I've actually gotten email where people think I wrote the article on which
my banner appeared. And I would bet Brandon, Susan, and others who aren't
Jimmy have gotten the same.
The nice thing about our banners is that they don't look like horrifically
ugly and annoying ads. It also appears that can be confusing for a
relatively small group of people. But most readers know the difference as
evidenced by the number of donations, and personally I think trying to
eliminate that little bit of confusion would likely involve making banners
that look a lot more like other ads on the web. Which would stink, to use a
technical term. ;)
Steven
(Sorry for top posting. On my phone.)
On Dec 13, 2011 7:53 AM, "Ken Arromdee" <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Peggy_Meggars_.28archeologist.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Notice…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Notice…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Notice…
Four *separate* incidents where users mistook the fundraising banner ad for
an illustration that is part of the article.
As is usual for lousy user interfaces, a lot of us are probably going to
blame this on the user being too stupid to read the page properly, as if
there was no such thing as a bad user interface. Often the image in the
banner is the most prominent thing on the page, and it's located directly
above
the article title in a place that in many other contexts would mean it
really does go with the article.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l