7 ms·
> Uhm, no. It just means that people are hovering over links with their mouse. It does not imply any opinion about the previews. When you evaluate features usi
by panic 8y ago
> Uhm, no. It just means that people are hovering over links with their mouse. It does not imply any opinion about the previews.
When you evaluate features using engagement metrics, there are only two possibilities. If the metric is high, users love the feature. If the metric is low, users don't know the feature exists, and more alerts or "unread" badges must be added to help them learn.
- majewsky 8y agoMy point is that the metric is bad.
- mappu 8y agoAlternatively, if it's a feature you don't like: If the metric is high, users are spending too much time on it. Also, it is responsible for every single frustration that users have with your product. If the metric is low, the feature can be safely removed (see: Windows Start menu).
- megaman22 8y ago> If the metric is low, the feature can be safely removed (see: Windows Start menu). That turned out really well... Whoever is responsible for putting the touch start screen on Windows Server is responsible for 90% of my frustrations...
- brazzledazzle 8y agoThe best way to run Windows Server is without a desktop installed, using PowerShell to manage it. Even one-offs. You might know this but it’s worth saying just in case. Also worth noting that some server applications assume/require a desktop during install or operation (usually because they’re trash).
- chiefalchemist 8y agoYeah. Time on site, for example, might mean they can't find what they need; as opposed to getting what they need and staying for more. Numbers are helpful, but sometimes they can be misinterpreted to mask the why.
- dmitriid 8y ago> When you evaluate features using engagement metrics No-no-no. Stop right there. "Engagement metrics" are the worst kind of metrics. Engagement means next to nothing. It just means that a user interacted with something. Was it good? Was it bad? Was it intentional? Was it by mistake? "Engagement metrics" answer none of that. And yet... They are the easiest metrics to collect and too many companies use them as if they were meaningful.
- mattkrause 8y agoIf you hadn’t stopped right there, you might have seen the sarcasm in the rest of the post!
- notriddle 8y agoI'm case you were curious, WM has done more user testing than just the engagement metrics: https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Research/Design_Research/Reading_Team_UX_Research/Hovercards_Usability https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Re... Not sure what it says about them that they're mentioning worthless numbers instead of the way more useful data they got back during this survey.
- iofiiiiiiiii 8y agoBut when the feature only needs you to hover over a link to activate (which people do anyway) you have no basis to claim that this is users "liking" the feature - it might just be noise from everyday regular navigation.
- teddyuk 8y agoi was using wikipedia to with my son yesterday for a project and found it really annoying, so i'm in that list of people who hit the api but aren't in the list of people who seem to be "liking it"
- samjbobb 8y agoLinked from the article is the final A/B test they ran: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews/2017-18_A/B_Tests https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews/2017-18_A/B_Tes... They had better metrics than just number of API requests