User:Shangkuanlc/英文維基百科好用性與使用者經驗研究

可以做期末專案的方向

1. 對首頁版面的好用性分析討論Wikipedia_talk:2012年首頁設計建議/執行改版

參考文獻

• 2009年介紹維基百科好用性導入計劃的部落格文章
• [1]

英文維基百科的好用性與使用者經驗研究

維基媒體好用性導入計畫團隊(The Wikimedia Usability Initiative Team)與位於加州舊金山的使用者經驗顧問廠商Bolt Peters合作，進行維基百科體驗的實驗室面對面互動以及遠端視訊訪談及研究。本研究聚焦於編輯經驗、流程、以及編輯的成功與失敗。本研究包含15位一對一面談，每一位皆進行45到60分鐘之間。其中有10位訪談是在實驗室的設施中，而剩下的5位則從維基百科好用性辦公室透過遠端視訊進行。訪談是於2009年在加州舊金山進行。

主要的研究目標如下：

• 找到新手使用者在編輯維基百科條目時遇到的阻礙 — 包含但不限於 — 增加個人內容（用戶頁）、改錯字、增加參考文獻、以及在討論頁上做出貢獻。
• 找到創立新條目時的阻礙。
• 評估在wikipedia.org上幫助文獻的自給自足(self-sufficiency)以及易讀性(legibility)。
• 評估新手使用者與模版的互動狀況。
• 探索使用者經驗的模式以及之前沒有被找出的好用性議題。

研究方法

目標對象

本好用性研究的目標對象針對維基百科的固定讀者，他們表達過將自己的知識貢獻給維基百科的意願，但卻在實際執行上有所保留。實驗團隊決定選定主要的使用者群（約佔所有的八成）從未編輯過維基百科但願意編輯，而少數的使用者（一成）從未編輯過維基百科而未來也不願編輯，最後一成的使用者則是針對本身已有五次以下的編輯貢獻但使用維基百科仍是新手的對象。我們希望潛力的用戶他的「主要」不貢獻的原因是MediaWiki的技術複雜性以及標記語言，然而也有其他不願貢獻維基百科的因素，像是怕被刪除，不想把自己寫的文章拿給其他人修改，對「自己是專家 」缺乏信心，沒有協作的經驗，以及編輯哲學上的差異這類原因。

根據一項由維基媒體基金會以及UNU-Merit所作，針對維基百科讀者的跨語言調查，74.6%的維基人是男性，24.7%是女性。維基人的平均年齡是25.1歲（年齡區間10 – 85歲），男性平均年齡為25.1歲，女性維基人的年齡平均則為23.7歲。既然研究團隊目標是鎖定在降低維基百科讀者成為編輯的常見障礙，而世界上有總共有超過三億的維基百科使用者，而在這三億人之中，最大量的維基讀者是使用英文維基百科，所以我們將我們的測試對象的性別分佈轉為一比一的比例，同時年齡層遍佈老少（分成以下幾類：18歲以下，19 – 34，35 – 44，45 – 54，55 – 64，65以上）所以我們的研究，應可以讓我們對潛在新編輯者，找到更深層的洞見。

以下是我們覺得適合的受試者側寫。

受試者編號	沒編輯，但有意願	沒編輯，也覺得沒必要編	已編過且小於25次編輯數	男性	女性	18歲以下	19 – 34	35 – 54	55+	每天使用維基百科	維基百科使用的程度為一週超過一次	每隔幾個禮拜使用一次維基百科
01	X				X	X				X
02	X			X			X				X
03	X				X		X			X
04	X			X			X				X
05	X				X			X		X
06	X			X				X			X
07	X				X				X	X
08		X		X					X		X
09			X		X		X	X			X	X
10			X	X				X	X		X	X
11	X				X	X				X
12	X			X			X				X
13	X				X			X		X
14	X			X					X		X
15			X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X

實驗室中測試

舉行實驗的實驗室位於加州舊金山的Fleischman Field Research研究機構。受測者（都是來自開車可到的範圍內），會被帶入一間房間，內有本研究的採訪員以及一台蘋果或Windows個人電腦（端看受測者前測時所表示的使用偏好而定）。在一道雙面鏡後面，維基媒體的好用性研究人員可以觀察採訪員以及受測者之間的互動，聽到訪談內容，觀看受測者的電腦螢幕以及他的表情反應。這些都是在實驗開始後就即時看到的。所有影片都已創用CC授權（包含電腦螢幕以及受測者表情），均可在「完整的訪談錄影」段落中找到。

（圖片連結）在Flieschman研究機構的場地設置

遠端視訊測試

遠端視訊測試是在Wikimedia Usability ＋ Wikia辦公室。參與者現場徵求，並要求他們進行一小時內會結束的訪談。參與者會在他們平常使用維基百科的環境下受測。透過遠端分享營目的應用程式UserVue，B|P實驗室的訪談員，維基百科好用性工作團隊，以及其他的觀察者能夠即時觀看受測者的螢幕，同時透過電話或擴音器聽到完整的現場收音。電話訪談以及螢幕的截取錄影都在創用CC的版權宣告下公開。（見「完整的訪談錄影」段落）。

在Wikimedia Annex的場地布置

實驗室與遠端視訊的交叉測試

我們決定結合以下兩種測試方式：

• 在舊金山市區外的使用者；
• 面對面受測。

—詳見B|P關於實驗室與遠端視訊的比較報告

招募受試者

我們在實體見面的測試共招募了超過2500位舊金山居民。在8小時內，每100頁維基百科頁面會播出1頁的公告看板/提醒視窗。當使用者點擊進入，看到我們調查的消息後，他們會被轉連到B|P ethnio招募系統中，我們會在此問他一連串的問題。這些問題包括使用者是在維基百科上做什麼、他們使用維基百科的時間多頻繁、他們是否曾經編輯過維基百科（以及用什麼方式編輯）、他們的年齡、性別、所在位置、以及有空的時間。

根據這些標準，2500位使用者回應了我們的調查，且根據他們的填答篩選後剩下500位可以實際受測的對象。研究團隊與B|P跟Davis Recruiting合作根據他們的編輯歷史、維基百科使用習慣、他們宣稱不編輯的原因、他們健談的程度、以及他們願意討論自己想法與行動的公開程度做基準，開始聯絡、篩選以及審查這500位參與者。2500位使用者中，我們最後找出了10位研究參與者以及3到5位的候補人選。

• Ethnio 招募調查的螢幕截圖
• Ethnio 審查邀請的螢幕截圖
• 感謝參與調查的螢幕截圖

本研究的受試者

實驗室中測試

受測者編號	年齡	性別	編輯維基百科經驗	瀏覽維基百科頻率	職業	其他資訊	地點
01 "Suzanne"	50 (45–54)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯，有帳號	每天	律師助手	當時正在查參考資料	加州舊金山
02 "Grace"	24 (18–34)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每天	醫學院學生	當時正在查某疾病	加州舊金山
03 "Tito"	21 (18–34)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每天	大學生暨影片製作人	當時正在研究企業影片	加州舊金山
04 "Dan"	41 (35–44)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯，有帳號	每天	程式設計師	當時正在閱讀DVI與HDMI界面資訊	加州舊金山
05 "Seamus"	43 (35–44)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每週兩次以上	某非營利組織的記帳士	當時正在研究某簡報	加州舊金山
06 "Saurab"	28 (18–34)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯，有帳號	一週兩次以上	零售軟體開發人員	當時正在閱讀供應鏈流程	加州舊金山
07 "Gene"	64 (55–64)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每天	退休的公共運輸業職員	當時正在查詢資料。	加州舊金山
08 "Claudia"	64 (55–64)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯，有帳號	每天	資料庫管理人員	當時正在查「Frank Loesser」	加州舊金山
09 "Galen"	24 (18–34)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	一週兩次以上	服飾業者	當時正在尋找美國的德國後裔子孫	加州舊金山
10 "Nikki"	16 (Under 18)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有編輯其他編輯計劃的經驗	每天	高中生	當時正在查某電視影集	加州舊金山

遠端遙控測試

受測者編號	年齡	性別	編輯維基百科經驗	瀏覽維基百科頻率	資訊程度	其他資訊	地點
01 "Lisa"	(55–64)	女	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	一週超過一次	2: 使用電腦上網、打開收信軟體	研究	加州的Eureka
02 "Shaun"	(18–24)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每天	3: 從網路與各種儲存設備中，上傳與下載檔案	研究	愛達荷州的Rexburg
03 "Jerry"	(25–34)	Male	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	每天	2: 使用電腦上網、打開收信軟體	閱讀紐約市的相關歷史	紐約市
04 "Bryan"	(25–34)	男	沒有編輯經驗，但有意願編輯	一週超過一次	3: 從網路與各種儲存設備中，上傳與下載檔案	研究心理學相關概念	北卡羅萊納州的Apex
05 "Carrie"	(18–24)	女	有編輯經驗（小於25次的編輯記錄）	每天	3: 從網路與各種儲存設備中，上傳與下載檔案	尋找資訊	紐約州的Bayside

測試腳本

測試腳本是由維基百科好用性團隊、B|P、以及維基媒體基金會共同起草，而實驗室與遠端視訊的受試對象使用幾乎一模一樣的腳本，差異之處僅在於環境設定的不同所更改的描述。測試腳本聚焦於了解使用者對於一系列初次使用維基百科的新手會遇到的編輯程序的任務或目標，如何的嘗試、感受又是甚麼。這些任務或目標包含而不限於以下幾點：

• 在網頁上找到各種不同的編輯模式(「編輯本頁」與各段的編輯)，並使用這些方式編輯。
• 對既存文章增加個人的內容或資訊。
• 查看討論頁。
• 再討論頁中新增討論串。
• 新增或使用來自外部來源(網站、論文等等)的內容。
• 為內容新增一條參考來源。
• 為連結的段落或清單新增一條外部連結或。
• 使用模板來編輯文章。
• 瀏覽模板語法頁面來編輯信息框(infobox)。
• 編排內容(標題、粗體、協體、超連結、表格)。
• 創立新條目。
• 修正筆誤。
• 尋找和使用編輯幫助。

儘管腳本一般來說是任務導向，問題則是開放且留下詮釋空間的，鼓勵受試對象不要去使用任何「正確」的方式來完成任務。開放式提問的訪談問題則固定放在每件任務之後，包含「你怎麼找到這個方法的？你喜歡這方法的甚麼地方？不喜歡甚麼地方？」。腳本由兩位危機媒體基金會的內部成員在實驗室與遠端視訊測試進行之前，進行前測—一位是編輯老手，以及一位新首編輯—

• 在此瀏覽完整的測試腳本
• 在此閱讀B|P對於訪談技巧的解釋

結論

The primary goals of our study were to examine the ease of use of the Wikipedia editing interface, focusing on both cognitive and UI obstacles to editing and factors that could potentially increase users' editing of articles. We focused on editing tasks, but along the way learned about much more than the specific tasks and the editing experience.

While the team observed no patterns or distinctions based on gender alone seen during the study, we observed patterns amongst the different age groups. Younger users (Under 18–34) tended to have less inhibition to make smaller changes to Wikipedia than older users (45+), and in doing so also tended to learn more by example and employ a trial and error method to making changes. When the trials of these younger users did not reach success, they were also more resilient in recovering from those errors. Older users tended to give up more readily, feared they might "break" things, and often sought instructions from the "they" behind Wikipedia.

人們喜歡維基百科（也因為登入維基百科很容易）

"I use Wikipedia all the time. Usually it’s the most information in the easiest spot to access. It always looks very well put together it boggles my mind how many people can contribute and it (still) looks like an encyclopedia." -- Galen, 24, Costume Designer

"I like Wikipedia because it's plain text and nothing flashes" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

If there was one thing that was consistent and unanimous across our study participants, it was the assessment that Wikipedia is an incredibly valuable information resource whose accessibility is unparalleled. Aside from its value as a reference, a time and lifesaver, and an up to the minute news resource, participants also praised its simplicity, coherence, and breadth. They find that the quality and quantity of information they find there is outstanding, trustworthy, and their go-to reference when they have a question or need more information about a topic, even one that they themselves might have quite a bit of expertise on. Users also tend to click on Wikipedia articles if they see them as part of the results list when they search for a topic/subject, because they trust the content and are familiar with Wikipedia. An extra thanks to Google, for showcasing just how referenced Wikipedia articles are—consistently making their links one of the top hits—our users count on that!

"I usually use a Wikipedia shortcut on my computer" -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"It's usually [one of] the first hit[s] on Google" -- Grace, 24, Medical Student

"I don't usually go to the Wikipedia front page." -- Dan, 41, Programmer

By and large, participants explained that they accessed Wikipedia articles through a top search hit from Google. Other methods of entry were through browser search plugins, shortcuts, and referring articles. When asked to head to Wikipedia, many participants stated or explained that they had never been to the front page before.

忽略（少量的）維基語法並不難

"So now I learned how to edit. It was okay, just like editing, I do it every day…. Things like my personal profile on an internet dating site." -- Gene, 64, Retired Public Transit Worker

"Pretty cool, easier than I thought, I just have to get used to it." -- Lisa

Users' word processing skills translated to the task of editing text in Wikipedia so that all the users we spoke to, including the technically uninitiated, were able to identify and make changes to the content text (as opposed to the wiki markup syntax) on Wikipedia. The changes users were able to make included correcting typos and grammar, adding words and sentences, copying and pasting, and formatting text (with bold and italics). The ease of editing around wiki markup drastically decreased as the complexity of the article increased—most notably when articles started with large infoboxes, templates, and other syntax-heavy elements.

「對」的方法 與 「錯」的方法

"What I did was a hack, I'm not actually using the site" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"Rather than making a mess, I'd rather take some time to figure out how to do it right" -- Dan, 41, Programmer

All of our participants are Wikipedia readers, but had little or no experience with editing. Generally the editing process was not a warm and welcoming one. Before subjects even hit the ‘edit’ or ‘edit this page’ buttons, they voiced concerns about the rules, proper etiquette, formatting, and were naturally conscientious of and inhibited by maintaining the community expectations. When a few of them attempted to find answers to their questions about rules and etiquette, they were overwhelmed with the amount of information and documentation they encountered.

The most commonly expressed concerns were around who was allowed to edit what, who reviewed the edits, and what level of privileges were given to which users. Users also expressed concern and hesitation about editing without doing extensive research and feeling confident in their ability (put somewhat on the spot) to add relevant and accurate information. Not knowing what they could or should add/edit is a large barrier to at least some users' willingness to edit.

Another major concern that participants expressed was the need to cite and validate their information. More often than not, our subjects did not know when they were expected to add a reference, felt an impulse to add a reference anyway, and faltered on the right way to do that, which included determining where in the article (or which section) was appropriate, the correct formatting, and the appropriate syntax when the references were autogenerated.

In cases such as these references (as well as html links, internal links, and lists) many users copied and pasted text from examples from within the same article in order to make their edits appear the way they wanted them to—namely to appear like others on the page. While this worked fine for most simple, basic edits, users felt that this was a ‘hack’ and they weren’t doing it in the ‘right way’.

The final observed example where participants struggled with the right and wrong way to do things was when they received conflicting messages. One user whose edits were immediately reverted after they saved was flustered and concluded that edits must go through a review process and assumed they'd 'show up in a few days.' Additionally, when viewing discussion pages participants felt quite confident about what type of content and discussion was appropriate, until they encountered the most noticeable text on the page stating "this is not a forum," after which the doubts started to roll in.

覺得好蠢

"[I felt] kind of stupid." -- 24, Galen, Costumer

Every user in this study struggled to get a basic grasp of the editing interface. Despite users’ overall excitement about Wikipedia, their willingness to spend up to an hour on the site, and varying levels of computer expertise, they largely failed to make edits correctly without repeated attempts and efforts. Users regularly commented that they had ‘no idea’ or ‘no clue’ what they were looking at, or what they were doing. While they actually were able to edit simple text, users were not at all confident that they were succeeding during the process.

As users edited, they mentioned that they thought they were looking at html or some variation of html, and they all admitted that they weren’t familiar with it, or knew very little. They commonly used descriptors such as ‘computer stuff’, ‘technical stuff’, ‘programming language’, ‘syntax’, etc.; in other words, something that is ‘not for me’, but for someone who has been trained in this professionally. Many users described their ideal or expected interface as something more like facebook.com, myspace.com, or a blog- an intuitive GUI that hides the code.

This led to intimidation in editing anything, ‘in case I mess it up’. Users were not confident that they were doing the right thing until they had previewed the page and seen that their changes were displayed in the way they expected. Users also did not find the toolbars too helpful- though nearly all of them hovered over the toolbar icons to read the pop-ups, the only icon they recognized and used consistently was Bold.

• Expertise
• Level of comfort
• Lack of consistency
• Conflicting messages
• 10 ways to do 1 thing

感到不知所措

"There sure is a lot of stuff to read" -- Dan, 41, Programmer

"This is where I'd give up" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"I'm sure there is help out there, but I am too lazy to read that." -- Tito, 21, Student and Video Producer

"What's to stop you from just putting in anything?" -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"But it's on the internet and people will read it and believe it's true." -- Grace, 24, Medical Student

There were a variety of things that left our participants feeling overwhelmed, but articles that started with infoboxes, thick wiki syntax, help docs, and any attempts to find concise answers on rules or guidelines left participants feeling lost. Some explained "If [I] can't read it in five seconds, you've lost me," while others exclaimed "It may take a whole night to do this", and another spent the majority of their time with us searching and digging, explaining "If I really wanted to put it on there, I'd find a way to do it." While their thresholds varied, the results were strikingly similar—lots of information, not a lot of guidance; more questions, fewer answers.

我見(What I see) 與 我得(What I get)

"I'm more of a visual person." -- Galen, 24, Costumer

"I couldn’t really understand the format, I didn’t know what it was saying. I would just go to the stuff that’s readable. It looks kinda like a website, lingo stuff." -- Tito, 21, Student and Video Producer

"In many websites, you kind of see the screen just the way you see it in the article, Here it looks like they converted it into plain text. I think what I’ll have to do is open another Wikipedia, so I can compare the views. In blogs, it’s easier to add stuff- you don’t go into the programming mode. This html version- its much easier to edit a blog." -- Saurab, 28, Retail Software Developer

Once within the editing environment, most subjects commented on the illegibility of the hybrid Wiki syntax and article content—the more complex the article, the more exaggerated the response. When users made it past their initial reactions, navigating around the syntax to perform basic word processing tasks (correcting a typo, inserting a block of text, bold and italics formatting) proved less problematic than finding a particular section, adding references, using tables, creating and naming links. But not even our youngest and most computer savvy participants accomplished these tasks with ease.

Aside from feeling confused by the “code”, “computer lingo”, and “html”, subjects could not correlate what they were seeing within the edit box to what they saw on the article page. We saw the vast majority of participants perform the same behavior as they began to edit—most subjects opened a separate browser window to view the static article as they were making their changes and used preview and save before they had finished their work to monitor their editing progress and results.

• Expectations
• Blogs
• Word Processor
• Previewing and Saving
• Lingo/Html/Lingo

我做(What I do) 與 我得(What I get)

"They should have instructions for what you want to do, but it's really not there." -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"Can't something auto correct my links [to internal pages]?" -- Grace, 21, Medical Student

"Let someone else do it (waves hands)" -- Claudia"

A significant number of our participants, noticeably female, tended to have expectations around actions and processes that could happen without being explicitly requested. These users expressed expectations for help of the right variety being presented to them at the right time, automated clean up and formatting of edits ('I hope that someone will come after and fix it'), and the existence of an editing or reviewing staff, mysteriously called "they" (there is no such person or persons!).

• Expectations: automation and "they"
• Instructions

自行探索（透過實際的例子來學習） 和 接受指導（透過幫助文件來學習）

"I don't know by looking at it [here], but by looking at other examples." -- Grace, 24, Costumer

"I like to learn by example because you don't have to digest a whole lot of irrelevant stuff." -- Dan, 41, Programmer

"I want to see instructions for the "edit this page." -- Suzanne, 50 Paralegal

When participants were asked to perform a task or format a particular sentence, rather than consulting help, they chose to look within that section or article for another example of a similarly formatted word or sentence. This proved to the be the most effective learning tool for uninitiated editors. Copying and pasting from another example relieved some of their concerns about the "right" or "wrong" way to do things and the illiteracy of wiki markup. It also helped in associated what they were seeing in the edit box with what they were typing (or here, copying) within the edit window—"I don't know by looking at it, but by looking at the other ones."

Aside from learning by example, most participants successfully learned by trial and error. Previewing and saving after the most minor of changes to verify the result with the expectation (i.e. correctness) was commonplace. Many participants started off with baby steps—"I'm just going to try and type sort of what I see, just as a test" on an article, and notably not in the sandbox. This method seemed to lower barriers to editing and thresholds to learning—"I can guess on how to do things based on what's already in the page."

為細節煩惱的人

"I would correct people's grammar errors, subject verb agreement" -- Gene, 64, Retired Public Transit worker

At the conclusion of our interviews, we asked all of our participants what might encourage them to contribute more to Wikipedia or in what ways they felt they would contribute. Many mentioned that fixing typos and grammatical errors would be one of the actions they'd be most likely to do. In fact without prompting, some users started to do this on their own in the course of completing other tasks. Participants of all of the age groups did this, but those that explicitly mentioned it tended to be older (44+).

參考資料

"Should[n't] I cite the text that I inserted from Creative Commons." -- Nikki, 16, High School Student

"I'm aware that copying directly from another source is discouraged and that references are needed... I don't want to put in incorrect information, that's one of the main reasons I don't go changing stuff." -- Saurab, 28, Retail Software Developer

"How will people know it's genuine information"-- Dan, 41, Programmer, who spent the majority of our session going to great lengths to verify the validity of his edit.

Without any prompting, the majority (one less than the entirety) of our participants expressed the desire or obligation to cite their sources, provide references, or validate the information they were adding or editing on Wikipedia. That desire, however, rarely resulted in a successful citation. Subjects struggled to differentiate between a reference, an internal link, and an external link. In fact, only one subject used the "shortcut" for an internal link in lieu of using the full html address for the forwarded article.

Whether in the course of attempting to create a reference or while accomplishing another editing task, many users hovered over each of the toolbar icons in search of a solution. If/when users found the "reference" button (at the far right!), most could not digest the syntax that was placed at their cursor and questioned where the super script, footnote number, and text belonged and would end up. In the few cases in which the subject was adding a reference to an article where these references were auto generated, the users were completely dumbfounded.

創建新條目

The task that nearly every user failed at was creating a new page. Participants passed over the pointer to create a new article within search results, did not associated red links with yet-to-be-created pages, and could find no obvious button or action in the Wikipedia navigation. Several users, while scanning the pages to try to figure out how to create a new article, saw ‘create a book’ on the left, and thought maybe they should ‘add wiki page’ in order to create a new article. The wording ‘create’ likely points them towards that link, as there is no other mention of ‘create’ on the page.

The few users that managed to create a new article commented on the lack of formatting or templating guidelines and expressed surprise that the starting point was a completely blank slate.

我在那邊編輯？

Users often missed the ‘edit’ buttons next to each section, clicking on ‘edit this page’ all the way at the top. This often got them lost if they were editing a particularly long article, as they weren’t easily able to find the section they wanted to edit. Several users also clicked on the wrong ‘edit’ button next to the sections, thinking that the ‘edit’ button below the section referred to the section above.

Users who got used to editing single sections (instead of the whole page) expected to be able to edit the first section, as well as the template box at the top, separately from the whole page.

資訊雜亂

Repeatedly, users missed messaging displayed on the pages. The amount of information and the number of ‘boxes’ on each page may have distracted users from the most important/relevant messages. Some users also missed the ‘save’ button because they got confused by the double scroll bars on the edit page. The message under the ‘Discussion’ section for various articles was confusing to some users, especially when they read ‘this is not a forum’, which seemed to contradict their thoughts about what a ‘discussion’ page would include.

幫助文件需要幫手

"I have no idea how to do that, maybe there is a how to?......Help should be on the top right. It's always there." -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"There should be instructions here. It's not immediately clear." -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

While most participants said they probably wouldn’t go there on their own, once they were prompted to explore the Help section, most users did not find the section very helpful, if they even found it. The amount of information is overwhelming to users, and users sometimes got lost trying to find the one set of instructions they needed in order to complete their task. The cheat sheet was the only item in the help section that led to a subjects successful edit. Copying and pasting from other examples within the article or from another article was more often the help users sought.

Additionally, we never saw the same click path through help twice, even when participants were looking for the same information. Users looking for the same information ended up in any number of final destinations (including the "Simple English Wikipedia" when one user was particularly challenged and was looking for a 'simple' answer), the majority of the time without answers. Help proved to be neither intuitive or consistent.

編輯的約束者

Most users said they had ‘thought about’ editing Wikipedia, but never done it because of laziness or lack of time. The few who had edited had made only minor changes to sentences (fixing typos or grammar, etc.) Users mentioned as they tried to edit that they would need ‘more time’ to learn how to do what it was they were attempting, because they didn’t understand Wiki-markup, and it wasn’t immediately obvious what they needed to do. Users also expressed concern that the content they were adding was ‘correct’—in terms of content appropriateness, accuracy, and formatting.

其他

• When using Wikipedia's own search, users rarely saw the "did you mean" results that were close approximations of their search terms, thus having to search again. In two cases, users left Wikipedia's search and used Google instead.
• Some users missed the ‘spam-blocker’ code that they had to put in because it appeared above or below the fold of the page they ended up on after they tried to save.
• Most users thought the ‘history’ section of the articles would be useful, but only for articles that they had a particular interest in or were editing themselves. However, some users were confused by what ‘prev’, ‘cur’, or ‘hist’ meant.
• While most users did not actually try to upload images, the few who did were confused as to how to do it, and how exactly the process worked.

重點錄影

• Explain the Editing Process to Me
• I Can’t Tell What This Really Looks Like
• Editing Wikipedia Makes Me Feel Stupid