User talk:Trevor Parscal (WMF)

From Wikimedia Usability Initiative
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, I came to this wiki to make a proposal for an usability improvement. But I couldn't find a page to make proposals. Where do I do that (so the usability initative team sees it)? And where can I read the exact text of the grant by the Stanton foundation so I can see whether it is in the scope? --::Slomox:: >< 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in the general scope of our project see our project scope article. If you'd like to propose something, feel free to discuss it on that page's discussion. Trevor Parscal 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the page Project Scope is more like a roadmap. It doesn't tell much about the scope. What I am looking for is the text of the grant. I repeatedly read things like "the grant from the Stanton Foundation aims specifically at improving the usability of Wikipedia". So there must be a document that says something like: "We, the Stanton Foundation, grant the Wikimedia Foundation a sum of A to do X, Y and Z. This grant is restricted by the requirements of B and C." --::Slomox:: >< 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to FAQ and Talk:Main_Page for the information you are seeking. Once the results from the usability study is organized, we will be publishing them for discussion. Stay tuned. --Shuhari 00:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I already have seen both of them, but I am interested in the original statement of the Stanton Foundation. The info on the FAQ and Main Page talk is already digested, I'd like to see the raw text.
Oh, and by the way: in terms of usability the Captcha on every single edit on this wiki is not very user friendly ;-) --::Slomox:: >< 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The development of grant proposals is commonly done in confidence between the potential funder and the organization applying for a grant. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that organizations which award grants may not be comfortable with other potential grantees drawing conclusions or making incorrect assumptions based on grant proposals awarded in the past, and grantees needing to protect private information (sometimes individuals are named in the grant proposal, recommendations are given, budgets include specific salary assumptions, etc.). I would like us to challenge some of these assumptions over time, but this is something that you only want to raise as a grantee when a relationship has matured and some successful projects have been executed with a funder, not when both organizations are still in the getting-to-know-you stage. For this reason, as is common practice, the full grant proposal is confidential, and we've tried to give some reasonable high-level information in the FAQ, etc., which derive directly from the proposal. But, most of the substantial planning documents developed in the course of the initiative will be public.--Eloquence 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is about private information, salaries etc. remove them and publish the text without them. The interesting part (not only interesting, but crucial) for the community is the information about what the foundation wants to achieve with its grant. --::Slomox:: >< 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Always assume good faith. Trevor Parscal 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you say that? --::Slomox:: >< 23:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What I mean with Why do you say that?: Why do you think, that I assume bad faith, about what? I just think, that the exact aims and goals of the grant are the basis for the whole usability initiative. The usability initiative is based on as well as aimed at community participation. But how can I participate as a community member, when I don't really know, what the initiative wants to achieve? All I know is: "improve usability on Wikipedia". The initiative is focussed on English Wikipedia (the outcome will be applied to all projects, but at least the development phase is focussed on en:). Is this focus already part of the grant or is it a measure of pragmatism? For things like that, I want to know the original grant.
I don't want to see a full scan of the original document or anything like that. I'm not into lawyerism or anything like that, if that's your fear. I just want a short excerpt of the grant with the information about what shall be achieved with the grant. Just some sentences relevant to that. But original sentences and not digested ones. --::Slomox:: >< 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't assume that our summary is an accurate reflection of what the grant proposes, then you're not assuming good faith. But if you feel like we haven't covered an important topic, feel free to ask a specific question, and I'll try to answer it as best I can, if necessary by including a direct quote.--Eloquence 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Specific questions:
Are - besides Wikipedia - "other Wikimedia projects" explicitly mentioned anywhere in the grant?
Is "English" mentioned anywhere in the grant?
The grant has a sum of $890,000. How much of this money is still available (for example for tender offers for specific programming tasks) if we distract all costs which are already allocated? Are there any allocated sums for specific tasks?
Are there any specific usability improvements mentioned in the grant, that the Stanton Fund wants to see accomplished?
Are there any conditions and goals connected with the grant that _have_ to be met? --::Slomox:: >< 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on the mockups

I commented on your mockup designs at Talk:Designs. Nihiltres 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for simple wiki-code improvement for links

A small suggestion to improve usability for newcomers - and perhaps out of scope(?): One problem for newcomers and rare users with the present wiki markup language is the superfluous distinction between web and wiki links. While the present markup for http-web-links (single brackets, blank as separator to displaytext) cannot and need not be changed, it confuses newcomers that [[ | link to usability wiki]] does not work, it renders as: "[| link to usability wiki]". Introducing this as an alternative form would be backwards compatible and help reducing barriers to participation. --G.Hagedorn 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete

Can you please delete Tiana tila khanya? Unless those three words mean something very important in another language, it should be deleted. --Michaeldsuarez 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! I will look for other things that may need cleaning as well. Trevor Parscal 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created Template:Delete and Category:Deleteme to make things easier. Microchip08 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus of usability project

When I understood things right, then improving the usability of navigating and arranging links/functions (toolbox, sidebar, page-action) is not in the scope of the current usability project, or is it? The thing why I'm asking is that I proposed some ideas on the feedback page of the prototypes and now I think those mock-ups can't be taken into consideration by the usability team because of a different focus. Is this true? -Eneas 08:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

There is a request on Talk:Main Page to change the incorrect "Stanton Foundation" on Main Page to "Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund". As the request has been there for two months with no attention, I am spamming this to all administrators in the hope someone sees it. 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Search Page

I want to restore the external search engine which are broken on almost all wikis. Is it stable enough to fix the javascript now ? Requests to the steewart. Pmartin 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia : user : hopiakuta

Are the terms disability-access-barrier, disability-access-community, element to this project? Please do justify your response @: wikipedia : user : hopiakuta.

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 19:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Localisation of feedback form

My previous posts on the general talk pages Talk:Releases/Acai#Localisation_of_feedback_form and the main page, concerning the localisation of the feedback form, have as yet had no response. Ideally, I want to know what is going on (or not going on!) as far as dealing with feedback not written in English is concerned, but if you don't know yourself I would also be grateful if you could put me in touch with somebody who can provide (oops I was going to say feedback) a response. I am getting a little downhearted at being unable to find who to talk to about this. Best wishes. Lloffiwr 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Template:Backstage projects to Main Page

May I ask you to add Template:Backstage projects to the bottom of Main page? Thanks! This has been successfully implemented on other wikis like Meta, Strategy or Outreach already. --Kozuch 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I´m just baned from wikipedia after some bad words to say but i didn´t realy write such thing cause i did this to the words that i wrote. For exemple: f*ck and stuff. But im realy regret that i did that but i cant log in to tell the people that im sorry and that i will never do that again, I realy learned my lesson. Sometimes when i get a little bit angry words just pops out but the secounds later i will take all back, but if i can get back my account on the swedish wikipedia site i will never do something stupid like that again. If you people could say to the swedish wikipedia site that Aggelius is sorry and could get me back to business it would be everything. I have realy done so much to the swedish wikipedia site from 1 week back. And this is a part of my life. I realy wanna do this for a way of life. The reason i did this account on wikimedia except for wikipedia is that i couldn´t logg in cause im banned nut if you people out there who have a account on wikipedia could go to the swedish wikipedia to get me back it would be everything. I can´t either do a new account cause they have block me to do that on my computer. (Aggelius 06:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)) On wikipedia my usernamed just to be Aggelius and still is but they have just blocked it.