The content of the Wikipedia is amazing. What’s more amazing is that this content was created despite many obvious flaws in the design of the site. Here are the main ones I’ve seen.
There are two ways to use a large information site like the Wikipedia. Browsing and Searching. Wikipedia does both fairly poorly. The site is difficult to browse since there is little primary navigation and it’s difficult to search because the search results are presented poorly. While the content of the site grows by leaps and bounds the interface and design of the Wikipedia has seen seemingly little change.
- Search belongs near the top of the page. This is now a general convention across sites and this is where users are likely to look.
- The top level navigation belongs at location number 2. Instead of top level navigation we have tools for editing the content and viewing history. A typical user will consume content and only 1-2% will create content. Having the editing features front and center gives a bias to the editing and makes the navigation harder to use.
- The main navigation doesn’t help users find content. An appropriate top level navigation will encourage browsing and may include high level headings for an encyclopedia. Things like Glossaries, Global Timelines, People, Countries, Animals, etc. All this stuff does exist but it’s not organized in the navigation or in a well structured way. Instead the navigation encourages users to go to a random page.
- The Wikipedia is overly-hyperlinked. In other words since it’s easy to edit. Lots of people don’t contribute content but instead add brackets. This creates a link. While creating some links is useful the absurd amount of linking actually makes the content more difficult to understand. Instead of consolidating articles things seem to sprawl and branch off into their own articles. Why is the word speedometer hyperlinked in the User Interface article? Maybe I should have fixed that? It’s bad information architecture and bad design. There’s no easy way to find related articles or know if you are reading the main article or a branch.
- When editing a page the toolbar is inappropriate:
We start off ok with bold and italic and underline. Then we go off the deep end. The icons are non standard and the commands are awkward. I’m not sure why this wheel was re-invented and why it was done so poorly. WordPad and TextEdit have had this worked out for 10 years. - It’s 2007 can we have a WYSIWYG editor for content? Every other site has figured out how to do this. You can’t see what you’re doing and the markup is a bastardized version of HTML. This creates an unnecessarily high hurdle for people who want to add or edit content. Doing something simple like adding an image is unnecessarily complex for a site that encourages end-user participation.
- Search results should show a basic synopsis, last edit date and hit highlighting so you can tell if the search hit is appropriate. The lack of information about a particular search result makes it difficult to pick a match. it’s also difficult to tell if an article is fresh or stale and how stable a particular article is. Without exploring the history of an article you can’t tell if it’s undergoing a lot of change or if it’s been solid for years.
Because the content of the Wiki is editable by anyone it’s important to convey how stale the information is. This is true in search and on the page iteself. Providing some metric of article age & volatility in search results and on pages will help users find more accurate and appropriate results.
- Search pageination belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top. Why would you want to page if you haven’t even seen the first page of results?
- It’s customary to provide a way to perform an advanced search to help you find the right topic. For example show me results for ‘Apple’ that match the fruit not the computer company. Search works for exact matches but not for concept matches.
- This one is a bonus tip for Google. Don’t list wiki articles in the main section of results. The same way that dictionary listings aren’t shown in the main area of results. A dictionary and encyclopedia are special and should both be presented differently from natural search results.
I agree.
I’ve never even thought to browse Wikipedia. They don’t really invite users to do so. The fact the the home page is a search box always suggested that it was more of a search engine than an encyclopedia. However, the search results, like you said, are presented very poorly. So not only does it fail to support the notion of browsing, it also fails at the one function it appears to support: search.
You make good points, but I don’t agree on all of them.
First, I don’t think wikipedia is over hyperlinked. The ubiquitous links provide an excellent way to get buried in Wikipedia articles (certainly in combination with “open in new tab”). It’s a perfect way to learn more on any topic.
Secondly, why skip the google search? Sure, you could go to wikipedia and start your search there. Or even use the wikipedia search bar in Firefox. But people are inherently lazy, and having wikipedia info ready in a google search result is often very handy. In fact, I can get a bit annoyed when I’m looking for a wikipedia article and it isn’t in the top 10 search results.
Perhaps wikipedia is a good example of how overdesign often isn’t necessary. Given the enormous success the site has, even with the “shortcomings” you list above, maybe the shortcomings aren’t so grave to begin with? I haven’t stopped browsing on wikipedia because the UI set me off. Never.
And for editing: perhaps the non-wysiwyg way of editing raises the bar just enough to provide a minimum level of quality control. After all, you need to know what you’re doing to be able to add (decent) content. And given the amount of spam and junk wikipedia has to take care of with the current system, I’m not entirely sure that lowering that bar on editing would be that beneficial.
Inferis,
While it may be ok for you, it doesn’t mean it’s ok for everyone else. Especially non-technical users. They should be able to contribute and navigate the site.
For comparison check out the top level navigation on this encyclopedia: http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science-technology.html
The content isn’t as rich but it’s easier to navigate and browse between sections of the site.
If you don’t think the wiki is over-linked check out a sample article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
In the first paragraph there are 38 links. It’s just nuts. If you only linked things like proper names, and explicitly relevant articles there would only be 5 or 6 links making the content and story easier to follow. Otherwise why not just link every single word?
I don’t buy the suggestion that quasi-markup and cryptic icons is the best way to get serious contributors. Computer skill and topic knowledge are almost always unrelated. How does a geeky UI make it likely the professor emeritus and world authority of medieval literature will correct an article on Hildegard von Bingen?
As for the severity of the shortcomings, Wikipedia is in a special class of social sites that only has to be famous to be #1. The more it’s known, the more contributors it gets and thus the more likely it’ll have complete quality content. The more it’s well known, the more people turn to it and tend to find that content. Good brand-awareness and good content can make up for a lot of bad usability.
On the other hand, bad usability will still interfere with performance. I’m another one who was unaware it is possible to browse Wikipedia. As for over-linking, I hesitate to click a link because of experiences of being directed to irrelevant content. In addition to interfering with reading, over-linking _discourages_ learning more about a topic.
So I may use Wikipedia, but I’m using it in a most limited way. Is that really success?
About infoplease, I’m a little bit confused. I would have put the left column menu as the top navigation and the latter at the left-hand-side. At a first glance these menus seems to be unrelated, so there’s not even a top navigation.
Besides that, you’re right on some points: the search field at the top; a menu with some major pages. But don’t forget that it’s a wiki. This kind of application has its own history and therefore its own usage. As far as I know there’s not a wiki which applies your recommendations by default.
At least, one can more or less customize a wiki.
The over-hyperlinking isn’t a design issue- it’s a problem with the users not following the rules. There ARE policies to cut down on the no. of links in an article. Articles on a specific topic should not link to a more general topic (the vast majority of the links in the JFK introduction break this rule- JFK is definitely more specific than “Vice President”, but it’s linked anyway).
And I’d guess that community links and editing tools are given “high profile” spots is because the 2% who contribute to articles and the community are more important than the 98% of freeloaders. If you encourage the editors, you get good information, which in turn encourages browsers to come read it. If editing tools are difficult to find, pages will be edited less. Doesn’t matter how nice your navigation is, if there’s no good content, nobody will come read it.
Besides that, I more or less agree. I sysopped on a moderately-sized wiki for a couple years, and never bothered deciphering that stupid toolbar. It’s unintuitive for newbies, and slower than markup for oldbies.
What is needed is a new kind of package that has a top level that is only controlled by the system-accredited editors, and a lower level that anybody can edit, but only as a suggestion. That way the top level keeps approaching perfection but nobody down below can set it back. Then the problem of being afraid of a good WYSIWYG editor would vanish.