Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction/Assessment

Assessment Examples
Notes about assessment techniques used by other wikiprojects. These notes will help establish best practices that may be of use to Wikiproject HCI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aconversationalone (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature/Assessment#Quality_scale Assessment for Literature: The grading scheme is well formatted and informational. For each grade it lists the Criteria, Reader's experience, Editing suggestions and gives an example of an article with that grade. I think the page can be formatted to be more organized, right now it just seems like a lot of lists with bullet points. Another aspect this page is missing, is a description of importance levels. I was able to find lists for the topics under each level, but wasn't able to find a description of why the articles were placed where they were. Maee10 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment Assessment for WikiProject Plants: The format that the grading scheme follows for WikiProject Plants is identical to the one that is followed by WikiProject Literature, which tells me that this is a template that pages can use for assessment. I, too, like this table because it's clear and easy to read and makes it simple to understand the guidelines for grading a page. Another thing that's really neat about this assessment page is that they have a graph showing the article assessment history for the project. Unfortunately, that graph ends at 2009, which I suppose either means that there has been no activity on this project since that time, or else the graph no longer works. In addition, this page does not have the FAQ section that the Literature page has, and I think that a section like this would be extremely helpful, especially to newbies. Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom/Assessment Assessment for Music of the United Kingdom: The content is very in detail and the format is pretty organized in WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, which is similarly to the example of Wikiproject Cats. The assessment log is useful in my opinion because new people can clearly see the process of the assessment and reassessment together with the usernames of each participant. If they have different opinions, they can contact in each other's user talk page and then make discussions to reassess together. Something I think needs to be improved is graphic models can be clearer for people to understand than the table. Weariness (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment Assessment for Medicine: The grading scheme follows the same scheme as the previous listed assessment examples, but it also lists and related article at the end of each new row to increase a user's understanding of a table. One thing in particular I liked about WikiProject Medicine's (WPMED) assessment page was its clear importance of examples and its guidelines for adding new articles to the scope of WPMED's scope. Like some of the other assessment pages, it also has a FAQ section and I think it does a good job of answering questions for new users. The organization of the page is somewhat lacking however, and I would have liked to see better organization of the statistics for all the different task force sub-groups of WPMED. Tannermp (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Assessment Assessment for Architecture: The grading scheme is well formated, with the criteria, readers' experiences, editing suggestions, and examples in it. The overall content is clear and informed. It also provides the assessment instructions, related projects, and the articles request for assessment. However, there are too many unassessed articles (3042). In addition, one request for A status in the end of the page established in 2007 is still not solved. In general, the organization of this page is very good. Most of the articles need to be assessed are recently posted and three of them already done, which mean that the project members are still involved in this project. Candice Juan (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment Assessment for Military History: The introduction shows a flowchart with two different quality rating schemes; one for prose articles and one for non-prose (list) articles. To the right of the flowchart is information that clearly describes the classifications of articles along with their natural progression from the "stub" stage. Directly below the flowchart is the breakdown for the various criteria. The article assessment information seems to be very well laid out, having the flowchart near the top of the page followed by an introduction to their project's assessment methodology and then moving on to the specific criteria involved in the process. JLand13 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars/Assessment Assessment for Star Wars: The grading table is quite similar to that of WikiProject Cats. In fact, it may be due to their mutual work in conjunction with the program WP:1.0. Instructions for quality and importance rating are listed below the the table of historical data for the project and allow a user to easily add an article properly to the project. However, the formatting for the list of assessed/unassessed/reassessed articles is horrendous, making the table of contents stretch on and on. It would save quite a lot of room to re-organize these assessments into a table by month, with each month being linked to the table of contents, instead of each individual day (though assessments should remain time-stamped). Pgrobison (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Science/Assessment Assessment for History of Science: This page has many of the standard grading scales found among the other pages and I feel organizes them well without too much extra clutter. I feel the revision logs found on many of the assessment pages take up so much room they often merit their own separate page for easier navigation. The History of Science page also gives user experience's and suggestions on how to place articles in each individual category. Overall I feel this page can give a user a good start without having too much extra fluff to add confusion. Benilsen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Robotics/Assessment Assessment of Robotics: The robotics page includes a clear explanation of their assessment policy including how ratings are done in a distributive manner with appropriate categories.The page also include the a grading table with examples and guidelines following Wikipedias standards. Also included on the page are links to other robotic wiki pages which is a smart way to get a reader more involved holistically with their effort. One downside to the page is the long log navigation table and assessments logs at then bottom. It takes up a lot of space and require extensive scrolling. This maybe a result of Wikipedia's UI and not the fault of the owners. DDS6619 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment Assessment of Baseball: This page has a set of criteria for each class of assessment as well as how an article rated at each class should read, what level of editing suggestions there are, and an example to an article with that rating. The page also includes a general FAQ section about general rules for assessment that applies to both assessors and authors. It also has a nice table of contents that links to the different sections of the page and other parts of the Baseball WikiPorject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.177.183 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: marge6914 & pgrobison
Value_Sensitive_Design
 * I think this one should be High, since it is a theory used a lot in HCI but is not STRICTLY an HCI theory. Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the importance of the article, for quality, looks like a Stub? What do you think? Pgrobison (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely a stub! Marge6914 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Susan_Leigh_Star
 * This one I also think should be High, since she was a researcher in sociology but her ideas have been used a ton in HCI. Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have personal knowledge of her and based on her article, I would vote for Mid, but you seem to know things about her that I do not, so I believe you have better authority to rate her importance to HCI. Quality looks B-ish to me, how about you? Pgrobison (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've persuaded me. I agree it's a medium. Definitely B for quality. Marge6914 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Usability_testing
 * This one should definitely be Top, this is a major part of the field of HCI. Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Easily agreed, Usability is even listed an an example for Top importance. I'm not sure where to see if an article has officially earned "good article" standing, but if it has, I would vote GA for quality. Otherwise, A. Pgrobison (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the article has to go through a specific process to be deemed GA... I looked at some GA articles and on the Talk page there's a GA review that has to be done. I think this one should "just" be A. Marge6914 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Persona_(user_experience)
 * This one should also be Top, major part of HCI. Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy again, agree. Again, seems like a strong, well-referenced and cited article. I vote A for quality. Pgrobison (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on A! Marge6914 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Experience_design
 * This one could either be Top or High. It's pretty related to HCI, but I guess it's possible that it's also related to non-HCI fields like package design. What do you think? Marge6914 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say this one belongs under High. I feel our Top importance articles should be easy to decide on, staples of HCI if you will. I vote C for quality, on top of the page it states the article is written like an opinion essay and not very encyclopedic. Additionally, it seems to be lacking citations. What do you think? Pgrobison (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, High is great IMO. I also agree on C quality. Marge6914 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: JLand13 & Candice Juan
Gender HCI
 * I think this is a mid-level importance article since it is a sub-field of HCI and it is a start-quality because it is very underdeveloped. JLand13 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the mid-level importance since it is only a particular area of HCI. However, I think the quality can reach C because it does have a lot reliable references.Candice Juan (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at the article again, I agree that it is C-quality because it has a lot of good material but needs some rearranging to make better sense. I will go ahead and mark this one for mid-level and C. JLand13 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Information architecture
 * This one seems either low- or mid-level to me for importance since it is applicable to many disciplines and not necessarily specific to HCI. For quality, I would say it is a start. JLand13 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the low or mid-level rating and the start quality. It applies user experience in it, but can be used in many fields. Additionally, it lacks citations.Candice Juan (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am leaning more toward mid-level importance due to the repetition of this topic within HCI. What are your thoughts? JLand13 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think mid-level is good! I will mark this as mid-level and start quality.Candice Juan (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Smartphone
 * I would say that this is high-level importance for its universal notability and worldwide use. I would give the article a B-quality rating for having good use of pictures, being well-written, and having a significant amount of references. JLand13 (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this article can be either high or mid-level because smart phone covers various fields like security, business, and informatics. I agree with the B-quality.Candice Juan (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Should I go ahead and mark this one as high-level and B-quality then? JLand13 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already done that :) Candice Juan (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Urban computing
 * I think this one is either low- or mid-level importance. It is stub-quality since there is basically nothing there yet. JLand13 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this one can be mid-level because it has HCI ideas and adds human values such as environmental sustainability to its design. I agree with the stub-quality because it lacks description and readers cannot fully understand what that is. Candice Juan (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll mark this article as mid-level and stub-quality. JLand13 (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User interface design
 * I think this article is top-level importance since it is a key element to HCI. It seems to be C-quality due to having multiple issues and needing additional citations. JLand13 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. Candice Juan (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm marking this article as top-level and C-quality. JLand13 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: Maee10 and Sharkers
Alan Cooper
 * I think this article should be rated mid importance, since Cooper is the developer for personas for interaction design. I'd rate it as Start class, because there is room for improvement and the article has been flagged for issues with citations and being written as an advertisement. Maee10 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is mid importance, and definitely fits within the Start class. I'll rate them as such. Sharkers (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Iterative design
 * I think this article should be rated as high importance since it is a methodology. I'd give it a C, because I think more content could be added. Maee10 (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your ratings, additionally the page cites at the top that it needs additional citations for verification, which makes it fit into the C class. Sharkers (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphical user interface
 * I'd rank this article as high or mid. I'd give it a B, because it is well developed. Maee10 (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would rank this as high, because it is highly related to the HCI field. I agree with the B rating as well. Sharkers (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note though, that the other two projects that this is covered in, have rated it as a C class article. Sharkers (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea that is interesting. The other project's criteria for their rating may vary from ours slightly. Maee10 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Usability engineering
 * I think this article deserves top ranking since it is a broad topic involving HCI. Although, I think this depends on the future development and direction of this article. Currently, I'd give the article a C, because it is missing content and too basic. Maee10 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the top ranking, it even mentions HCI in the first sentence of the article. The top of the article does also show that its sources need help, so the article is also a C in my opinion. Sharkers (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Interaction design
 * I'd give this article a top or high importance ranking, since it is a broad subject, but I don't know if it'd be considered crucial for HCI. I think the article deserves a C, because I think some sections could have more content Maee10 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would give this a mid importance rating, because I do think this is important for HCI. I think this is also a C class article, because it could use more content. I also noted that other projects have rated this article as a Start class, however, the most recent activity on the talk page seems to be from 2012 so there may have been improvements since then. Sharkers (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: TreJoh / DDS6619
Human computer interaction
 * I believe this one should be rated Top importance, obviously as it's the over-arching theme.DDS6619 (talk)
 * I agree with you!Trejoh (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User Research
 * Since user research directly correlates to HCI/UCD it should be rated high but not top since it's only an aspect of it. DDS6619 (talk)
 * I actually think that this would be a top article because user research is such a crucial pice of HCI.Trejoh (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User modeling
 * Since modeling is used in more areas than just HCI, I scored this as mid importance. It also is method that would fall under research.DDS6619 (talk)
 * I agree with you!Trejoh (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Affinity diagram
 * Affinity diagraming is not exclusive to HCI and can is used in many areas. I scored this one low. DDS6619 (talk)
 * I would score this one mid because while it is used in other fields, affinity diagram is a widely used tool in the HCI community.Trejoh (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Responsive web design
 * I believe this is a design approach that is low bearing topic for HCI and is more related to production. I scored this one low as well. DDS6619 (talk)
 * I agree with you!Trejoh (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDS6619 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: Weariness & Tannermp
Facial recognition system
 * I feel that facial recognition is a medium important topic. It isn't something that is directly connected to HCI, but it has an important connection to it Tannermp (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a high important one because Facial recognition system uses an algorithm to analyze the position, size, and shape of human's faces, which is an interaction between human and technology. Besides, some notable software have already been used in the real-world. However, the users are only some European countries and US, so I don't think it achieves international notability.By the way, I think the class should be GA. Weariness (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was considering it as something that was derived from previous processes, so I ranked it lower than I probably should have Tannermp (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Participatory design
 * I think because Participatory design is a process that directly connects to HCI, it should be included as a topic of top importance Tannermp (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you!! And the class should be GA I think.Weariness (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Dourish
 * Since Dourish is a person (and not a process or something that further describes HCI as a field) I think his page should be of medium (or perhaps low) importance Tannermp (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this should be a high because he mainly focuses on the how humans obtain information and interact using computers through his research and teaching. Moreover, he is a professor of informatics, computer science, and anthropology. I think his interdisciplinary background convinces his ability of studying HCI. The class might be a B because it still needs more details about this person.Weariness (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Gesture recognition
 * Gesture recognition relates to a lot of HCI concepts so I would mark it as a topic of high importance Tannermp (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with you!! I feel this technique is kind of similar to the Facial recognition system. The class is GA as well.Weariness (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

World Usability Day
 * I am not too sure what World Usability Day should be rated, but being consistent with my previous reasoning I would mark it as low importance (perhaps medium, but the page does not have anything substantial on it and is more of a stub than anything else) Tannermp (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is too little information in this page as well as the references. I don't think it is notable to the public. So, I think it is a low importance. I also agree with you to make it a stub!!Weariness (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional Assessments Needing A Second Opinion
Extra articles up for discussion in case anyone wanted to take on some more with me. JLand13 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Card sorting
 * I think this article is mid-level importance since it is a tool specific to user experience design. The page seems like B-quality since there is substantial information, but it could still use some work. JLand13 (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Computer-supported cooperative work
 * I think this article is top-level importance since it is a crucial part of HCI. I would give this page a B-quality rating since it seems mostly complete with no major issues. Areas of opportunity may include adding more pictures. JLand13 (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessments: Benilsen & Pnwadventure
User Experience
 * I feel that this page is of top-level importance as it is a key concept to many applications of HCI and one of the broad schools of thought involved with HCI. Benilsen (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is considered top level because user experiences encompasses a lot of HCI concepts Pnwadventure (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Typography
 * I think that typography is of low level importance. While it is certainly related to design it does not relate to HCI directly and has a low amount of direct significance. Benilsen (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also thought that it was low level importance because typography is not directly related to HCI Pnwadventure (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphical user interface
 * GUI seems like a mid-level importance topic. It is an application of HCI that has been very influential in the development of HCI technology. Benilsen (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree and think that this should be under high importance because it's a very important aspect of HCI that is not as universally known. Pnwadventure (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence
 * I feel AI is a very important topic in HCI and deserves high level importance. Benilsen (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think artificial intelligence should only be of high importance because it doesn't apply only to HCI which makes it more indirectly meaningful. Pnwadventure (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Information Architecture
 * Information Architecture is a very common topic of HCI however is not necessarily a direct foundation of it so I think that it would best fit in high level importance. Benilsen (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that information architecture plays a fundamental role in HCI Pnwadventure (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)