Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Archive 2

message: (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?
User:AlMac|(talk) 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Box templates 

message: 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?
User:AlMac|(talk) 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
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)
thread_title:  User Boxes 

message: 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.
User:AlMac|(talk) 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Logo 

message: 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.
You can click here to leave me a new message.
^^^(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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Message to Bottom 

message: Please feel free to edit this. Maurreen 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have examples that demonstrate these? I'm not very technical. Maurreen 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I'll make some at /examples –MT 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: According to your screen-width test, I have no more than 800px. Thanks for putting that up. Maurreen 07:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline possiblities

message: :Do you have examples that demonstrate these? I'm not very technical. Maurreen 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I'll make some at /examples –MT 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: According to your screen-width test, I have no more than 800px. Thanks for putting that up. Maurreen 07:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lists of works 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Customisation 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Two competing "projects"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simplifying the Upload page 

message: (Note. This interaction was copied from a Village pump proposal.  — RDF talk 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the current discussion on the usability, usage and content of the  See the Template_talk:browsebar - The DJ 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Add Categorybrowsebar-like wikilinks to ''every'' wikipage

message: type=search
bgcolor=#eeeeff
buttonlabel=Go
searchbuttonlabel=Search
----
:I think a more prominent search box would be more useful than those category links. Angela. 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Search box 

message: :::::Bla bla bla bla bla..... This is part of the above proposal.  — RDF talk 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is a little bit too long - 14 items ... --132.230.166.155 10:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Your favorite article starts here

message: 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)
replies: text: archived up to and including "differences". –MT 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future projects and Tasks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OpenUsability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A diagram to help us 

message: 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 .
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)
thread_title:  stylesheets and text contrast 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Web colors]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New MAIN PAGE redesign draft 

message: Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index
 
Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology 
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)
replies: text: Done, now lets see how long that change lasts. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where did "Ask a question" go? Now how are people supposed to find the Reference Desk? —Keenan Pepper 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Browsebar and User Interface update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day '''expert''' needed 

message: Take a look:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft
Go for it! 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page Redesign DRAFT 4 ready for comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference templates being made inaccessible 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia#Placement of spoken article templates|Spoken Wikipedia]] - Template placement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Customizable Main Page? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional "Opening" Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Projectboxes|WikiProject Projectboxes]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Forging_ahead_-_What_about_main_page_configurability.3F|What about main page configurability?]]

message: 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  and  (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)
thread_title:  Browser plug-ins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Browsebar headers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On overusing templates 

message: :Wikipedias structure will be easy to understand if it's appearance clearly shows the hierachal relationships between the things on the page:
:#The more important it is, the more visible it should be.
:#Logically related items should also be visually related.
:#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)
thread_title: Architecture of audio version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Community Portal redesign 

message: *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)
thread_title: Css cleanup assistance Requested, main page

message: 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  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.209.207 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Wikis Usable? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alphabetical member's list, format, and removal of inactive members 

message: I posted a VPt that went to archives without a reply. Where should i try next? --Quiddity 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has moved to VPp, please come support/comment there. thanks :-) -Quiddity 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search box highlight - help? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Footnote font size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Site Javascript