Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Search box poll 2010

Related discussions:

Apparently, there was a former straw poll on including a second search box at the header back in 2006: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll; Many users dislike the new interface and dislike the placement of the search box at the top. As it stands, the current user feedback on the Search box specifically is disorganized, and very difficult to see. This is an attempt to organize the opinions and views into a vote, including reasons behind them from individual users. Only confirmed users will be allowed to vote. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this issue are to be reserved on Wikipedia:User experience feedback/search box. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the third option is a compromise of both, it will give insight to those willing to compromise (even if it might look redundant or stupid).

The design of the site interface is proposed as three options:

Keep as is (in the new design) AKA Search box on the top header
Restore search box on the left navigation (as in the old design) AKA Search box on the left navigation
Have a transitional phase by including the search box in both the top header and left navigation AKA have it both until users can decide which seems better of the two

Straw poll

Top header (Top)

because (a) it's wide and ~~(b) humans tend to first focus on the top right corner when looking at a new page.~~ Skäpperöd (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange I always look at the top left corner or top middle first, and I doubt any research that has shown this. When I first saw this new skin it took me about 2 whole seconds to find the search bar. I don't mind it being at the top, but not the top right corner.--92.251.251.141 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, top right focus is assumed in print media, while it is left focus in the web. I strike out that argument accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User testing says that the top-right positioning is better for newbies. Personal preference can be satisfied with user customizations; much of the vocal resistance is due to the historical position of the search box. Although unregistered users can't have preferences (a technical issue due to Wikipedia's use of server-side caching), it seems silly that an objectively better (as confirmed by user testing) interface (a usability issue) should be avoided because people who are unwilling to register an account to change their settings don't do so. Wikipedia's left-hand search has long been used as an example of bad design—now it's been improved. Let's not cause a regression. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the top more intuitive. The search box is more visible at the top, and there is more room for it. If the consensus is to move it to the left, there should be an option in the preferences to place the search box at the top. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every website I've ever seen has a search box at the top. I would think that most casual readers would be accustomed to search boxes being at the top, rather than being hidden half-way down the page among dozens of sidebar links that they don't care about. Perhaps to deal with the issue of queries running off the edge of the window, we could move it to the center (in the new gap between "Discussion" and "Read"), or to the top-left (directly under the logo). Brian the Editor (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per others. Almost every other website uses top, be it top centre or top right, as does nearly every single browser, many OSes, and many programs. (As a side note despite the claim that top left is more intuative, it seems very few websites actually use top left however while opposed to the old location I'm not opposed to top left). See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2010 May 11#Is a search box to the upper right "intuitive"? for examples, most of which use top centre or top right. Adding two search bars is a great way to cause even more confusion, even worse if they do different things. Our previous search bar with search and go was already often criticised as confusing [1] [2] Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left navigation (Left)

Left. As an old Wikipedia user, I've been accustomed to the search box on the left. It's been like that for years. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left as it was. I never managed to locate it on the new design and have swirched back to the old. If it's not broken don't fix it. Giacomo 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left Put the search box back where it was. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Top of left bar ... (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left please Tex (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directly below the logo For a number of reasons
1. The logo attracts attention and the search box would be very obvious underneath it.
2. It keeps to a logical layout, with tools for navigating Wikipedia on the left, and tools for viewing and changing the current page at the top. Why should the search box, the main tool for navigating Wikipedia, be in the latter place?
3. I dispute any claims that "humans look at the top right first". That is true for images, not web pages. This study, using eyetrack technolohy, found that people look at the top left first, and top right last. Certainly I tend to look either at the top left or top middle first. Our language reads left-to-right. It took me 1-2 seconds, amazingly enough, to notice the new search box.
4. Lastly, it's been on the left side for most of Wikipedia's history.--Patton123 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partly because I'm used to it, partly because that is where I would logically expect it, but mostly because the current placement cuts off suggested search results for articles with longer names. Reso lute 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, I don't care since I disabled it the day it went live; but I'm going to vote-by-proxy here for my colleague who sits next to me and says he preferred it on the left (but declined to take the plunge and create an account to go back to the far superior monobook). –xeno^talk 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left - I tried the Beta for quite a while, but eventually went back. The same thing happened with this last change - I tried and then reverted. Both times the location of the search box was a prime reason for my dissatisfaction. I'm not sure why - perhaps just because I'm so used to the other - but having the box on top seemed much less efficient, and led to a lot more mousing than having it on the left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left, but at the top of the page. That it is at the top matters more than left or right. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left so that the results can actually be seen! The issue of smaller monitors mentioned above is also important. Under the logo, or above it. And please, please restore the "go" vs "search." I pity the users - I could not use Vector at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left, as many users have requested at the wikimedia blog and other places. Jonathunder (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top and Left (Both)

Both. I am willing to compromise on the issue, and allow time for users to deal with the transition of changing the search box's location. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both. For best usability, a search box should be included in the location where users are most likely to look. It's fairly obvious that many users naturally look to the left, especially as this is standard practice in many other MediaWiki installations (not just Wikipedia). Other usability testing says that some users tend to prefer a search box at the top. So have the best of both worlds, include search boxes at both top and left, and then add something to Preferences to allow logged-in users to customize things as they like. --El on ka 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Both. I would like it back onthe left, but having it both places would be okeh IF it doesn't confuse people ("Huh?, are these two boxes for two different kinds of searches?" -- I don't know if any-one would react that way, but it should be checked out some-how.) Kdammers (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Comment- What about, the current one at the top being the "go" search that most visitors will want, and a new one at the left where the previous one was, being the "search" function (which I miss)? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 10:03, 19 May 2010 (ryone is happy. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
Both The Ebay Advanced search has got a top box and a network of lower boxes and I'm pretty sure this is not an uncommon thing. A little box to the left, a big box at the top, and eve
1. Comment perhaps the key word there is advanced. If fact we already have that anyway. Try Special:Search. eBay proper doesn't have two search boxes. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Maybe one of the advantages of using the top right search box would be bigger letters and more space. However, keeping the search box in the left is what MILLIONS of users are used to after YEARS of using the wikipedia. I found it practical and intuitive for the search box to be very near the Wikipedia logo, which is the first thing that catches one's attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both but differentiated. Actually the opposite to Sonia above. Before this upheaval I never thought of the box as 'search box', I overwhelmingly used it as the standard way to Go to an article by name. The two buttons 'Go' and 'Search' seem to have been lost, as commented by others. So please can we have the 'Go to' where Wikipedians are used to finding it (on the left), and the 'Search' where it appears on many Web sites around the world (in the topnav), where we can search for words within an article, rather than by title. Sussexonian (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to both as long as there's one on the left. The inability to see completions makes right-side a complete non-starter--destroys a useful function that has no replacement that is as intuitive or available. Right-side also fails for narrower screens...I didn't see it at all until I side-scrolled. Making it easy for the search to be hidden is a pretty dumb interface "feature" for an encyclopedia. If "people say people think people want upper-right", I don't care if there's one there. But I also need one I can access and use. DMacks (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Comment That sounds like a bug with your browser. It's impossible for the search to be missing/require scrolling in Firefox for me. Even if I reduce the page size so I can only see the wikipedia logo, the search still appears although the page looks super ugly. I presume this is by design. The autocompletion issue is a recognised one and I presume there are various ways to resolve it without moving the search bar. In fact it appears this is already being worked on in the prototype (look at the bug report below) Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I noticed that this page is semi-protected. May I suggest that we unprotect it? If new/unregistered users participate, we can simply move their comments to a separate section. If nothing else, we should provide a link to some place where they can comment on the poll, rather than simply barring their participation. --El on ka 13:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't care, because I've already turned off the new features. However, I think that some anonymous users might be upset that we've foisted these changes on them without any way for them to opt-out short of creating an account. –xeno^talk 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Hilarious that this was semi-protected, by the way. Way to listen to your readers![reply]
I don't really care about the location of the "search" box, but i care strongly about the fact that currently it is impossible to search Wikipedia using it. See bug 23558. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Both" is a silly option

"Both" is a silly option. If people prefer the left-hand search bar, they will use the left-hand search bar. They will not use the top-right search bar, and will thus complain just as loudly if the left-hand one is ever removed as they are complaining now about the move. Further, the duplication of search elements would be confusing to those who didn't understand it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humans look at the top left first, and top right last

I noticed a claim above that humans look at the top right of the screen first. Certainly I have heard this about images. However this study using eyetrack technology shows people look at the top left first, and the top right last. How did the usability team miss this?--Patton123 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is it appears to be concentrating on news websites, as does their latest study [3] which you need to pay to see and I can't find anything from the summaries I've read which confirms or denies whether their latest research concurs with their previous research but did come across [4] which suggests their latest study may contradict their previous one on a different issue. More importantly more general research on user reading patterns on the web like [5] have come up with the F shaped pattern. They also have more detailed research although I haven't looked in to it (perhaps the usability initiative have). I did mention [6] in a discussion above who recommend top left or top right based on the F shaped scanning pattern. (I presume this includes top centre.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a poll

This decision - like most others regarding usability - shouldn't be made on the basis of a poll but on the results of empirical usability testing and best practices. Don't second guess yourselves because a bunch of amateurs are playing Monday morning quarterbacks. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget

Is it possible to switch the location using a gadget or CSS? G.A.S ^talk 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But that doesn't help logged out users who I'm sure are used to the original location. –xeno^talk 13:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely most logged out users don't visit wikipedia enough that they are used to anything. And new people are coming to wikipedia everday. In fact there's a fair chance the majority of wikipedia readers barely noticed the skin change although they may or may not have found it better if they were asked to compare. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own read on the situation is that a large percentage of our regular readers did notice the change, and don't like it, but can't figure out where to voice their complaint. It's extremely difficult to find a place to comment, based on the current "New features" link, which goes only to Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch, and has no link to a place where people can comment. Only those who are intermediate/advanced users, or use the watchlist function, really have any hope of finding the poll or comment pages. This is doubtless causing frustration for many users, and it's very non-wiki, to provide information without an associated discussion page. My guess is that if there were an actual link from the Special page to one of the comment pages, we'd be hearing a lot more complaints. Of those who are managing to navigate the labyrinth to actually comment, the ratio of "I don't like the change" to "I like the change" seems to be at least 20-to-1. For a return on a "Usability" project, those are pretty awful numbers. What we'd want to see instead are, "Wow, thanks Wikipedia, this is much easier to use now! Or, "I always wanted that feature, and now you have it, good job!" Instead we have this long chorus of, "Noooooo, change it back, it's harder to use now!" comments. If I were in charge of the usability project (which I'm not), I'd change the default for non-logged-in users back to the original skin, and then proceed more slowly with changes. Instead, we seem to have an attitude of, "Well, the people complaining are just whiners. Stick with the new skin, they'll get used to it." Which, again, is bad usability philosophy. --El on ka 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that I can edit that special page by way of the Mediawiki namespace, otherwise I would've added such links. –xeno^talk 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I would've added discussion links, and also fixed the multiple typos on the page. But as it is, it's not even clear who to contact, to ask to have the page changed! --El on ka 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about regular readers? One of the big problems with any analysis is there are plenty of people who aren't regular readers, and as I was hinting above, this most likely is the majority of people who visit wikipedia on any given day. Unfortunately testing for what they would prefer is difficult at best. In addition, as I've noted elsewhere, another problem is there are several well recognised bugs which are common sources of complaints (another one was the slow speeds which I presume is no longer a problem but ironically would be if the changes are rolled back). In fact in this very page, some of the supports above are because of people not liking the autocompletion bug.

Also as for your other comment... Perhaps I'm mistaken but it's my experience the vast majority of changes to an interface result in large number of complaints from users familiar with the interface. It seemed to be what happened with MS Office, with Windows Vista, with Youtube etc. In fact I've never seen a major change to an interface where the majority of comments were "Wow, thanks Wikipedia, this is much easier to use now! or "I always wanted that feature, and now you have it, good job!" etc. My experience and understanding (both of which aren't much) of human psychology, crowd behaviour, how people react to changes in general and self-selection (as is always the case when you're relying on people actually offering feedback) suggest to me this is unlikely unless the old interface is so terrible that nearly everyone hated it. However people still make these changes which are lambested.

Perhaps it's because the designers are totally stupid. Perhaps it's because the designers recognise that there's more to making a good design then counting preferences of those familiar with the old design. None of this means the new skin nor any of the other examples were better, I obviously can't say, simply that I think this is an incredibly complicated question which counting complaints can only go a very small way to answering. (And I suspect where we are today in many cases a result of similar disruptive changes which were initially lambested but now few people would want to revert to the old although again that could just be familiarity with the new. )

Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps it's because developers are paid to change things? In one of the many pages where people reacted to this change - which I cannot now find again - someone pointed to a series of studies starting in 1998 pointing to the fact that most internet users nowadays are conservative, not daring early adopters, and expect to be able to learn how to use something and not have the ingrained habits overturned. It's been over a decade since one could assume internet users are all intrepid coders and early adopters. Thuis change was obviously very selectively and inadequately beta-tested, and only the users have no way to opt out. We editors can - as it emerges most did during beta. Wrong set of assumptions, woeful implementation, and why are donors to Wikimedia Foundation paying for people to muck things up like this?? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely anecdotal evidence, but a colleague of mine visits Wikipedia regularly but doesn't have an account - I asked him about it and he said he prefers the old location. –xeno^talk 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it will be moved to the top left

Or at least, according to this poll it will. I wonder if they will pay any heed to it?--Patton123 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]