Change Details

Run an unmoderated usability test on Userlytics to validate the some of the UX updates proposed as part of the Scope Iteration 2 FY24/25 tickets in this [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T347298 | Epic ]]. **Goal** The goal of this test is to ensure that the new options/copy in the release right steps meets the following criteria: - Help uploaders understand what constitutes as own work and what as not own work and make the correct choice as a result so that the changes to be proposed in T370103 are validated - Help uploaders understand the process required for uploading on behalf of someone else so that the changes to be proposed in T370106 are validated [X] Work on design solutions to test [X] Construct the tasks and activitites for the test [X] Set up test on Userlytics [X] Watch recordings and review results [X] Repeat the above steps until satisfactory test results are achieved [X] Summarize results Conduct usability testing for release rights revisions in upload wizard Goal The goal of this test is to ensure that the new options/copy in the release right steps meets the following criteria: Help uploaders understand what constitutes as own work and what as not own work and make the correct choice as a result so that the changes to be proposed in T370103 are validated Help uploaders understand the process required for uploading on behalf of someone else so that the changes to be proposed in T370106 are validated Work on design solutions to test Construct the tasks and activitites for the test Set up test on Userlytics Watch recordings and review results Repeat the above steps until satisfactory test results are achieved Summarize results Methodology: 30+ unmoderated tests were conducted on Userlytics. Designs were revised multiple times during the course of a test, incrementally improving them based on what was observed in the test. Participants were given the following 4 scenarios for uploading photos to Commons and asked to follow the Figma prototype. Scenario 1: Upload a photo they took of their collection of Asian magazines with beautiful cover design. Example photo Scenario 2: Upload a photo they took on their travels. Example photo Scenario 3: Upload a photo of the interior of the hotel that their employer gave them to upload. Example photo Scenario 4: Upload a logo so that it can be used on the wikipedia page. Example photo Test results 1 - Own vs Not own work The present design for choosing own work and not own work had the following issues: Users not choosing the correct option at this level led them to incorrect path right from the start e.g. in a scenario where someone was uploading on behalf of someone else would think it is their own work because they are doing the work of uploading or doing it as part of their work/job. The examples do not cover all the use cases and many people do not read extra text. The introductory explanation was not emphasizing that anyone on internet or off internet can use it, not just on wikipedia as some would believe. The above changes to the copy for the “own work” and “not own work”, greatly improved participants selecting the right option at the start and as a results were shown the right questions that further clarified things for them. Test results 2 - Uploading on someone else’s behalf While the present design is in improvement over what was, user’s do not understand this question that well due to their lack of knowledge on what creative commons license is. They assume this is something legal they don’t know and they end up choosing “I do not have this information” and decide to not upload. It is good that they chose to not upload, however, we lose an opportunity to educate users on this step. Also, the present approach does not accommodate the use case that was discovered in our research that we had not account for i.e. users uploading a photo on behalf of someone else The new copy seems more educational because people understand what is being asked for and why. Everyone who saw this question, chose “I have permission option...” when the new scenario of uploading on someone else’s behalf was presented. Furthermore, the warning that was shown upon selection of that option, was understood by most people and stopped from proceeding further without getting the content. Some users who decided to proceed despite the warning, had either not read the warning or read and did not understand it clearly due to the UI not in their native language in the test. This option should greatly reduce the number of uploads without VRT verification. Test results 3 - Other insights There were cases where people assumed that things like magazines and logos are free to share and confidently chose a public domain option. We may not be able to prevent this however, we can flag such uploads if the user has not provided any concrete information e.g. if they indicate having found this on internet without providing any evidence of why its in public domain. There were also a few instances of people assigning a random free license under “not own work”. Adding “I don’t know” option among the list of license allowed users to select that there by allows us to flag such uploads.

Run an unmoderated usability test on Userlytics to validate the some of the UX updates proposed as part of the Scope Iteration 2 FY24/25 tickets in this [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T347298 | Epic ]]. ==Goal The goal of this test is to ensure that the new options/copy in the release right steps meets the following criteria: - Help uploaders understand what constitutes as own work and what as not own work and make the correct choice as a result so that the changes to be proposed in T370103 are validated - Help uploaders understand the process required for uploading on behalf of someone else so that the changes to be proposed in T370106 are validated [X] Work on design solutions to test [X] Construct the tasks and activitites for the test [X] Set up test on Userlytics [X] Watch recordings and review results [X] Repeat the above steps until satisfactory test results are achieved [X] Summarize results ==Methodology: 30+ unmoderated tests were conducted on Userlytics. Designs were revised multiple times during the course of a test, incrementally improving them based on what was observed in the test. Participants were given the following 4 scenarios for uploading photos to Commons and asked to follow the Figma prototype. - Scenario 1: Upload a photo they took of their collection of Asian magazines with beautiful cover design. [[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aq_jelken.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 2: Upload a photo they took on their travels. [[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paulinzella_abbey_church,_2022-05-28,_01.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 3: Upload a photo of the interior of the hotel that their employer gave them to upload. [[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garden_Court_at_the_Palace_Hotel,_San_Francisco_2.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 4: Upload a logo so that it can be used on the wikipedia page. [[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southeastern_Conference_logo.svg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] == Test results =====Own vs Not own work {F57349406} The present design for choosing own work and not own work had the following issues: - Users not choosing the correct option at this level led them to incorrect path right from the start e.g. in a scenario where someone was uploading on behalf of someone else would think it is their own work because they are doing the work of uploading or doing it as part of their work/job. - The examples do not cover all the use cases and many people do not read extra text. - The introductory explanation was not emphasizing that anyone on internet or off internet can use it, not just on wikipedia as some would believe. {F57349411} - The above changes to the copy for the “own work” and “not own work”, greatly improved participants selecting the right option at the start and as a results were shown the right questions that further clarified things for them. ======Uploading on someone else’s behalf {F57349435} - While the present design is in improvement over what was, user’s do not understand this question that well due to their lack of knowledge on what creative commons license is. They assume this is something legal they don’t know and they end up choosing “I do not have this information” and decide to not upload. It is good that they chose to not upload, however, we lose an opportunity to educate users on this step. - Also, the present approach does not accommodate the use case that was discovered in our research that we had not account for i.e. users uploading a photo on behalf of someone else {F57349438} - The new copy seems more educational because people understand what is being asked for and why. When the new scenario of uploading on someone else’s behalf was presented, everyone who saw this question, correctly chose “I have permission option...” {F57349444} - The warning that was shown upon selection of that option, was understood by most people and stopped them from proceeding without getting the consent. - Some users who decided to proceed despite the warning, had either chosen to not read the warning and did not understand it clearly due to the UI not in their native language in the test. - However, based on the results, the introduction of this option should greatly reduce the number of uploads without VRT verification. ======Test results 3 - Other insights - There were cases where people assumed that things like magazines and logos are free to share and confidently chose a public domain option. We may not be able to prevent this however, we can flag such uploads if the user has not provided any concrete information e.g. if they indicate having found this on internet without providing any evidence of why its in public domain. - There were also a few instances of people assigning a randomly chosen free license under “not own work”. Adding “I don’t know” option among the list of license proved to be a good addition at allowing people to indicate the correct information rather than choosing a random license.

Run an unmoderated usability test on Userlytics to validate the some of the UX updates proposed as part of the Scope Iteration 2 FY24/25 tickets in this [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T347298 | Epic ]]. **==Goal** The goal of this test is to ensure that the new options/copy in the release right steps meets the following criteria: - Help uploaders understand what constitutes as own work and what as not own work and make the correct choice as a result so that the changes to be proposed in T370103 are validated - Help uploaders understand the process required for uploading on behalf of someone else so that the changes to be proposed in T370106 are validated [X] Work on design solutions to test [X] Construct the tasks and activitites for the test [X] Set up test on Userlytics [X] Watch recordings and review results [X] Repeat the above steps until satisfactory test results are achieved [X] Summarize results Conduct usability testing for release rights revisions in upload wizard Goal The goal of this test is to ensure that the new options/copy in the release right steps meets the following criteria: Help uploaders understand what constitutes as own work and what as not own work and make the correct choice as a result so that the changes to be proposed in T370103 are validated Help uploaders understand the process required for uploading on behalf of someone else so that the changes to be proposed in T370106 are validated Work on design solutions to test==Methodology: 30+ unmoderated tests were conducted on Userlytics. Designs were revised multiple times during the course of a test, incrementally improving them based on what was observed in the test. ConstructParticipants were given the tasks and activitites forfollowing 4 scenarios for uploading photos to Commons and asked to follow the testFigma prototype. - Scenario 1: Upload a photo they took of their collection of Asian magazines with beautiful cover design. Set up test on Userlytics[[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aq_jelken.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 2: Upload a photo they took on their travels. Watch recordings and review results[[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paulinzella_abbey_church,_2022-05-28,_01.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 3: Upload a photo of the interior of the hotel that their employer gave them to upload. Repeat the above steps until satisfactory test results are achieved[[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garden_Court_at_the_Palace_Hotel,_San_Francisco_2.jpg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] - Scenario 4: Upload a logo so that it can be used on the wikipedia page. Summarize results Methodology:[[ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southeastern_Conference_logo.svg?useskin=vector-2022 | Example photo ]] == Test results =====Own vs Not own work {F57349406} 30+ unmoderated tests were conducted on Userlytics. Designs were revised multiple times during the course of a test, incrementally improving them based on what was observed in the test. Participants were given the following 4 scenarios for uploading photos to Commons and asked to follow the Figma prototype.The present design for choosing own work and not own work had the following issues: Scenario 1: Upload a photo they took of their collection of Asian magazines with beautiful cover design- Users not choosing the correct option at this level led them to incorrect path right from the start e.g. Example photoin a scenario where someone was uploading on behalf of someone else would think it is their own work because they are doing the work of uploading or doing it as part of their work/job. Scenario 2: Upload a photo they took on their travels. Example photo- The examples do not cover all the use cases and many people do not read extra text. Scenario 3: Upload a photo of the interior of the hotel that their employer gave them to upload.- The introductory explanation was not emphasizing that anyone on internet or off internet can use it, Example photonot just on wikipedia as some would believe. Scenario 4: Upload a logo so that it can be used on the wikipedia page. Example photo{F57349411} Test results 1 - Own vs Not own work- The above changes to the copy for the “own work” and “not own work”, greatly improved participants selecting the right option at the start and as a results were shown the right questions that further clarified things for them. ======Uploading on someone else’s behalf The present design for choosing own work and not own work had the following issues: Users not choosing the correct option at this level led them to incorrect path right from the start e.g. in a scenario where someone was uploading on behalf of someone else would think it is their own work because they are doing the work of uploading or doing it as part of their work/job.{F57349435} The examples do not cover all the use cases and many people do not read extra text- While the present design is in improvement over what was, user’s do not understand this question that well due to their lack of knowledge on what creative commons license is. They assume this is something legal they don’t know and they end up choosing “I do not have this information” and decide to not upload. It is good that they chose to not upload, however, we lose an opportunity to educate users on this step. The introductory explanation was not emphasizing that anyone on internet or off internet can use it, not just on wikipedia as some would believe. The above changes to the copy for the “own work” and “not own work”, greatly improved participants selecting the right option at the start and as a results were shown the right questions that further clarified things for them. Test results 2 - Uploading on someone else’s behalf While the present design is in improvement over what was, user’s do not understand this question that well due to their lack of knowledge on what creative commons license is. They assume this is something legal they don’t know and they end up choosing “I do not have this information” and decide to not upload.- Also, It is good that they chose tothe present approach does not accommodate the use case that was discovered in our research that we had not upload, however,account for i.e. we lose an opportunity to educate users on this step.users uploading a photo on behalf of someone else Also, the present approach does not accommodate the use case that was discovered in our research that we had not account for i.e. users uploading a photo on behalf of someone else {F57349438} - The new copy seems more educational because people understand what is being asked for and why. Everyone who saw this question, chose “I have permission option...” whenWhen the new scenario of uploading on someone else’s behalf was presented. Furthermore, the warning that was shown upon selection of that opeveryone who saw this question, was understood by most people and stopped from proceeding further without getting the content. Some users who decided to proceed despite the warning, had either not read the warning or read and did not understand it clearly due to the UI not in their native language in the test.correctly chose “I have permission option...” T{F57349444} - The warning that was shown upon selection of that option, was understood by most people and stopped them from proceeding without getting the consent. - Some users who decided to proceed despite the warning, had either chosen to not read the warning and did not understand it clearly due to the UI not in their native language in the test. - However, based on the results, the introduction of this option should greatly reduce the number of uploads without VRT verification. ======Test results 3 - Other insights There were cases where people assumed that things like magazines and logos are free to share and confidently chose a public domain option. We may not be able to prevent this however, we can flag such uploads if the user has not provided any concrete information e.g. if they indicate having found this on internet without providing any evidence of why its in public domain. There were also a few instances of people assigning a random free license under “not own work”- There were cases where people assumed that things like magazines and logos are free to share and confidently chose a public domain option. We may not be able to prevent this however, we can flag such uploads if the user has not provided any concrete information e.g. Adding “I don’t know” option among the list of license allowed users to select that there by allows us to flag such uploadsif they indicate having found this on internet without providing any evidence of why its in public domain. - There were also a few instances of people assigning a randomly chosen free license under “not own work”. Adding “I don’t know” option among the list of license proved to be a good addition at allowing people to indicate the correct information rather than choosing a random license.