Talk:Main Page/Concept/2006/September

I had the same idea User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage, comments anyone? - Trevor MacInnis 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Design Revision

• Summary of discussion: This needs tweaks, then this can be posted. A strong majority would like to see this design posted (10 or 11 of 13, including 2 comments on Trevor's design talk page), and some say tweaking is needed first. Almost all would like to see the design tweaked somehow. In response to feedback, Trev has done extensive tweaking now, two rounds at least, including in response to above comments, to improve this. A few minor things remain to do. This is almost ready.
• Recent tweaks: The clock is gone. The globe is gone (though I think it could've stayed). The colors are more muted and also uniform. The text in the main column is larger.
• An observation: When a new design is introduced, some will almost always prefer the old design, a simpler design, or another design. There is the possibility of making main page text into templates so that different main page skins can be used. In this case, since there is a strong majority in support for the new design, it seems reasonable for that to be the new default design (or skin).
• The intent for the review was to see, rather quickly in a day or two, if there were any real problems with the new design. A review seems a good and even necessary step for a big design change on the main page -- but the assumption was this can be done rather quickly since this a new project. One significant problem did get mentioned in comments: usability. Usability is a serious issue. Text size has been mentioned by three people as an issue (two mentions on this page and one on the design comment page). I agree with that being an issue. Text size has been partly revised and will be addressed further. There is a question as to whether the right hand column text on blue background is too low a contrast. Once the text size in the right column is increased and the blue background on right is addressed (lighter blue? white box inside?), I think this can go up. Further comments? Thanks very much for your input, Reswik 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the design is coming along nicely. Indeed, it has been significantly improved. With a bit more tweaking (such as the aforementioned contrast adjustment), it should be ready for implementation. Let's just wait at least a few more days to resolve the remaining bugs and verify that everyone's concerns have been addressed. If I can find the time, I'll try to help out. —David Levy 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another day or so should be fine. I don't think we need to take too much longer because Trevor is in midst of further tweaking for usability concerns. Further edits can be done with the design in place. Reswik 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• What's the rush? Continual significant changes to a wiki's main page confuse readers and make the site seem less professional. There's no harm in taking a few extra days to make sure that we have everything in order. In particular, we need to ensure compatibility with all major browsers. Has anyone tested the page with JAWS or Window-Eyes (the most popular screen readers for visually impaired people)? —David Levy 16:49/16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it is ready for posting now. My main concern is Trevor has done 3 rounds of edits now (or 4 or 5 if you count several rounds fo tweaking in response to our requests in last day). He seems to be a very patient and helpful person. Perhaps he doesn't mind more work requested. However, I am concerned about us asking too much of our creative volunteers and frankly possibly scaring off future contributions. Further, the strong majority of the community opinion is to put up the page, once tweaked. It is revised and that has been well done. Maybe 1 or 2 things remain but those will be done I'm sure. I think the community can now assume the task of making changes and tolerating changes, which is in the nature of a wiki community, especially early on. It is ok to wait till tomorrow to see if any more comments come up. Feel free to dive in to edit the page. Thanks for you attention to quality in this, but let's do move on with the community's sense please, Reswik 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, Trevor was heavily involved in the English Wikipedia's main page redesign (which took months). I'm not suggesting that we should invest nearly that much time, but I'm quite confident that a few extra days won't wear out Trevor's patience or scare off future contributions.
• Secondly, I'll ask again if anyone has tested the page with JAWS or Window-Eyes. You've cited a mandate from "the strong majority of the community," but minorities matter too. If this design breaks the page for blind people (which actually occurred at Wikipedia), it doesn't matter how good it looks to those capable of seeing it. —David Levy 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Window reading issues for those with visual impairment that you mention are an important useability issue. That review needs to be done. I overlooked that; thanks for restating. Thanks also for information on Trevor's background. I'm relieved to hear that. Minority opinions do matter of course. We have dealt with the mentioned minority issues of usability in Trevor's round of edits today. I think you are trying to introduce too high a standard of production values and review for the first two weeks of the beta version of this project. Once the needed review for visual impairment issues are in place, I think this should be uploaded as soon as tomorrow. If you can think of anything else tangible that might need to be addressed in the design, please explicate. Thanks, Reswik 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Usability is my primary concern. It's important to test the design to ensure compatibility with all of the major browsers (IE, Mozilla, Safari, Opera, etc.), screen readers (JAWS, Window-Eyes), and resolutions from 800x600 up (at the default text size). Given that most people seem to like the overall design, issues pertaining to aesthetics can be resolved later. —David Levy 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for feedback. I had checked IE and Mozilla previously. I just checked the design on IE and Mozilla in more resolutions. It looks ok (but at 600x800 in IE the right column is long; and in 1152x864 the design isn't as balanced). Do you (or does anyone?) have time to check in Safari and Opera and do you have the facility and time to check JAWS or Window-Eyes and if so how much time might that take? If you don't have time we can ask the list up at top level... Reswik 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can check it in Opera. I don't have access to an OS X system at the moment, so someone else will have to check it in Safari. A blind gentleman (who uses JAWS) assisted in the repair of the English Wikipedia's main page (which we ignorantly debuted without realizing that it was broken), and I'll attempt to contact him. —David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's great. For next design change (if there is one), it would be good to have a checklist of all the things to check (and associated programs) so that someone can replicate this checking who has not been through it. Reswik 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility

I had a few problems with the design in JAWS 5.1, which isn't the latest version but is still a good sample.

JAWS read out the lines saying "edit" which lead to an edit screen for the main page; the confusing thing about that was that the preceding line always said "link graphic icon" which lead me to the image description page for the icon image. The edit link for section headings on wikiversity pages was announced after the name of the heading rather than before it as it is on wikipedia; this confused me at first but I think it makes more sense to have the name of the heading read before the edit link.

I also think the column sections should be replaced with <h2> and </h2> if possible, so they can be navigated to like normal sections of a page. At the moment what I see when I press "h" for the next heading is: "from wikiversity", "welcome", "library" "Wikiversity in other languages" then "Wikiversity's sister projects". On my first browsing of the page I missed a lot of the information which was not in those section headings. JAWS also reads many blank lines after the end of each column which is distracting. I like the way section headings are used in the original main page, and I'm not too fussed about the heading on "Welcome to wikiversity. -- Graham87 06:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback! The "edit" link issue is caused by the use of hiddenStructure markup (which lead developer Brion Vibber has deemed unacceptable). You brought this code's incompatibility to our attention at Wikipedia.

I noticed this problem, as well as the lack of <h2> and </h2> tags. I created a version without hiddenStructure code, and I managed to incorporate <h2> and </h2> tags in some (but not yet all) of the page. If you could test this version, I would sincerely appreciate it. It's located at: Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2. —David Levy 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that reads a lot better. Another small thing: I think there should be more obvious differences in the titles between Wikiversity:Service and Wikiversity:Services as the titles sound similar with a screen reader. I know this project is still in its infancy and such things will be sorted out in time; I just prefer descriptive and unambiguous page titles. Graham87 06:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance! I agree that "Service" and "Services" are far too similar, and I hope that we can devise better names. —David Levy 06:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)