now a bit timid about editing stuff willy nilly without first saying something about my intentions on the relevant talk pages, which I plan to do about this. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

stylesheets and text contrast

There was a discussion about text contrast at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Increase_wikitable_contrast_2. A couple of editors suggested that text contrast in wikitable is insufficient. The stylesheet changes the background for tables from the default white to a grey #f9f9f9. That setting #f9f9f9 was explicitly copied from [1].

One editor pointed out that other elements in Wikipedia style reduce contrast (e.g. table of contents). So I am asking here in case we have to consider them all together.

A change to that value #f9f9f9 would be be an easy way to improve accessibility. An editor even suggested removing it entirely (so it becomes white). Would anybody like to comment? Bobblewik 15:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Web colors

I just stumbled over this article, that I thought Y"all might be interested in if Y"all not already seen it. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New MAIN PAGE redesign draft

It's been revamped. Take a look. Please post comments on the draft's disussion page. Thanks. Go for it! 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Browsebar and User Interface update



Note that the browse options on the top line of the bar are essentially Wikipedia's defacto Table of Contents, which has been added as a box to the new Main Page redesign draft in order to (hopefully) make it the official Wikipedia TOC. Go for it! 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The browsebar above, and all the pages specified on it have been upgraded and adapted by a team of navigation nuts (User:Cyberjunkie, User:Fplay, and myself) to provide a high-quality top-tier navigation structure (or User Interface) to Wikipedia. We're still working on the polishing touches, and could sure use your feedback. Go for it! 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the features we've built into this system is that the navigation bar on the Main Page now points to Portals rather than categories. The portal mirrors have been removed from the category pages, to allow the category pages to focus on what they were designed for: providing direct and immediate access to categories! As mentioned previously, all the main portals have been upgraded, to more effectively provide a "portal" or front door to their respective subject areas. Go for it! 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The navigation bar itself is now "space-context specific", so in portal space, the subjects on the bar point to portals, while in category space, they point to categories. We've also changed the ambiguous word "browse" in the bar to "categories" to avoid confusion (and on the bar on the Main Page). Go for it! 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, if it isn't too much to ask, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE COMPLETE THE UPGRADE TO THE BROWSEBAR ON THE CURRENT MAIN PAGE?

Go for it! 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, now lets see how long that change lasts. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did "Ask a question" go? Now how are people supposed to find the Reference Desk? —Keenan Pepper 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's the very first item listed in the FAQ (which is on the browsebar), and it's also on the main help page (there's a whole section on asking questions). Go for it! 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Trevor. The person who removed Art and Philosophy cited the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Art packs a lot of punch for being only 3 letters, while Philosophy is on the same level as Science, both of which rank above Mathematics on the hierarchy of fields. See ya at that discussion! Go for it! 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed

The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply at FPC Talk drumguy8800 - speak? 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign DRAFT 4 ready for comment

Take a look: Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft
Go for it! 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Loss of usability due to editor-bias/focus

This problem is rather big and I predict massive opposition to the solution, so I've been hesitant to bring it up as I lack the time to properly defend the position. But, that's not a good way to go about things, so at the very least I should throw it out and see what people think. The biggest usability problems with the English Wikipedia right now are, in my opinion, caused by one thing:

Wikipedia editors use up critical resources (e.g. the main page, the portals) to suit their own desires, and not those of the typical user. It's much like having a chef who ignores your order, and serves his favorite dish instead. Not exactly, because our users don't and are probably incapable of making a proper "order", but I hope you get my point.

My position on this is rather extreme. Everything below that textual header on our main page is useless, as is most of the content on every portal. Let's be quite honest, the only people who care what the latest featured article, the selected anniversaries, and the latest facts from the latest articles are trivia enthusiasts and Wikipedia editors. Sadly, I don't believe that that is our main audience. And yet it's taking up the entire main page, save for four weak lines at the top.

Imagine yourself to be the typical Wikipedia user - one that is not familiar with the main page. What would they expect there, and what would be most useful to them? Assuming they have some definite purpose, and are not merely looking for time to kill, what they need is a page with tools that will help them get to their destination as quickly as possible.


I've gone through (too many) alternate language wikipedias to see how things are done there. Here are the notable results:

Design

  • bs - good, though small-fonted (also mk)
  • es - good
  • el - good, though perhaps slightly crowded
  • br - use of big icons (and friends ...rotpiruareuscnfr)
  • tr - pretty clean
  • nl - big icons link to the portals. Portals use a big image at the top, which I am fond of in paper encyclopedias, but may not work well/consistantly here. (also he note two links: one to portals, one to categories)
  • ceb - textual (crowded?) (also yo)

Interesting features that may merit consideration

  • ca - interesting use of tabs, though sub-par use of color
  • lad color coding of categories (also gl)
  • pt - the right hand side "help"-style panel
  • it - there's been some interest in rounded corners lately I think

And of course the others I've found that seem to have some form of decent navigational aid... [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Perhaps we will find this commentary useful. –MT 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I particularly like the Spanish main page, as I think it gives a nice balance of content. If one knows exactly what they want, they probably arrive at Wikipedia through Google to an article page (not through the mainpage). If someone doesn't know exactly what they're looking for, they might arrive at the main page to browse, explore, ... Yet the Spanish page also offers article of the day (important motivation for contributors to write really great articles), and in the news (I think important to highlight advantages of Wikipedia - it's currentness). They also have "do you know", though my preference would be for "on this day" - anniversaries.
The question we need to ask is who are the primary users of the main page. This will take looking at "entry page" statistics, which I haven't yet found (maybe admin-only access). Also, maybe a straw poll of editors (what's your primary entry page)? For me, my watchlist is bookmarked and that's where I go first. Though, sometimes I like looking at the main page to see what the "featured article" is or "in the news" to find articles that might need work.
The key to making something like the Spanish main page work here, is that once you click on "explore", "help", "browse"... they are taken to pages that are also very useful, well-designed, and have the content they need. User:Go for it! and others have been working some on that.
In my opinion, better addressing the needs of the main page users (readers? who?) is what necessitates a main page redesign. The current proposed design isn't there yet but hopefully will lead to what's needed. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference templates being made inaccessible

Because of internal changes to Wikipedia's template code, some editors are systematically changing the way that a number of reference templates work. Junk code is being inserted into the text of the page, and then hidden using CSS. There is an alternative solution, but this method appears to be chosen because it is easier to implement, and accessibility is being ignored. This is appallingly contrary to the principal that Wikipedia should be accessible to all users. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Journal reference#Junk code, and make your opinion heard. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:42 Z

EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia - Template placement

Hi all. There's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia concerning the placement of the Spoken Wikipedia template. I thought that some of this project's editors might be interested, since it's an issue related to usability (especially for those who cannot see well enough to read the articles and depend on the spoken versions).

Some are in favor of placing it in the External links section, akin to sister projects, but others are worried about users being able to find it there. There used to be a link for the spoken version up at the top of articles, in the top heading, but it was removed because of some technical issues. Comments, opinions and ideas are welcome. Thanks! ~MDD4696 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Customizable Main Page?

I've seen a lot of discussion over redesigns of the Main Page, and my question is what should the ultimate aim be? Should it be to have something as simple as possible that as many people as possible can use (call this the MAIN PAGE)? Then fix this in stone, but make clear that it is a simple template that most people should modify to create their own main page. Anyone who comes along with a bright idea or personal preference for layout, can then create their own version (probably in their user space) and use it as their personal "entry point". Kind of similar to using RSS feeds, or having a skin. This would avoid the countless edit wars I've seen over minor points of style and trying to fix a page to suit a few types of users, rather than leaving it flexible enough for all users to use it in their own way. Maybe I'm missing something and this wouldn't be workable, or is already possible, but I'd sure like to see a range of styles and "Main Page" designs available to pick and choose from. You would also be able to change things over time as you moved around different areas of Wikipedia, altering your personal "home page" to 'retire' the old interests and add the new ones. 62.31.128.13 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good, interesting comments. So that people working the main page see them, I just copied your comments over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft#Customizable_Main_Page.3F. Please look there for responses. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional "Opening" Page

There is another alternative to worrying so about what exactly is presented on the Main opening page— Which I agree should be a cross between something that showcases the capabilities of Wikipedia (which is an argument for the current layout including the "article of the day," etc.) and a guide to how to obtain the information (a non-contributing) user might be looking for.

My solution would be to provide a repeat user with a "Toolset" page one can open upon (that one could bookmark), and that one can (1) modify in accordance with one's wishes, and (2) provide a rigorous "Starter toolset" into the heart of wikipedia.

One example is Wikipedia:Starter toolset, which I am in process of majorly upgrading. Suggestions are strongly solicited. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Projectboxes

The new project to take care of projectboxes. There are a lot of usability issues there, so some participants of this project may want to join. Zocky | picture popups 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What about main page configurability?

I have some questions about the possibility of users configuring the main page to fit their own tastes, and was wondering what options were available to users right now for accomplishing this. Please click on the heading above to see my questions on this subject. I look forward to reading your replies. --Go for it! 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Browser plug-ins

Technically this isn't improving the usability of Wikipedia itself, but is about improving ways to search Wikipedia. It is also really only for those doing LOTS of searches on Wikipedia, but I thought the following links to mozdev.org might be of interest [19] and [20] (to do wikipedia searches through Google). If you have Firefox, you eventually end up highlighting something, right-clicking, and selecting a Google search of Wikipedia for the highlighted term. Something I find useful anyway. See also Wikipedia:Browser_notes#Search_Plugins Carcharoth 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Great project

Great project, I really liked your redesign of the Main Page. I hope you will work afterwards on a redisign of Wikipedia:Featured articles before its 1000th article. CG 15:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar headers

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers, at

Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. thanks. --Quiddity 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. So if you use the above bar, you need to let us know. Or if you just have an opinion, like how to gather appropriate feedback (!) drop on by and tell us. Do non-editors use the bar? And how do we find this out?! --Go for it! 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On overusing templates

I started a discussion at Template talk:Editor toc#Two help templates. I feel there is a trend on Wikipedia to overuse templates which results in cluttered pages from the top, sides and bottom. Comments there are appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of audio version

Wikipedias structure will be easy to understand if it's appearance clearly shows the hierachal relationships between the things on the page:
  1. The more important it is, the more visible it should be.
  2. Logically related items should also be visually related.
  3. Sub-items should be "nested".

I have a question: how to interpret these rules in audio version of Wikipedia? AirBa 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal redesign

Proposal to move "Main Page redesign" to past projects, and amend our current project to be the community portal redesign.--Quiddity 08:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Css cleanup assistance Requested, main page

  • Also a note that the css on the main page still needs someone with xhtml/mediawiki experience to clean it up. (it hurts my eyes but) i think there are a lot of duplicate styles being embedded needlessly, and divs that should be spans structurally? I posted a VPt but only water bottle's change on March 31 has come since, and i'm not sure who to turn to next.--Quiddity 08:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please provide a link to the page where the page style may be most easily edited. –MT 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    I just copied the current main page code to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page. It uses a number of transcluded templates that should also be checked. The page styles are at MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Common.css (and more?). --Quiddity 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Are Wikis Usable?

You might be interested in reading this paper which I (Alain Désilets) co-wrote. It is a very detailed account of the usability problems encountered by Grade 4-6 children in using a wiki to collaboratively write hypertext stories [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.209.207 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC).


What I found whas that link creation was the #1 source of problems, followed by a number of distant seconds (hypertext authoring, image upload, etc...)

The children I observed were not using MediaWiki, but most of what I observed seems independant of the wiki engine.

Alphabetical member's list, format, and removal of inactive members

Perhaps the member list should be alphabetical and not chronological? I'd also enjoy seeing a stricter formatting of names - [User:X|X]] [User talk:X|(talk)], but I doubt that those with special formatting attached to theirs would agree. And perhaps cleaning out the inactive members would be of some benefit. –MT 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Search box highlight - help?

I posted a VPt that went to archives without a reply. Where should i try next? --Quiddity 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This has moved to VPp, please come support/comment there. thanks :-) -Quiddity 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Highlight_search_box

Footnote font size

An interesting usability-related discussion (font size for footnotes) is going on here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (.references) --Francis Schonken 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Site Javascript

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive#Site Javascript:

The file http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&smaxage=0&gen=js has javascript that transforms the Article tab for the Main Page to say "main page". It should really be changed to "Main Page", as all the other tabs are capitalised with the lower-casing done by CSS. This causes the Main Page to look horrible and inconsistant in browsers that don't support text-transform: lowercase; (or for anyone browsing with CSS off). — Ian Moody (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

— Ian Moody (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Archive_2&oldid=1080430181"