Talk:Learning and Evaluation/Archive/Boiler room/Portal Redesign Plan/Community feedback

Do the section headings make sense? Are they clear?

I do think in general this is well ordered to I only have minor points. I was surprised in a way to see 'Programme Directory' in the #Plan section rather than in #Share, as it feels to be a an activity connected to sharing ideas. In a similar context, just looking at the headline #Share, I was expecting to see tools where people can interact on evaluation, rather than a place where past reports are being linked - this is more of a studying function to me. Having said that, I'm sure it would become clear with a few clicks. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Some very interesting points Daria Cybulska (WMUK)! The way I see it - Plan is a section for upcoming events while Share is a space for "findings" or "results." The programme directory is a space to post an upcoming event so you can work together with others who might be doing a similar program. I can include the program directory as an "Related link" in the share section, since it does work there too. Meanwhile, Study is about learning program evaluation concepts and perhaps review some case studies about how its been done for Wikimedia programs. I'm already seeing places where I can change some words to make all of this clearer. I shall work on this. Thanks so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Do the section headings translate well into non-English languages?

Quick thoughts:

• Generally it needs a copyedit. Inconsistencies in capping (the modern way is to downcase where possible, which is easier for second-language speakers, too). Spaced en dash is what US and UK style guide prescribe – not a hyphen, which is harder to read. Consider roman instead of italic text unless for a level of title or an emphasised word. Italics are harder to read.
• A lot depends on how much space there is – whether the examples are at real size or smaller. Is there room to expand the text-containers horizontally/vertically in some cases?
• Are some of the items link-buttons? If so, which ones?
• Colour scheme generally works well, but the site plan colours look gaudy: their equivalents in the screenshots below are much nicer. A design person would know better than I do. Is it ok for accessibility (red-green colour blindness, etc)?
• Translators and second-language speakers: the grammar of "short texts" in English is often problematic in translation. Is it a noun or a verb? Which items are coupled? Sometimes they'd have to think to work it out. "Browse Learning patterns", for example: why cap the L, which makes "Browse Learning", on a single line, look like some new technical term ... let's do some browse learning. I'm not sure I know what it means myself. (Ah, I see the first word is bolded ... very subtle, at least in these screenshots). "Intro" ... is there an equivalent abbreviation in Mandarin? Probably spell it out, but you could argue me out of that. Why quotemark "guided tour"? Nowadays not sufficiently metaphorical to disrupt readers. "... more to come" – bit confusing, and maybe better omitted? Do they need to be told about "modified look" (which might be more meta-comment directed at reviewers now)? Each other, rather than one another, probably. "The logic model for program leaders to map out ...". "Other tools: Additional tools for data analysis, reporting, or and data graphics". Lots more tweaking, but this is an expensive use of time, this way.

Tony (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Tony1 - Thanks for the feedback! To respond to your comments:

• Yes, we will be doing a more thorough copy edit of all the descriptions to make sure they represent the content and that the content is easy to understand/translate
• The headings are the key right now. I will be working on making the navigation bar flexible so that more text can be added, if necessary. This might require that we shrink the font.
• I see your point about the short texts - it was one of my key concerns for the main headings Study, Plan, Measure, share, etc. But I will make sure that the boxes are able to adjust in size to accommodate more text. As for the subheadings in each section (i.e. Intro to Evaluation, Program Guides, etc.) the boxes are very easy to use and to translate. They will adjust size to accommodate more words without a problem.

We are aware that many of the descriptions need to be edited in the screenshots. The sitemap will not be translated and is only for planning purposes. I've sent this meta page to volunteers who speak other languages to get their perspective as well. I am going to save all the translation points you've made and keep them as a checklist for copyediting this site and other uses — Are you aware of any pages on meta that discuss translatability from English - or some other resource (books maybe?) that you might recommend ? This would be very helpful as well.

Thanks so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Edward. "Are you aware of any pages on meta that discuss translatability from English - or some other resource (books maybe?) that you might recommend?" No. I've been thinking of writing a subpage guide on how to write text in English that optimises the results of google translate. Just with some homegrown ideas. But it would be better if the guidance were tested against real translation results, and for that I may need speakers of other languages. I don't know of any published advice, but I haven't looked. Tony (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward, I'm emailing you about the translatability issue, on which I've made a little progress. Tony (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Any other comments or feedback

looks great! Small thought! but - in the "Share" category, I would also put in a link to the "connect," area, since these two words might be confusing for people. Jwild (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)