On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> On Signpost: > > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-07/In_the_news > > http://lola-pr.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-women-wikis-do-mix.html > > Fred > Not a fan of either. The author has an assumption and explains it. There is a lot of research on the design elements, but it doesn't go anywhere or appear to have any solid basis beyond: I think this and my friends think this. We like pretty! This appears to be right up there with: "I have free time! So I will contribute to Wikipedia!" Yes, fine. Great. And you have free time... so why are you motivated to edit Wikipedia instead of updating Facebook? There is a motivation gap that is totally missing there. There is a lot of research on design, its principles and how to do it right. Yes, there are differences between male and female web users. Cite the research for it and then make relevant. Moss, G., Gunn, R. and Heller, J. (2006), Some men like it black, some women like it pink: consumer implications of differences in male and female website design. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5: 328–341. doi: 10.1002/cb.184 is one such study that talks about design principle differences between men and women. Interesting conclusions from that paper on page 335: This indicates that the hypotheses generated from earlier literature as to the greater likelihood of women to seek ease of navigation is not borne out by the results of this study. In fact, the reverse could be said to be the case with femaledesigned sites being linked up to a wider range of subject sites. Also on page 335: Based on the work of Tannen (1990), it was hypothesised that the language used in the male-produced websites would contain more features indicative of overt competitiveness than the female-produced sites would. As the results in Table 3 indicate, this finding is also borne out by the present study: The results reveal statistically significant differences on four of the five language elements, with females showing a statistically greater tendency than the males to employ abbreviations, self-denigration, non-expert and informal language. These differences suggest greater overt competitiveness on the part of the males in the sample than the females. On page 336: In statistical terms, females are statistically significantly more likely than males to use rounded rather than straight shapes to avoid a horizontal layout, to use more colours for typography irregular typography, informal images and more of certain specific colours (white, yellow, pink and mauve) for typography. There is a lot of research out there and falling back on it, using it, seems very important if the goal is to provide actionable information for WMF to make design changes to better cater to both sexes. Make Wikipedia look pretty is good but isn't very actionable in terms of giving that advice. (And the Vector skin appears to be a big step in that direction.) I honestly think though, if motivation could be tapped into, this would less of an issue because there are plenty of sites which don't follow the research and have large female contributor bases. Think Facebook, MySpace, LiveJournal and FanFiction.Net. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
