Change Details

We have an [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload | acute information overload ]] over the application-interface(s) at the platform. (The term is used to describe the difficulty of understanding an issue, when one has too much information about that issue.). Taking [[ https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/47/ | the application page for Baylor University Press ]] as a hypothetical non-outlying candidate; the first half of the page is hugely relevant to me. On the right side lies the TOU and Min.Req., along with the details about coordinator and the damn button, itself! On the left side is a well-designed bullet-ed chart that aware me of further vital details in a very nice manner. The second half comprises of the Metrics Section. Now, I as an applicant (after reading the first half) might still wish to know about median-time for approval, which's the rightmost banner in the metrics section. If I am a highly moral editor, I might also wish to know about total number of available subscriptions to evaluate about whether I am an optimum fit and am not disabling someone more competent. (For example, if CUP says only 3 subscriptions left, I won't apply for my usage of these resources are relatively rare but if there are 700 left, I won't bother a second prior to applying.) This data is available in the line after the 3 banners. My question is about the rest of the data. What does an average applier gain by looking at those sexy graphs and pie-charts? What does he/she gain by being aware of the number of unique applicants and/or total applicants. Most of those metrics are distracting eye-sores and can be separately stored over some other page. Information overload leads to poor decision making, at the end of the day and over here, an applier might forget important points from the first half of the page after travelling through all the needless data in the second-half. Obviously, somebody might be interested enough to crunch data; we can let him click on the metrics tab at the top and migrate to the individual metrics or something like that. If you believe that they are indeed helpful for an average non-outlying editor who wishes to apply for a resource , I will request you to take an user-survey.

We have an [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload | acute information overload ]] over the application-interface(s) at the platform. (The term is used to describe the difficulty of understanding an issue, when one has too much information about that issue.). Taking [[ https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/47/ | the application page for Baylor University Press ]] as a hypothetical non-outlying candidate; the first half of the page is hugely relevant to me. On the right side lies the TOU and Min.Req., along with the details about coordinator and the damn button, itself! On the left side is a well-designed bullet-ed chart that aware me of further vital details in a very nice manner. The second half comprises of the Metrics Section. Now, I as an applicant (after reading the first half) might still wish to know about median-time for approval, which's the rightmost banner in the metrics section. If I am a highly moral editor, I might also wish to know about total number of available subscriptions to evaluate about whether I am an optimum fit and am not disabling someone more competent. (For example, if CUP says only 3 subscriptions left, I won't apply for my usage of these resources are relatively rare but if there are 700 left, I won't bother a second prior to applying.) This data is available in the line after the 3 banners. My question is about the rest of the data. What does an average applicant gain by looking at those graphs and pie-charts? What does he/she gain by being aware of the number of unique applicants and/or total applicants and/or the percentage of rejection. I can even understand if you were providing some rejected samples for self-analysis by the potential applicants! Most of those metrics are distracting eye-sores and can be separately stored over some other page. Information overload leads to poor decision making, at the end of the day and over here, an applier might forget important points from the first half of the page after travelling through all the needless data in the second-half. Obviously, somebody might be interested enough to crunch data; we can let him click on the metrics tab at the top and migrate to the individual metrics or something like that. If you believe that they are indeed helpful for an average non-outlying editor who wishes to apply for a resource , I will request you to take an user-survey.

We have an [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload | acute information overload ]] over the application-interface(s) at the platform. (The term is used to describe the difficulty of understanding an issue, when one has too much information about that issue.). Taking [[ https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/47/ | the application page for Baylor University Press ]] as a hypothetical non-outlying candidate; the first half of the page is hugely relevant to me. On the right side lies the TOU and Min.Req., along with the details about coordinator and the damn button, itself! On the left side is a well-designed bullet-ed chart that aware me of further vital details in a very nice manner. The second half comprises of the Metrics Section. Now, I as an applicant (after reading the first half) might still wish to know about median-time for approval, which's the rightmost banner in the metrics section. If I am a highly moral editor, I might also wish to know about total number of available subscriptions to evaluate about whether I am an optimum fit and am not disabling someone more competent. (For example, if CUP says only 3 subscriptions left, I won't apply for my usage of these resources are relatively rare but if there are 700 left, I won't bother a second prior to applying.) This data is available in the line after the 3 banners. My question is about the rest of the data. What does an average appliercant gain by looking at those sexy graphs and pie-charts? What does he/she gain by being aware of the number of unique applicants and/or total applicants and/or the percentage of rejection. I can even understand if you were providing some rejected samples for self-analysis by the potential applicants! Most of those metrics are distracting eye-sores and can be separately stored over some other page. Information overload leads to poor decision making, at the end of the day and over here, an applier might forget important points from the first half of the page after travelling through all the needless data in the second-half. Obviously, somebody might be interested enough to crunch data; we can let him click on the metrics tab at the top and migrate to the individual metrics or something like that. If you believe that they are indeed helpful for an average non-outlying editor who wishes to apply for a resource , I will request you to take an user-survey.