Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Browse bar items Poll

Another issue is what to include in the top browse bar? I have summarized the above discussion of this in the table below. Please add to the discussion pros/cons and I will update the table. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar items

	Support	Oppose
About Wikipedia	2	1
Almanac	1	3
Alphabetical index	3	2
Ask a question	3	2
Browse	1	2
Categories	2	2
Donations	1	2
FAQ	3	1
Glossaries	1	4
Help	1	0
How to edit?	2	1
Index	1	1
Introduction	2	1
Lists	2	3
Look it up	0	2
Overviews	2	3
Portals	4	1
Questions	3	3
Site news	1	3
Topics A-Z	1	2
Why create an account?	1	0

• I think categories, glossaries, lists, overviews, and almanac need to go. We can have that many different ways here to browse Wikipedia. It's confusing. And instead of "Portals", I suggest "Browse Wikipedia" which links to Portal:Browse. I'm not sure new users would understand Portals=Browse topics. We need to be as clear and straightforward as possible. Same for "Questions", "Introduction", etc. My proposal is for:

About Wikipedia · FAQs · Browse · Topics A-Z · How to edit? · Help · Donations

--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above line repeats "Wikipedia" three times, which is an incredible waste of space, if not irritatingly repetitious.

The following line has been developed over the past few months and has the benefit of undergoing an enormous amount of beta-testing. The drafts which sported it in the straw poll above did very well. It is already in widespread use across the upper hierarchy of Wikipedia (on upper level category pages, on portals, on the lists of lists, major Wikipedia namespace help pages, etc.), and has received very little if any complaints from users in general:

Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

Note that the above line includes all of the Table-of-contents-like pages of Wikipedia. So if you want to find something on Wikipedia, this is one of the most powerful tools available. And as such it would do the greatest service on the Main Page.

For this project, the addition of introduction seemed to be well-regarded, as those drafts which included it did well. And this would be the most likely link for newcomers to click:

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

I support the above line, as wordiness and repetition have been removed and the use of space has been optimized by providing the most useful links available on Wikipedia for looking stuff up. Also, the more common terms have been used, such as "Index" as opposed to "A-Z" - everyone knows that the standard for indices is alphabetization. I have updated the chart accordingly, supporting these and more importantly opposing the rest (which are mostly verbose entries from the current main page). --Go for it! 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I particularly feel that "Glossaries" sounds like it fits within the goals of Wikitionary, and we should point people there to add defintions - not Wikipedia. And, categories largely fill the role of creating lists. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this bar, but there's something about it that bothers me. The question-asking structure is effectively the same as it is now. I don't think this will decrease the volume of people asking questions on the reference desks that could be answered by typing a word into the search bar. There needs to be something explicit, on the front page, and prominently displayed that makes it clear. BTW, how in the world did you arrive at one vote for and one vote against Look it up? Black Carrot 02:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I voted against Look it up. I'm sorry, but the whole concept of looking stuff up is implicit in the very design of the browsebar, the main page, and Wikipedia as a whole. All that is needed to improve the Questions page / Reference Desk overload problem is a fix similar to the one they are working on for Reference Desk right now: placing a search box there with strong suggestions on using it first. Another very good place to cover the Look it up issue would be to make sure it was taught in the Wikipedia:Introduction tutorial. --Go for it! 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to finding a better way to handle "questions". As for "Look it up", I think you had suggested it, so I counted you as support. Go for it! has voted against it. I don't know about trying to count votes - this isn't an election, but rather trying go gauge opinion and stimulate more discussion. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The single word topic Questions is all that the Main Page should be expected to provide, a pointer and not an tutorial. The link should lead to a well thought out mini-tutorial providing guidance to a very wide spectrum of visitors that arrive there and including the Look it up concept. hydnjo talk 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys have looked at the OpenUsability research report done on the german wikipdeia, right? That information can be used here. Personally, I'm biased to this: User_talk:Kevin_baas/main_page_proposal2. Kevin Baas^talk 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Horrible. No offense, Kevin Baas, but please reduce the visibility of the Reference Desk. It is already flooded with nonsense, because people figure asking is easier than searching. I notice the invitation to ask questions even dwarfs the search box. -- Ec5618 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Provide us with a link. Also, is it in German? --Go for it! 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here, I found it http://openusability.org/reports/view.php?group_id=109&repid=69. It's in English. I'm going to read over it now. Thanks for mentioning this. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some key points that I got out of the usability report [1]:

• Clearly explain the basic concept of Wikipedia. The keywords “free” and “everyone can edit” need to be highlighted.
• Add item to the main navigation leading the user to a Wikipedia introduction page (About Wikipedia, possibly the Welcome page).
• The information density of the German start page is very high. During the tests, there were nine different information boxes, most holding continuous text instead of bullets, and mostly a number of more than ten links.
• Try to follow the mantra “Less is more”: Reduce the number of featured articles and links.
• It is questionable if the separation of portals and categories is necessary. It has been shown that it is not intuitive, and the difference is not clear. Consider joining the parts, providing subcategories and “All Articles” links in each Portal. In order to do so, evaluate if portals and categories can be mapped in a useful way.

And some responses to them:

• I think we're doing well with emphasizing "Free" and "Anyone can edit".
• "About Wikipedia" or "Introduction" is important in the browse bar. Most websites use "About..." (e.g. About Google, About Ebay, ...), which sounds better, more direct to me than "Introduction", but either could work.
• Instead of "Questions" or "Ask a question", how about "Help" to the Help Desk or Help:Contents? I liken Wikipedia to Ebay, as it's also participatory and has some learning curve to it. Ebay has "HELP" prominently at the top of their site.
• The concerns about information density are inline with my reasoning on including the picture of the day, but with just the title and photo credits. The POTD helps visually to break up the text, but the entire image caption might overdo it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Keep the repetition down, and emphasize "you can look it up yourself" over "just ask at the reference desk".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to take the main points from that report and use it to create a browser bar. I understand why the reference desk link should go, but something needs fill it's space on my mock-up. I think the browse bar should be kept to around 5 or 6 items, in keeping with "less is more", and that was part of my thinking. Also, with such a reduction and two lines, you can spell it out, instead of one, ambiguous word: "Learn how to edit an article." and the like, pretty friggin' clear. (hey, I can edit an article? Wow!) Kevin Baas^talk 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What I tried today is putting these links above the search box/header bar, and right-align them. (User:Kmf164/Main page draft). I think that might work, but worth discussing and exploring all the ideas more. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. I think the browser bar might be a little easy to miss where it is, though. But maybe w/nothing on top of it it would be less so. One might experiment with its vertical position. And to refine what i said earlier, 7 links is okay too. I wouldn't go more, though. 7,6,5, I don't think I'd go down to 4. The whole design looks good. I'm going to work on some refinements to my draft when I have the time, such as 15 portals, remove the RD link, add featured picture and the language box, change the sister projects icon, make the portal icons smaller... Kevin Baas^talk 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New browsebar item

how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas^talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My votes

• About Wikipedia -- yes.
• Almanac -- no.
• Alphabetical index -- no.
• Ask a question -- yes.
• Browse -- no.
• Categories -- no.
• Donations -- yes.
• FAQ -- yes.
• Glossaries -- no.
• Help -- yes.
• How to edit? -- yes.
• Index -- no.
• Introduction -- yes.
• Lists -- no.
• Look it up -- no.
• Overviews -- don't know.
• Portals -- yes.
• Questions -- yes.
• Site news -- yes.
• Topics A-Z -- don't know.
• Why create an account? -- yes.

—Nightstallion (?) 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)