Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Draft version 0.2

Please discuss all new Main Page ideas at Talk:Main Page. --JWSchmidt 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The rear end

Perhaps, the rear end with the white underpants should not be in that animation. It may detract from the professionalism of Wikiversity. --Remi 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its just an example of a moving image. The "real" video can be created at Wikiversity the Movie. --JWSchmidt 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Order

Surely the list of schools/portals should be a lot higher up the page? If people arrive at this main page, and they can't immediately find somewhere they want to be, then it is just adding to the confusion - particularly if they don't understand what things such as portals are. The Italian Wikiversity has its faculties listed as the main content for the page, just below the introduction. They don't necessarily need to take up as much space as that, but the tag-cloud-like listing near the bottom of the page isn't obvious as the entrance to the content of Wikiversity. This page is still a bit Wikiversity-centric rather than content-centric. Xenon 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"they can't immediately find somewhere they want to be" <-- Is a directory really what new visitors to Wikiversity need to see first on the Main Page? Here is learning activity: find out how many encyclopedia articles existed at Wikipedia before a directory of content was provided on the main page. What do you think about this new "top level" of portals:

Preschool · Primary Education · Secondary Education · Tertiary Education · Lifelong Learning · Other portals
--JWSchmidt 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point - I wasn't suggesting having an index on the main page, nor a replacement for Browse. However if someone arrives and instantly sees something relevant - something that will lead them to where they want to be - then that surely is a useful thing. Perhaps some top-level portals or simply a random selection of a handful of popular schools.

As for the above top-level portals, I have a feeling they are a bit formalised into specific accepted curricula. Also, perhaps the boundaries between them are vague, although I accept that breaking it up into what is essentially age ranges would be useful. What about education for adults who perhaps have not completed an adequate level of secondary education - is that not one of the most useful possibilities for Wikiversity? Also, where might an in-depth study into car mechanics go? Would that be tertiary (for those doing a mechanics degree) or lifelong (for people who are interested)?

I think the simplest idea is just using the Major portals to split schools/portals into their very basic divisions. That way, people can just visit what interests them, and each subject/topic can have its own wide range of resources, split by topic or age range for whatever suits it best. Would there be a separate Maths portal for each age group (primary etc)? Would there be one main maths portal which sat in every top-level group and then split again underneath? I think it is much simpler to just divide by subject area, but we can still have the portals in categories and still be able classify resources as for who they are intended for. Having half a dozen to a dozen of these major portals listed near the top of the homepage will enable all new and recurring visitors to head off in a specific direction if they want to. Xenon 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have you seen Wikiversity:Pre-tertiary portal? Some people have complained about the bias of Wikiversity towards college-level content. It is not clear how best to deal with the need to provide learning resources that are relevant to many different kinds of learners. --JWSchmidt 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is an issue of perspective. There are three perspective's (maybe a few more) that we must cater to. Our work here is didactic, however, it is the full breadth of didact that is confounding us. The entirety herein is a complete body of knowledge from the elementary to the advanced and naturally separated by subject because of its complexity. Some users will be intent upon complete attainment of said knowledge and will start from the beginning (or where they left off otherwise). These user's are aided by the browse feature and though they might be intimidated by the complexity of a particular topic, because of their dedication will gain prerequisite knowledge within said subject area. Another user might be intent upon a more cursory and basic grasp of a subject and therefore would not be willing to find their own way through the browse feature, and thus would be aided by the Pre-Tertiary framework. The last user might only want a momentary reference on a particular subject or simply an independent course on auto maintenance, and though the wiki are established so that said course may be found from Mechanics, Engineering or Vocational Training pages, the search bar will always be there and will be the primary point of entry for most casual users. Ad infinitum, wikiversity will be geared towards the "tertiary" learner, however, the body of knowledge herein already encompasses much of that, and since each learning resource may be linked to by both means it is appropriate to organize BOTH by subject and by sequence. However, I would be inclined to allow the pre-tertiarists to establish their own primary schools and let them hunt through the wikiversity subjects for elementary resources from which to build their pages. - Gustable 06:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here at the start of the Wikiversity project we have to mainly be concerned with attracting and keeping those editors who can create educational content. College students can add content while they are learning about it. However, learning resources for young children cannot be created by young children. Wikiversity needs some kind of specialized portal that is attractive and useful to potential participants who would be able to develop learning resources for young students. Initially a "pre-tertiary portal" (like other current Wikiversity portals) will point people towards content development projects. With time, all portals will become more concerned with quickly directing browsers to learning resources. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

College-like resource portals

This seperation

College-like resource portals:
Humanities · Physical Sciences · Life Sciences · Practical Arts and Sciences · Mathematics · Engineering and Technology · Interdisciplinary Studies · Social Sciences · Education · Media · Professions

seems artificial. What does "college-like" mean? Does it mean, e.g. "college of art"? Students of all ages study Mathematics, science, art, technologies, etc. Hillgentleman|Talk 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikiversity:Pre-tertiary portal? Some people have complained about the bias of Wikiversity towards college-level content. Currently, some pre-college content is accessible by way of the existing system of portals, but would it be better to have additional portals specific for major content areas such as:

• Preschool
• Primary Education
• Secondary Education
• Tertiary Education
• Lifelong Learning
  --JWSchmidt 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I love it. I would suggest that maybe the category part be put in a box and put higher with more exacting words. It is the section that starts: "Browse these major content areas:" Harriska2 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• JWSchmidt: <- I understand. But it may subtly imply that the mathematics portal is only for tertiary education. "Portals by subjects" would be more accurate.Hillgentleman|Talk 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we need to think in terms of "the mathematics portal"? Maybe there should be a different mathematics portal for elementary educators and college mathematics. --JWSchmidt 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Surely there can be multiple mathematics portals. But note:
    • 1.It would be convenient if one could both navigate by subject and by depth.
    • 2. In principle, anyone should be able to access any mathematical topic and resource via the mathematics portal, even via a link to a more specific "subportal". Thus it does not "belong" to tertiary education exclusively. Thus, "portals by subject" is more accurate.
    • 3. It may be organic if the "school mathematics" portal grows out of the mathematics portal( but perhaps not, because the mathematics portal is rather full already; but it is just an example)-Hillgentleman|Talk 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many possible ways of dividing up (categorizing) Wikiversity content and providing portal pages that efficiently guide people to the content. Right now, we have a system that is very similar to a college course catalog. The question is, does this bias towards college-level organization alienate people who are interested in non-college learning resources? If the alienation happens at the Main Page (people see the main page and leave), then it does little good to "fix the problem" by just modifying the existing portals. Yes, theoretically every page can be reached from any other page, but that does not mean that our existing "high level" portal pages are the best system. "portals by subject is more accurate" <-- What does that mean? Are you claiming that high level portals serving different age groups ("depth") are not "accurate"? "school mathematics portal" <-- Does that mean: School:Mathematics? I agree that people should be able to navigate by both subject and depth. --JWSchmidt 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Research

I think research should be also listed, when you are mantioning Tertiary education, the last one should be Research and than Other portals.--Juan 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Input by user about importance of the browse link

see here please, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Animated gif

looking good....what do you think about having a flashy animated gif on the main page?--JWS 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can collaboratively create it? Maybe we could do a story board/script/what-ever-it-might-be-called, and then someone could implement it. I think if we have consensus about it, then it would be a good thing, and it seems we wouldn't even necessarily need to all collaboratively create it in order to have consensus that it would be fruitful to have on there. --Remi 09:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could start with the images that are currently used on the main page and add a short "slogan" or statement about Wikiversity to each one. But yes, it could be done collaboratively. --JWS 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally... i'm generally averse to flashy, animated images on the front page of sites like this. I think people are trying to read/browse/navigate and animated things just distract the eye from this process. Wouldn't something like that be better on an intro to WV page? Countrymike 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Major content areas

I like the new design a lot over the existing one; much simpler than the existing forest of links/entry points. A few thoughts about the Major Content Areas:

• Content ... is that the right word in Wikiversity? Should we just drop "content"? does the word take away from our mostly stated direction of "learning projects"? Wikipedia is content, Wikibooks is content, we're something different...
• Preschool - presupposes "school"... what about "Early Childhood"? (not quite sure if we'll find a universal label for this)
• Also the rest of the labels don't really need "education" after them do they?

Countrymike 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)