VisualEditor/Portal/Why/User Test Data/pl

Część procesu wdrażania VisualEditora stanowiło przedstawienie zestawu zadań użytkownikom UserTesting.com. Mieli edytować najpierw VisualEditorem, a następnie „ręcznie”, bezpośrednio kod źródłowy. Niektórzy z nich już wcześniej próbowali edytować, inni byli stuprocentowymi nowicjuszami. Dostępny jest spis poleceń i pytań używany do testowania użyteczności.

Nie są to jedyne dane, na których bazujemy. Gromadzimy także dane ilościowe z testów przeprowadzonych w anglojęzycznej Wikipedii, w których 50% nowych użytkowników skorzystało z VisualEditora jako domyślnego. Wyniki zostaną opublikowane niezwłocznie po ich opracowaniu.

Edytowanie kodu źródłowego
''"To od razu wygląda na pogmatwane i przytłaczające." "Zawartość stanowiły tony nieznanego formatowania i nic nie wyglądało tak, jak w podstawowej wyświetlanej wersji." "Nie chcę obowiązkowo uczyć się nowego języka formatowania tylko po to, żeby edytować Wikipedię."''

When presented with the source editor, users tended to have the same set of problems. Many of these centred around identifying what they were expected to change; with so much markup, they found it difficult to identify things in the markup view that matched what they'd seen when reading the rendered page. Users were also worried by the clutter of the editing interface, particularly the mass of buttons at the bottom of the "save page" window.

Users struggled to understand the wikimarkup found in a moderately-sized article; when they managed to identify bits, it was almost entirely from comparing their memory of the rendered page to individual words, and looking at the formatting around those words (for example, noting that all of the headers had equals signs, and thus determining that equals signs made headers work). With one exception, every user found the source editor intimidating and would opt not to use it.

Używanie VisualEditora
''"I've given up in the past because it seemed too confusing. With [VisualEditor] it seemed like anyone can figure it out." "[VisualEditor] feels more like editing a word document and isn't as intimidating as the [source editor] which feels more like editing code."''

Several problems were raised with VisualEditor. Many users found adding links to be confusing, something we have noted and are evaluating, and (as known) VisualEditor was slow to load for some testers.

Several other (now fixed) bugs, such as problems with saving the page, also frustrated users. However, all-but-one of the testers concluded that they preferred using VisualEditor to using the source editor, one of them noting that "[with VisualEditor] I would be more likely to make edits. That interface was a lot easier to understand and I had more confidence that the changes I was making were the changes that I wanted to make. I also like that I had an opportunity to review the changes and note them."

Zobacz też

 * Spis poleceń i pytań używany do testowania użyteczności (w języku angielskim)