Everybody knows and loves Wikipedia - the collaborative online encyclopedia containing free, and mostly accurate information, on both notable topics and ones you have never even imagined. Considering that Wikipedia is an ever-expanding body of work boasting over 2.5 million articles in English alone, one begins to wonder how the Wikipedia system works to sustain itself and help users navigate through such a vast digital resource, an ever-expanding world of information held together by human design principles.
Wikipedia – A Site with Two Entry Points
Strangely enough, Wikipedia has two entry point pages for any given user, assuming a single language preference for each person. The first shows all the languages in which Wikipedia is available:
The second entry point comes up when a specific language option is clicked:
Understanding the Design Choice - Isn't Having Two Points of Entry Annoying?
One could argue that the first Wikipedia entry page results in more unnecessary user clicks, and entry point design could be rethought to omit it altogether. Why not just display one of the language-specific Wikipedia pages first, offering other language options along the top of the page or along the sidebar? Surely, such a design move would remove Wikipedia even further from the example of poor design described by Lidwell et al: “[E]ntering many Internet sites entails going through a slow-loading splash screen, followed by a slow-loading main page, followed by several pop-up windows with advertisements” (Lidwell et al 64).
Second Things First: The Language-Specific Entry Pages
Offering more advanced navigation options on the sidebar is an entry point compromise. Not including them at all would reduce expediency of entry for Wikipedia editors looking to proceed immediately to frequently-visited pages. Featuring them on the main body of the page, however, would introduce "distraction or disruption" for new users and non-editors, creating that clutter that can render a point of prospect ineffective (Lidwell et al 64).
Inclusion of more obscure options on the page's periphery reflects good understanding of the principle of control. While experienced users might seek specific, functional pages and view their absence on the introductory page as “encumber[ing] [of] entry points”, people unfamiliar with Wikipedia need links to explanatory pages, avoiding as much incomprehensible clutter as possible (Lidwell 64). Wikipedia must consider the breadth of audience experience from the beginning; thus, entry point design takes control into consideration, providing “expert shortcuts” for those who use the system often (Lidwell 52), and more prominently featured overview pages that can eventually lead to the same options, but with more explanation and guidance along the way. The set of expository links below are featured at the top of the page within the main page body - positioned strategically so a new user will notice them first.
More on the Language-Specific Entry Pages: Considering the Five Hat Racks and Progressive Lures
The problem with any referential information source is categorizing information to suit different browsing styles. Undoubtedly, many Wikipedia users find information by going straight to the search box and typing in an item of interest. Although the five hat racks principles suggests use of different organizational methods based on different requirements or design goals, Wikipedia cannot rely on just one of the five racks because of diverse user needs and expectations. Some browsers might want to look for information based on broad categories of interest; students might want to browse through information arranged categorically by academic discipline; others might want to view the sheer magnitude of Wikipedia articles, alphabetically arranged; and because Wikipedia is an informal community project, still others might want to view articles that are the "best" of Wikipedia, praised for their solid content and formal voice. Wikipedia provides all of these options from the introductory page, offering category arrangement, alphabetical arrangement, and a sort of continuum arrangement of information. Whether "featured content" counts as continuum arrangement is debatable, since only the "best" and "highest" in the continuum are included.
The other hat rack options - place and time - are justifiably left out as ways of organizing all available articles, because they are somewhat problematic. It would be almost impossible to categorize all articles by date. Would cities and people be organized by founding and birth dates, or some other date-related criteria? How would you categorize a generic item term, like "mobile phone" in terms of place?
Finally, other page content, including "On this day..." and "Did you know..." features, provide short, fun, and interesting facts that encourage people to start reading and delve deeper into Wikipedia by clicking related links. These regularly updated info boxes act as progressive lures, which serve to "attract and pull people through" the Wikipedia system (Lidwell et al 64).
Returning to the First Entry Page - So What's the Point of it, Anyway?
After looking at the language-specific entry page, the first entry page seems even more irrelevant than before. The language-specific page minimizes barriers for all user types, provides a good point of prospect, and uses progressive lures. There can't be much left for a preceding page to do, can there?
The first Wikipedia entry page actually serves an important rhetorical function, offering a visual statement about the purpose and importance of the Wikipedia system. Consider the circular arrangement of the different languages around the Wikipedia puzzle-globe featured at the centre of the page - not an arbitrary organization of page elements, but rather, a significant semiotic design decision.
Arrangement of the language categories around the puzzle-globe communicates that the thousands of different articles written in several different languages are gathered around a common “centre that [] connect[s] and hold[s] them together” (Van Leeuwen 206). The puzzle-globe is a visual representation of what Derrida might call a discourse of collective cooperation, around which all system elements are organized and to which all system elements refer (Derrida 61). Put more precisely, the puzzle-globe communicates the importance of individual, piece-by-piece contribution in constructing a formidable body of global knowledge.
Wikipedia operates around the discourse of Web 2.0, which emphasizes “harnessing collective intelligence” and glorifies the power of the individual within the context of community. Having the first Wikipedia page encourages visitors to stop for an instant and consider this visual message, and perhaps introduces an expectation effect that discourages detrimental article vandalism (Lidwell et al 69). This introductory page visually communicates that users can expect to be part of a wider global project of great importance, which hopefully, should encourage productive use of Wikipedia information and tools in keeping with system principles.
Maintaining the Information System: The Importance of Wikipedia Feedback Loops and Development Cycles
Wikipedia encourages extensive positive feedback, allowing any user to edit and create information content. While free-reign contribution certainly contributes to system expansion, negative consequences can result when inexperienced or maleficent users make inappropriate page edits. Without some sort of negative feedback, Wikipedia information would become increasingly unreliable, and the system would become useless and collapse. Recent changes pages and watchlists make it easier for editors to spot poorly written or incorrect content; elected administrators with the power to lock editing and ban persistently uncooperative users help to control vandalism.
Such features result in some top-down, bureaucratic-style control of the Wikipedia system by a few privileged users – a seeming inconsistency with the site’s cooperative mandate, but some high-level control is necessary to temper the negative consequences of an open-community approach to information management.
Wikipedia also controls quality by encouraging users to follow a process for article creation and management. Wikipedia clearly explains article design requirements, such as citation, and encourages “reduce[d] variability in the materials” – the materials being the words making up articles – by striving for consistent academic style across all information entries (Lidwell et al 62).
Testing on Wikipedia takes the form of article discussion forums, where users collaborate to suggest article changes that might improve informational accuracy or clarity. Article development progresses through an iterative cycle, where basic requirements are first understood through Wikipedia information pages, design and development strive to adhere to prescribed conventions, and user forums reveal the results of testing, outlining new requirements.
Four More Principles Not Addressed in This Entry
1. Exposure Effect – The puzzle-globe Wikipedia logo is repeated throughout the site, located on the side-bar of the page. Repeated placement of the logo acts as a visual reminder of the aim of Wikipedia, and is a smart implementation of the exposure effect to encourage acceptance of Wikipedia’s central aim and purpose. Nevertheless, I chose not to include this design principle in my main analysis because despite its relevance, other design principles offered more interesting observations suitable for discussion.
2. Face-ism Ratio – My focus on the Wikipedia system in its entirety made this principle somewhat irrelevant. Face-ism would have been applicable to my analysis if the Wikipedia logo included a person, or if I had chosen to analyze a specific Wikipedia article featuring a person’s photograph. Then, on the basis of the face-ism ratio, I could have considered whether the image emphasized intellect (featuring a close-up shot of the face), or sensual themes (through portrayal of more of the body).
3. Fibonacci Sequence – As a natural phenomenon, the Fibonacci pattern theoretically carries a special, inherent aesthetic appeal which renders it especially compelling to the human eye. This design principle is notable for its presence, but does not result in terrible consequences if left out of a design; designers should not "contrive designs to incorporate Fibonacci sequences" (Lidwell et al 78). Because this design principle lends itself more to deep analysis of graphic design, and because it is not notably present in Wikipedia's introductory pages, (the only place where I discuss visuals), I left the Fibonacci sequence out of my analysis.
4. Framing – Discussion of framing could have lent an interesting dimension to my analysis; I could have done a close reading of Wikipedia instructional pages to reveal how language constructed certain actions within the discourse of Web 2.0. For example, non-academic, "funny" edits are framed negatively as "vandalism" in the language of Wikipedia, not positively as "jokes". Such negative framing encourages users to take editing of article content seriously, and engage carefully in the important project of collective knowledge construction. As much as I would have liked to address framing further, I felt that other design principles offered more substance for lengthy discussion, and something had to be sacrificied to limit my word count.
Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign, and Play." Modern Literary Theory.
Lidwell, William, Jill Butler, and Kritina Holden. Universal Principles of Design.
O'Reilly, Tim. "What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software." O'Reilly. 30 Sept. 2005. O'Reilly Media Inc. 19 Nov. 2008
Van Leeuwen, Theo. Introducing Social Semiotics : An Introductory Textbook.
No comments:
Post a Comment