Reading/Multimedia/Media Viewer/Survey

Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Reading/Multimedia/Media Viewer/Survey and the translation is 41% complete.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎català • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português do Brasil • ‎sicilianu • ‎русский • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

To get user feedback about Media Viewer, the Wikimedia Foundation ran a global survey in multiple languages from April to July 2014. This new image browser was gradually released worldwide throughout that period, as described in this release plan.

The goal of this survey was to identify issues that were important to our community and evaluate user satisfaction with Media Viewer. To that end, a prominent button in the tool invited users to answer 3 quick questions, in a small popup-up survey form available in selected languages.

To learn more, read the highlights below, or check our first study report. See also these research clarifications about this study.


As of 6 September 2015 results posted at the SurveyMonkey results page, survey number SM-6N66NXL8, there is a strong vote against Media Viewer. In answer to the question "Is this media viewer useful for viewing images and learning about them?",

  • 53.96% say NO
  • 10.17% say NOT SURE
  • 35.87% say YES

So, only about 1/3 of users are in favor of Media Viewer.


Media Viewer survey: Global Reader Approval Rates
Media Viewer survey: Global Reader Approval Responses
Media Viewer daily survey results by English users in June and July 2014
Media Viewer overall survey results by English users in last 2 weeks
Media Viewer survey results by English readers in last 2 weeks
Media Viewer survey results by English editors in last 2 weeks

July 24 Update

Here are the final survey results, based on 18,199 global responses as of July 8, 2014, when all surveys were discontinued:

  • Note that this was an optional survey, so approval rates should not be cited as a conclusive metric, as they are subject to self-selection bias. The primary purpose of the survey was to collect user comments in order to improve the tool -- not to use approval ratings as a definitive measure of success.
  • Keeping this caveat in mind, a majority of global respondents found the tool "useful for viewing images and learning about them" (56% "useful", 35% "not useful", 9% "not sure"), based on total unweighted survey results, as shown on this spreadsheet
  • When weighted to match global Wikipedia readership for each language, fewer respondents found the tool "useful" than "not useful" (39% "useful", 50% "not useful", and 10% "not sure"). See this spreadsheet for raw survey figures, and discussion page for details on how the per-language results can be normalized to match global readership, for a different perspective on these approval ratings.
  • Cumulative "useful" approval ratings by language: English 36%, French 70%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 59%, Portuguese 81%, German 30%, Hungarian 63%, Catalan 71%
  • In the month following launch, daily "useful" rates gradually increased on the English Wikipedia -- and to a lesser degree, on the German Wikipedia.
  • On the English Wikipedia, we observed a daily "useful" increase from 23% to 47% between the June 4 launch and July 8, as shown in the graph to the right and on this dashboard. This is based on 6,415 daily responses ranging from 492 to 71 responses/day.
  • In the last two weeks from June 24 to July 8, more English users found Media Viewer useful for viewing images (50%) than not (39%), based on 1,291 responses for that period, as shown on the graph to the right and on this dashboard.
  • These findings suggest that users found Media Viewer more useful for viewing images over time, as they became more familiar with the tool, and as new features were developed based on user feedback.
  • We also observed different responses between readers and editors: on average, 62% of English readers found Media Viewer useful for viewing images, while 38% of English editors did not find it useful for viewing images, based on 1,090 responses during the survey's last 2 weeks, from June 24 to July 8, 2014 (see linked dashboards and thumbnails to the right).
  • Focusing on global reader responses, about 65% of readers found Media Viewer useful for viewing images, based on 7,582 readers responses in 7 languages, over a 12-week period, from 14 April to 7 July, 2014 (see linked spreadsheet and thumbnail to the right).
  • Reader "useful" ratings increased significantly over time for all languages, no matter where they started (e.g.: from 55% to 80% in the first 6 weeks on es, fr, hu, nl and pt).
  • All reader "useful" ratings are above 65% except for German respondents — even English readers end up at 67%, despite an initially negative response.
  • Note that surveys were discontinued once enough user feedback was collected to inform feature development.
  • Most surveys ended on June 29, 2014 -- except for English and German surveys, which ended on July 8, 2014.

See this spreadsheet summary and live dashboards below for more details.

June 19 Update

As of June 19, 2014, we keep getting generally positive feedback worldwide, with these results:

  • A majority of global respondents find the tool useful for viewing images (56% response average, 60% across surveys)
  • Cumulative approval by language: English 29%, French 70%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 59%, Portuguese 81%, German 28%, Hungarian 62%, Catalan 71%
  • In the two week following launch, daily approval rates have gradually increased on both English and German Wikipedias. Approval rates have been growing steadily on the English Wikipedia.
  • We anticipate further approval increases on these sites, as more new features get rolled out in coming days, based on community feedback.

See this spreadsheet summary and live dashboards below for more details.

We would like to conduct a more detailed study focusing on the English and German results, and would welcome the help of an experienced volunteer to contribute to that study.

June 12 Update

As of June 12, 2014, we continued to see favorable global feedback across most surveys, with these results:

  • A majority of global respondents find the tool useful for viewing images (56% response average, 60% across surveys)
  • approval breakdown by language: English 29%, French 71%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 60%, Portuguese 81%, Hungarian 63%, German 26%
  • approval rates have stabilized for all languages that have used the tool for over a month (all except English and German)
  • English and German approval rates are lower than other languages, as Media Viewer was only launched one week ago on their Wikipedia sites (approval rates are usually lower right after launch)
  • On the English Wikipedia, daily approval rates have increased from 23% a day after launch to 35% a week after launch (see data trends graph)
  • We anticipate further approval increases, as new features get rolled out in coming days, based on community feedback (for comparison purposes, see previous Hungarian increase from 42% to 63% in a month)

See this spreadsheet summary and live dashboards below for more details.

May 27 Update

As of May 27, 2014, we continued to see favorable feedback across all surveys, with these topline results:

  • about 70% of 8,561 respondents find the tool useful for viewing images, based on an average across survey (72% response average)
  • approval rates kept growing from the previous week (Dutch and Hungarian approval grew by 1 point each)
  • approval breakdown by language: French 72%, Spanish 80%, Dutch 62%, Portuguese 83%, Hungarian 63%

See this spreadsheet summary and live dashboards below for more details. We plan to conduct a more detailed study in June, after the English and German deployments, and are looking for an experienced volunteer to help us with that study.

May 21 Update

As of May 21, 2014, we continued to see favorable feedback across all surveys, with these topline results:

  • about 70% of 7,766 respondents find the tool useful for viewing images, on average
  • approval rates kept growing from the previous week (French approval grew by 2 points to 72%, Hungarian by 3 points up to 62%)
  • approval breakdown by language: French 72%, Spanish 80%, Dutch 61%, Portuguese 83%, Hungarian 62%

May 5 Update

We conducted a special study on of first pilot responses as of May 5, 2014. Overall feedback was generally favorable, based on over 1,700 responses.

Here are some key findings:

  • On average, about 65% of survey respondents find Media Viewer useful for viewing images, across all languages. About 28% do not find it useful for viewing images, and 7% are not sure.
  • On average, 73% of readers find the tool useful for viewing images -- more than editors (66%) or active editors (49%).
  • The majority of survey respondents are readers (56%), but editors (30%) and active editors (14%) are well represented.
  • Approval rates have been increasing for all large surveys (e.g.: Hungarian approval started around 42%, and is now up to 57%).
  • More users found Media Viewer useful for viewing images on sites in English (72%) or French (71%) than on sites in Dutch (53%) or Hungarian (57%).

And here are some of the comments we heard often:

  • People who found the tool useful for viewing images liked the larger images, the modern look, the simple interface, the next/previous buttons, the info panel and more recently, the faster load times.
  • People who thought the tool was not useful for viewing images disliked the change in their interface, the lack of zoom, the slow image load, the image size, and having to look for info, Commons or exit buttons.

Change Requests

We identified 32 change requests from about 414 comments across all languages.

Here are the most frequent requests:

  • Want zoom (21%)
  • Too slow (20%)
  • More image sizes (8%)
  • Want full screen or larger images (5%)
  • Can't find info (5%)
  • Can't find Commons link (4%)
  • Easy way to exit (4%)
  • More info above (4%)
  • Can't find download tool (3%)
  • More prominent caption (3%)
  • Want modal window (3%)
  • Images don't load (3%)

To learn how our team plans to address these requests, read the Next steps section of our full survey report.

For more detailed survey results, check out this spreadsheet.


Here are links to dashboards with live results for current surveys, as well as survey forms - and comments where available:

Selected comments are included below, along with any resolution by the development team. To read all comments, click 'Show replies' in the second section of the live dashboard.


  • It's really pretty, but how do I edit the picture's associated page? (like file:picture.jpg?) (note: I extensively use a private MediaWiki install, but I seldom edit normal wikipedia).
  • Question number one - do not ask two question and then yes/no. Its useful for viewing yes, but for learning I dont know. Then I probably would like some zooming, and som bobbles to tell whats on the picture. I think it nice, but the letter f should give full screen. "home" and "end" should go to the first and last image respectly. It shouldnt say "use this file" when the file is non-free, and it should warn you if the image isnt free outside US, or outside United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If I press the image it should go away again.
  • Go to's Look at the second image (photo of Andy Warhol). Hover over "More details at Wikimedia Commons". Look at the size of the box and where the "pointer" is pointing. (I'm viewing on a 13" MacBook Air, probably 1440x900 resolution.
  • I had a problem with an image I updated in the Commons. The thumbnail reflected the change on the page where the image was used, but I had to realize to empty cache to refresh the image in the MediaViewer.
  • Not too bad, but usually I want to go directly to the file page, and this just gets in the way. I also find it strange that the license links to the file page (shouldn't it link to a statement of the license?) but the title isn't clickable (I'd link it directly to the file page).
  • I love that it has been created, but as with all similar browsers I am confused as to how to find the advanced tools.
  • It could be useful, but the images are blurry when they pop open and they never clear up. That's annoying. Also, it was really hard to get this survey to open up. I kept clicking on something that didn't really look clickable, and nothing happened, until finally this janky thing opened. The 'submit' button is barely visible, after I resized this window to almost full screen. I use Firefox on OS X (mavericks). I have ad blocker extension, if that makes a difference.
  • Preloading of pictures should happen.
    • Resolution: We plan to work with operations to pre-render thumbnails in coming weeks.
  • Every user needs to see description of the picture - without other action!
    • Resolution: We're passing on this recommendation to our designers. Hard to fit long descriptions in small space, though.
  • Make the transition low-res -> hi-res a bit faster.
    • Resolution: This issue could be addressed by pre-rendering thumbnails in background. See above.
  • The licensing (Public Domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, etc.) should link to a dedicated page describing the license and restrictions of it. The title of the image should link to the actual File page.
  • Closing the viewer should bring you back to the place in the article you were at when clicking on it (currently returns you to top of article, on FF). And this window should be scrollable by default (had to full screen it to get to the submit button)
  • What problem does this new approach solve?
  • What is the accessibility impact of it? Usability is poor, and these two are usually correlated.
  • Following on from the previous point, the thing is utterly undiscoverable. E.g., what does the double arrow icon do? Does it go full screen or does it show me the original size image? If the former, how do I get to the original image (which could then be shown full-screen following the browser's own mechanism).
  • If this is how our donations are being used, clearly the foundation is getting way too much money, or it's overstaffed.

Sobre este questionário

The goal of this survey is to validate whether or not Media Viewer is useful for viewing images to its largest user group: readers. To date, we have mostly heard from power users: logged-in editors who took the time to enable Media Viewer as a Beta Feature in their preference and post on our discussion page. This power user group is not representative of the larger public we serve, so we want more feedback from all key stakeholders to make informed decisions about this tool.

A survey form is needed to gather this feedback because most readers are not willing to edit talk pages, which they find overwhelming and hard to use. We are using Survey Monkey for this project, because it provides a variety of tools for designing, collecting and analyzing feedback, as well as for sharing the results (see live survey results). We've used this tool for other projects like AFT, Echo and Flow, and it's very practical -- while we do not have free software tools that can provide a comparable level of service without additional development.


Here are the contents of this survey (see actual form). We will invite community champions to translate this survey into different languages, so we can get early feedback from readers before we are ready to deploy on English Wikipedia.

Below are the sections that require translating:


Deixe um feedback a respeito dessa nova experiência de visualização de mídia

(Esta dica aparece quando você passa o mouse sobre o botão de feedback 'megafone' no Visualizador de Mídia. Clicando no botão é aberta a pesquisa abaixo.)


Queremos saber sua opinião sobre o recurso 'Visualizador de Mídia' que você está usando agora. Este recurso melhora a forma como as imagens são exibidas na Wikipedia, para criar uma experiência mais envolvente. O que você acha sobre essa nova experiência multimídia?

1. Este Visualizador de Mídia é útil para visualizar imagens e saber sobre elas?

  • Sim
  • Não
  • Não tenho certeza

2. O que você acha desta nova experiência de visualização? Como poderia ser melhorada?
[campo de texto em branco]

3. Como você descreveria sua participação na Wikipédia?

  • Eu nunca edito a Wikipédia
  • Eu editei alguns artigos
  • Eu frequentemente edito artigos
  • Eu adicionei algumas imagens em artigos
  • Eu tenho carregado algumas imagens para sites da Wikimedia
  • Eu frequentemente adiciono ou faço upload de imagens
  • Eu tenho usado as imagens fora dos sites da Wikimedia (por exemplo: slides, blogs)
  • Você concorda que suas respostas podem ser utilizadas de acordo com estes termos. Este levantamento é controlado pela Survey Monkey e seu uso de suas informações é governado por sua política de privacidade>.


(Clicando em Enviar você vai para a página de agradecimento, se foram respondidas as perguntas necessárias. Se não, é mostrado o alerta 'Resposta necessária' abaixo.)

Resposta necessária

Esta questão requer uma resposta.

(Exibido se não respondidas as perguntas necessárias.)



Obrigado por compartilhar a sua opinião! Seus comentários são importantes para nós. Vamos melhorar esse recurso nas próximas semanas, com base no que você e outras pessoas nos disseram.

Mais feedback?
Podemos entrar em contato com você com mais perguntas sobre a sua experiência?

Se sim, por favor, adicione seu endereço de e-mail abaixo (opcional)

Seu email: [ campo de texto em campo ]

Seu e-mail será mantido em sigilo, de acordo com a nossa Política de Privacidade, e só será utilizado pela Wikimedia Foundation para se comunicar com você e enviar-lhe atualizações em seu feedback.

Muito agradecido.

[Anterior] [Feito]

Formato inválido
O comentário que você inseriu está em um formato inválido.

(esta mensagem de erro só será exibida se seu e-mail não estiver formatado adequadamente.)