Talk:Library Card platform/Design improvements/Archive 1

My Library

Is anything confusing about the mockup designs? Would you find the favouriting system helpful? Are there other filters or collection tags that we should consider? Any other thoughts welcome. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I like it. The favourite section is nice, I'll definitely use that. The collection descriptions will be helpful, although perhaps they could also be collapsed like in the favourites section to save space. The filters will help isolating those collections I'm interested in. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• First of all, I like the whole platform, and don't want to critisice this good structured design. Filters are also OK, but I wouldn't like or use a favouriting system, which collects the data, what I access more often. Habitator terrae (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Habitator terrae: Thanks for your thoughts - I just want to clarify something you said here. "I wouldn't like or use a favouriting system, which collects the data, what I access more often" - do you mean that you don't want data on your 'favourite' collections to be collected at all, or simply that you wouldn't want that information to be public? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9 (WMF) "at all", I disagree with the concept of personalised data collection per default. Habitator terrae (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Actually having the information on what collections are, and the filter, are much needed for My Library - most of the icons/names mean nothing to me. A nice addition would be to mark those collections that have a way have/make publicly readable references (like clipping on newspapers.com allows) KylieTastic (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• The mockup that adds descriptions to each collection addresses my biggest gripe with My Library (trying to figure out which might be useful without having to go to another page for each one), and reduces the wasted space of oversized logos. Being able to mark my most frequently used collections as favorites will be a big time saver for me. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• favouriting & collection descriptions (brief) would be very helpful Redwidgeon (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on this! Overall I'm hearing that a favouriting system, collection descriptions, and displaying descriptions would be helpful features for My Library. We shouldn't make the favouriting system in any way a required feature so we should ensure that it's not disruptive for folks who don't want to use it. In terms of descriptions we could experiment with the description collapsing feature to see whether collapsing all descriptions by default makes sense to users. We could also explore additional flags like free-to-read references. Please feel free to add more feedback below, this is just a summary at this point in the discussion. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Homepage

Making the homepage more useful

What do you want to be able to do from the Library Card homepage when logged in? What about when you're logged out? Is anything missing? Is there anything on the screen you don't interact with? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• How about putting my library as the homepage after login?--Temp3600 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Making the homepage easy to use

Is anything confusing for you on the logged out homepage? What about the logged in homepage? What do you want to be able to do from the Library Card homepage? What was confusing for you when you first viewed the tool? What's missing from this page? No wrong answers :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't find the current homepage confusing, and I'm happy with it as it is. If I'm logged out of TWL, I'm logged in automatically, provided I'm logged in to one of the Wikipedias. The page has all I need: it tells me whether I have access to the Library Bundle or not; I can access My Library; and I can apply for new access. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Samwalton9, you know I am not particularly good at the technical side of Wikiworld. What I struggle most with is renewal, which I am not remotely sure is a homepage issue. In my dream world, users would receive an automated message 30 days prior to access expiration, to avoid the problem of losing access and then being locked out until it is restored. (Of course, this doesn't always work, as last year though I had a notice from OUP, it expired before they renewed my "reference" and for some reason I will never understand gave me access to "scholarship", which did not allow me to access the same materials. It's February, and I just checked my archive, so I'm guessing that is about to happen again, ugh!) SusunW (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts @SusunW:! Yes, we hear that renewals are a source of frustration for many users. Those 30-day automated messages are a feature we've implemented in cases where we know for sure that your access is lasting for a set amount of time. Most notably, for all proxy-enabled publishers this is the case. It's also turned on for a few manually-setup publishers like Newspapers.com. We're going to take a look at the renewals process and see if there are other improvements we could make. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Samwalton9. It is comforting to know I am not the only one that struggles with the issue. Very much appreciate the services the Library offers and the efforts to make it easier to access. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• What I miss most is a much more detailed presentation of the collections available: Which journals can be accessed, and which reference works are a part of the collection? You might like to sort the collections according to the subject field they deal with, e.g. politics, or law, or medicine, or general reference, or general journal archive. A common usecase for a German Wikipedian would be, e.g., to find a list of German-language law journals, or German-language newspapers available in the Wikipedia Library and how to access them. So I imagine a guide according to what you are looking for: Subjects, ebooks or journals or newspapers, full-text or bibliographic database etc. This should be the starting point from a researcher's point of view.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aschmidt: This is a great point, and something that would unfortunately probably be quite hard for us to maintain. Thankfully, I think the ability to find the kinds of narrow-scoped collections you mentioned can be solved with the search tool - there you'd be able to search content that's in particular languages, in specific formats, or on particular topics. Most importantly, EBSCO keep that database up to date for us. Does that sound like it would solve your need here? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9 (WMF): Yes, it does sound rather good indeed. I'm looking forward to the new search tool! Thanks for your efforts!--Aschmidt (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

+1 from me. --Mirer (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• There are lots of library subject guides on internet. No need to remake them.--Temp3600 (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Design feedback

2021 homepage redesign

@Temp3600, Bruce1ee, SusunW, Aschmidt, and Mirer: Thanks for your feedback above - we found it very instructive as we worked on new homepage designs! Here's our latest design, we'd love to know what you think. We decided to approach the problem from the perspective of a new library user. We aimed to make the homepage more understandable, user-friendly, and welcoming to more people, with a focus on a user's first-time experience. To do this we organised the page around a single call-to-action: logging in. Once a user has logged in we can provide them with more specific guidance based on what they qualify to access.

We hope that the new homepage design gives users a good grounding in what the library is and who it's for, providing a sense of what kinds of content are available here, but prioritises guiding them towards getting logged in. The publisher logos at the bottom of the page can be browsed by tag, allowing users who are interested in a particular topic to click that tag and filter the publishers to those holding content on that topic. This is intended to give an at-a-glance sense of the library's holdings, without going into specifics about how that content is accessed. This change also updates the footer, trimming some of the less important links for logged out users.

Since making this design we have one small change we'd already like to make, which is updating 'All' to 'Featured' so we have more control over the default set of publishers shown to users, which we would select to show a good cross-section of the library's holdings.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this design meets our goals, and anything else you'd like to share! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Samwalton9 I think it looks fine. I think I will love being able to browse by tag, as you know that has been a big part of the discussion at Women in Red. We so appreciate having the access, but it is so hard to search even if you already know what you are looking for. We'll just have to give it a spin and see how it works out. Thank you for continuing to work on making the library more accessible to more editors. SusunW (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• It looks good. The topic filters will be very useful (I take it that general purpose collections like EBSCO, Gale and ProQuest will appear in many, if not all, of the topics). When someone logs in will they see the Library Bundle databases plus any others they have access to (both via the proxy and not)? If a user doesn't qualify for bundle access, what will they see, a blank screen? Will we still be able to access our applications and user information as we can currently? Finally, I see that the publisher logos aren't all the same size. This could make those with the bigger logos appear more significant than the smaller ones. Thanks, —Bruce1ee^talk 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bruce1ee: Currently the general purpose collections are placed in a "multidisciplinary" category. This isn't ideal because they don't show up under more specific filters. We did this mostly to save space on the collection tiles - having a publisher with 10+ tags really wasn't great - but we're thinking of a better solution now which would allow us to deprecate that category, so that it behaves as you suggest. The logged in experience is still going through some revisions, I hope to post our latest version of that design in the coming week, but the basic version is that once you're logged in you'll go straight to a My Library-like screen where you immediately see your available collections and can initiate a cross-collection search rather than having an intermediary screen from which you need to navigate into My Library. We're likely to implement the new homepage by itself first, to collect data while we're working on implementing the rest.
  • We're still discussing the behaviour for users who don't qualify - my thinking is we might keep them on the homepage and update the criteria listed there to signify why they don't qualify; there's really nothing for them in the logged-in site. Would that make sense to you? Agreed regarding the prominence of some publisher logos - it's something I wasn't completely convinced by so I'm glad to hear I'm not alone; we'll play around with this and perhaps give logos a maximum width. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• My two cents: would that encourage new users come for the library resources but not Wikipedia itself?--Temp3600 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the new starting page looks fine. As to the new discovery service, I'd suggest to keep the search page as simple as possible, almost like the Google web search for access to the discovery service to be introduced soon. There has to be an advanced search, too, of course. But you might like to provide separate pages for the catalogue of available partners. I would like to bookmark a permalink for a TWL search page in my webbrowser. Regards, Aschmidt (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks and sounds good! I think the design won't be that important after you registered and saw what the library offers. More important to come back and use it regularly is that you're able to find, what you're looking for. Design helps, but the effectiveness of the search with tags and the descriptions is what will be most important.
Maybe it would be a good idea if we could add own tags (only to be seen for yourself) and/or short notes for the publishers. In my case I could add a short tag to the two most used publishers, so I don't mix them up in my mind and use the wrong one, just to find out that I wanted to search the other publisher. The notes could help to put a note to myself, what to click next or what was important on that publishers site to get quickly to the best results (e. g. getting to s special newspaper or nailing down searches without too much results, that I don't need).
After registering and logging in, the results of my search(es) will tell me, if I come back or if the library is too small (no information found) or to big (can't nail down the really interesting information in the sea of results/publishers) for me. --Mirer (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

General design feedback

Do you have general thoughts about the design of the Library Card platform? This can be about any pages or workflows - we'd love to hear any and all thoughts you have about what is or isn't working for you right now. Is anything particularly frustrating or confusing? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• What would be nice is when an "Access collection" button on the My Library page is clicked, the target page opens in a new browser tab/window, leaving the library page open for further use. Because the individual and instant access collections will be on the same page, will it be easy to distinguish between them? The individual access ones don't use the proxy and require user names and passwords. Do you think it would be useful for each collection to include, alongside their descriptions, any important terms-of-use conditions we should be aware of, like the distribution of content to third parties? —Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these thoughts Bruce1ee! Opening those links in a new tab/window is an interesting idea - I'd love to hear what other folks think about this. As for individual vs instant, that's a great point. Do you have any thoughts on how we might succinctly flag whether an access button goes through the proxy or simply directly to the website for login? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9 (WMF): Currently the library pages use "Access collection" buttons for instant access, and "Go to site" buttons for individual access. Perhaps something like "Login for access" for individual access may be sufficient to distinguish between the two. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Shooting the moon here, for me the best user interface would be if I could log on to the Wikipedia Library, and the partners would give me access when I went directly to them. The Library homepage would not be the required Port of entry. All I would have to do is login to the database that I wanted to use. Perhaps reaching the database once through the Wikipedia Library would be enough to establish more or less permanent access, until the month when the access expired. It's a dream, and an improved search function will certainly help. Larrykoen (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I like Larrykoen's moonshot! For example, I click a link to a JSTOR reference. It tells me I need access. I have to go to My Library, access the JSTOR collection, then search to find the proper doc. (If there's an easier way, I haven't figured it out.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Larrykoen and Schazjmd: FWIW, if you have Javascript enabled in your browser, you can add a function to your bookmarks toolbar to help with this. Create a bookmark with the location javascript:void(location.href="https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url="+location.href) and call it whatever you like. Then, when you're on a page you want to access, click the link and you'll automatically be routed through (if you have access to the source via the library proxy). Alternatively you can just paste https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url= in front of the URL you want to access. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the tips, Nikkimaria! Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks Nikkimaria, both methods work nicely. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• In fact, I like the current layout of the website. I think it could do with a bit of polish, but no more else.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

One problem I have had is that I find sources to use in Google Scholar but need to hop through TWL to actually get them since they aren't the same URL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The library is easy to use. The access to the content has really with researching and improving articles. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for your work on this. My UI suggestions at the moment are: 1) The "See more" button on the logged out homepage is a little ambiguous. Perhaps rename it to "Complete list of repositories" or something like that. I was looking for that page and was unable to find it for awhile. 2) On the partners page, I know tiles/mobile is all the rage right now, but maybe consider a table format. I find tables more concise and easier to read and grok. Thank you, keep up the great work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarity about JavaScript: Library Card platform/Design improvements

Apparently javascript is necessary for use of the Library Card platform. This took me a while to figure out. Some sort of notice would probably be appropriate. Dcattell (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dcattell: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is something we paid close attention to in early development of the tool, but it seems like we haven't been as careful recently. I've noted some areas I identified as not functional at T274509. Am I missing anything there? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding T274509: a fallback mechanism to retain the expected functionality is a good idea, and would seem to involve technical difficulties involving platforms of Wikipedia Library's partners. Some informational messaging to editors would be good: I expected functionality which I could have gotten by enabling JS (I'm an old school KISS fan, not so fond of JS). However, expectations are changeable. Anyway, I think you also want to look into the functionality of clicking on a reference at the bottom of an article and see what happens, even with JavaScript enabled (I am a firm believer that Wikipedia editors should actually check reference citations by actually checking them rather than just seeing if something is listed, but that is another topic). So, for instance, I go to Kunlun (mythology). I see that there is a reference citation to a source that I am (was) unfamiliar with:

• Schipper, Kristofer (1978), "The Taoist Body", History of Religions, Current Perspectives in the Study of Chinese Religions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 17 (3/4), JSTOR 1062436 

I think, "ok cool!" I click on the hyperlink "1062436" (the JSTOR link opens up to the Wikipedia article about JSTOR). Following the link for "1062436", I get a JSTOR tab or window open to a page referencing the Schipper source which offers to allow me to click a button labeled "Read and download Login through your school or library". Following down this path is not helpful. If I enter "Wikipedia" as the institution, then I get a message box saying:

"Alternate access options

Although Wikipedia participates in JSTOR, they have not provided us with a way for you to log in remotely. Check your library’s website for access info or contact your librarian who manages JSTOR for your institution."

Of course the work around is to log on through Wikipedia and then do a search for the article. Not so hard. I'm not complaining, but you did ask! Anyway, cheers! And keep up the good work! Dcattell (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dcattell: Have a look at Nikkimaria's solution to this problem earlier on this page. Create a browser bookmark with this location:

javascript:void(location.href="https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url="+location.href)

Click on the JSTOR id in the citation and you get the paywalled article. Now click on the bookmark you created and you'll get full access to that article through TWL. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

New questions!

Here are our new research questions. Please try not to read other people's answers as it may bias your own. We appreciated your previous input @Bruce1ee, Habitator terrae, KylieTastic, Schazjmd, Redwidgeon, SusunW, Aschmidt, Mirer, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and FieldMarine:. If you'd take the time to answer the following three questions this would help our product team as we redesign the homepage! AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In your own words, how would you explain what TWL is?

• The Wikipedia Library gives instant access to subscription-only resources that editors can use for research. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• What Schazjmd said. It is especially helpful for those who have no ready access to public libraries or university collections. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• TWL is a collection of online subscription databases that is available to Wikimedia users. Access to many databases is available immediately to users with over 500 edits and accounts over six months old. Access to other databases has to be applied for. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• TWL is a place to look for sources which are not available in full version online, exclusively for the purpose of authoring or correcting Wikipedia articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia Library is a platform that serves as a proxy to paywalled databases and digital archives that may be helpful for research into any topic a Wikipedian might want to deal with. Aschmidt (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• TWL provides you with a scaled-down version of the kind of access to paywalled journals that you may have had before if you worked or studied at a postsecondary institution. Redwidgeon (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redwidgeon: your use of the description "scaled-down" intrigued me. Would you mind explaining a bit more what you mean by that? Thank you! AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@AVardhana (WMF): "scaled down" is probably a poor choice of words. When I was working for a college, I had access to all the journals (paper &/or digital) that the college subscribed to, without having to request further access for specific journals or collections. In TWL it seems I have immediate access to some resources but for others I have to request further access. But it's quite possible I see this as 'scaled down' access only because I am a relative newbie to TWL & haven't explored the features very fully. Redwidgeon (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redwidgeon: got it. thank you for the clarification! AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If you were to tell another editor about it, what would you say?

• Try the different collections at your My Library page. You'll find sources for articles that you won't get from ordinary web searches, and most of the time you'll have access to full-text results. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Women's history is hard. Two of the best sources you can access are newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. The library also allows you to access other collections which may be helpful like Alexander Street Press's Women and Social Movements collection, Cambridge's Orlando Project of Women's writers, Muse, Jstor, OUP, etc. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Much the same as what I wrote for the previous question. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I introduced a box on the top of the resource exchange page on German Wikipedia that summarises what the TWL is and how to get there. I would just suggest to try out whether you can find something useful for your contributions to Wikipedia there. Aschmidt (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Having a card to the TWL greatly increases your ability to edit articles, add (or check) references to articles, or author a new article from scratch. Redwidgeon (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What are your research needs? How well does TWL meet your needs? How important do you think your needs are?

• More sources for gender studies, i.e. women's journals, gender-focused journals, etc. Mainstream academics typically do not cover gendered history. If it is studied at all, it is a separated field. Thus, it follows that academic journals that focus on broad history do not often focus on gender minorities or women. More sources for Africa and African Americans, i.e. the Proquest collection of the archives of the Associated Negro Press; access to All Africa archives; partnerships with facilities like the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture; etc. More sources for social history of under-represented topics, i.e. Asians, Latinas, Indigenous peoples, Pacific Islanders, etc. If we are ever going to stop focusing on mainstream topics and provide a diverse and broader perspective, we must have sources to develop the topics that are missing or under-represented. Thus they are critical resources, IMO. SusunW (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• My research needs include looking for sources for my Wikipedia content development, mostly music and literature related articles. I also assist with locating sources for other editors at WP:RX. TWL meets my needs to a large extent, but I often find sources that are available in online databases TWL doesn't have, like Wiley, NewsBank and The British Newspaper Archive. Extending TWL's coverage would help considerably. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I usually use Google Scholar to track down sources to use for Wikipedia writing. Sometimes they are freely accessible, sometimes I need to use en:WP:RX and sometimes I need to use an institutional subscription. One issue I have is that it seems like in some TWL accesses such as JSTOR TWL procures you an account, in others such as EBSCO you need to use a special URL which ain't connected to Google Scholar. As for "important", I am currently on a one/two-month hiatus from article writing but I plan to resume soon-ish. And there I'll need TWL resources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I mostly deal with German jurisprudence and the social sciences. Our most important legal databases are Juris and Beck Online which unfortunately are not part of the TWL. So most of my research happens in databases provided by my local libraries in the first place, while TWL opens the door to the rest of the world out there, both in English and in French. The longer I have access to the portals TWL provides to me the more important these have become to my learning. Also, international sources become more and more important in legal research, so databases such as Hein Online and Oxford Law are worth having a look into because Wikipedians also need keeping up to date with developments in their subject field! The addition of DeGruyter through WMDE was a great idea because it provides valuable resources for the social sciences in German. My situation is typical for those dealing with my subjects in German-speaking countries. It remains to be seen how this situation develops as open access advances within the EU. I'd suggest to offer trainigs for doing research in the TWL platforms, as most Wikipedians are older people not used to discovery services. Aschmidt (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a new user of TWL so I haven't clarified any specific research needs yet. But I'd sure appreciate a TWL 101 course to get familiarized with the different journals & databases available, & how to use them most effectively. Redwidgeon (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 update

Hi all - I just wanted to give a quick update on the progress of these changes.

Logged in UI

June 2021 My Library mockup

We've posted new mockups for the logged in experience - the interface which will replace the current logged-in homepage and My Library. We'd love to know what you think!

• Does this design seem like an improvement over the existing user experience?
• Is anything missing from these designs that you think we should consider?

We hope to have this new design implemented by the end of September.

Logged out homepage

We've almost finished implementation on the new homepage for users who are not yet logged in. You can test this at https://twlight-staging.wmflabs.org/homepage/ (if you see the normal homepage at that URL please log out first). We hope to deploy this within the next week. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some folks who might be interested :) @Bruce1ee, Schazjmd, Redwidgeon, SusunW, Aschmidt, Mirer, Jo-Jo Eumerus, FieldMarine, Temp3600, and Novem Linguae: Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments on both

• The new looged-in Library looks really good to me. This helps to find what I'm looking for. Personalization (in form of personal notes/favorites) would be an appreciated 2nd step. --Mirer (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I like the new design of the logged-out Homepage. Not a big new deal, but more modern and maybe helping new Wikipedians to apply and use the library. But in the end I think you always win with functionality (especially in this peer-group) and not design. --Mirer (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Adding the descriptions will be a huge improvement, I'm really looking forward to that. The logged-in mockup looks like a "favorites" functionality will be included, which is a bonus. I'm not clear on the distinction between "Available collections" and "My collections", since almost all of the library resources are now available for instant access, with just a few requiring individual approved access. Seems like it would be simpler to just have two views: favorites, and display-all with a button for "go to site"/"request access" for the few that require approval. Overall, great job and thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Schazjmd: Thanks for the feedback! 'My collections' is everything you're authorized to access - Library Bundle plus anything you've applied and been approved for. We probably should have used realistic numbers for the tabs, because a new eligible user logging in will actually see 29 collections in 'My Collections' (Library Bundle) and ~30 in available collections, which are still application-based. As much as I'd love to be in a place where all collections were immediately accessible, unfortunately we're only at about 50% right now so we figured it still made sense to split these. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've clicked through the tabs at the top, and it seems to me that the choices at the bottom change, but not necessarily to the choices I would expect or choices in alphabetic order. I mean, for example, I clicked on law assuming to fairly quickly find HeinOnline, but had to scroll more than five times to find it. First up was Magiran, a publisher of scientific journals; then Cairn, a publisher of social science materials; then Proquest, a general source conglomerate, before I got to the first law collection, Public International Law, which wasn't Hein. If I didn't know Hein was a major law compiler, I more than likely wouldn't find it, but it would be one of the first sources one should search for research on law materials.

I clicked through other categories at the top and found the same. I am pleased there appear to be more sources available and ones from different language groups, i.e. French, German, Arabic, etc. Those will be helpful. I'd love to have a tab for women's resources because they are so difficult to research, i.e. Alexander Street Press' Women and Social movements; Cambridge's Orlando collection; etc. (Does the inclusion of say Taylor & Francis and de Gruyter mean we'll have access to those? Looks like a major expansion of things we can access, which is always great, though I'd still love to see a partnership with the University of the West Indies for Caribbean Studies.) All of that said, I like the layout visually. SusunW (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SusunW: Thanks for testing this out! The issue you're experiencing is one we've gone back and forth on. We have a number of collections, like ProQuest and Cairn, where the breadth of content is so wide that they effectively cover every subject to some degree. The way tags work currently, these publishers are tagged as 'Multidisciplinary'. If you filter for 'Culture', you won't find those publishers, even though ProQuest has cultural content, for example. We tried to make these more discoverable by allowing multidisciplinary collections to show up in all categories. As you described your experience it became clear this might not actually be very helpful in most cases. We might need to explore this a bit further to see how to best address the problem. Perhaps if you filter for a subject, collections which specifically have that tag should show up first, and the multidisciplinary collections only at the end of the list?

• I like that tweak, Samwalton9; specific ones first then broad. Totally agree the multidisciplinary collections should be there, as it gives one an idea to try a provider one might not otherwise. (Now if I could just figure out how OUP decides where to put stuff. On a Google search I often get OUP Academic, but that isn't always scholarship, sometimes its journals, or handbooks, or reference. I've never not found it eventually, but it usually requires multiple searches.) SusunW (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also just a quick note that De Gruyter is already available for everyone, and Taylor & Francis is available on an application-basis :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Good to know about DeGruyter. I had T&F for a cycle, but inevitably, I only was able to access about 1 in 5 articles that they had behind their paywall, so I didn't renew it. I have no idea how the folks at the resource exchange always come up with the ones I need, but that works much better for me. Maybe it's the Mexico thing, I have no idea. I appreciate the work you do to give us more access. SusunW (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Logged in UI: I like it. It's nicely laid out and everything I can think of that we need is there. What are the stars in the top right-hand corner? Does a solid yellow star mean it's part of the Library Bundle? Will we be able to see which collections have proxy-based/instant access (no need to login)? —Bruce1ee^talk 17:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bruce1ee: The stars are the favouriting system! Clicking a star adds it to your favourites, which will be the default view upon login once you've favourited something. We wanted to provide users with a way to effectively hide some of the Library Bundle collections they weren't interested in, and provide a more personalised interface. The current list of collections will still be available without login but we're not planning to make any major design changes to it right now - we felt that it wasn't a priority as compared to My Library. The 'available collections' tab will show you everything else, and is filterable for access method (i.e. proxy or not). Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9 (WMF): Got it, thanks. Will there be a mouseover popup explaining what the star is for? —Bruce1ee^talk 11:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Bruce1ee: It's not something I'd considered but I think it's a good idea, so I'll add this to our spec :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Logged out homepage: That looks fine, and the Library Bundle criteria are clearly spelt out. Before you login, are those collections shown at the bottom the complete set, including the Library Bundle? —Bruce1ee^talk 17:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bruce1ee: Yes, those collections are drawn from all available publishers, whether Bundle or not. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I actually think Iridescent can comment more clearly on the logged-out home page, I'll summon them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't really care but you may want to check whether a newby user who is trying to apply gets a clear idea of where to check buttons and log in. I've seen complaints that these buttons are hidden/buried in unintuitive places. Beyond that my biggest wish for TWL would be to add ScienceDirect, it's the main publisher/platform that is missing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Both pages look fresher, more modern & inviting. The new logged out homepage seems much more self-explanatory. Redwidgeon (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• The logged in page is great! --Temp3600 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree, the new website is looking good. I has a modern touch and feel and it is easy to use. Thanks for your efforts! Regards, Aschmidt (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

New homepage is now live

Yesterday we deployed the new homepage for logged out users! You can see the page at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ - you'll need to log out if you're already logged in. We'll be tracking some data over the coming month to see how this affects new user logins. We're now working on the logged in experience - you can track that work on the Phabricator tickets below T268347. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)