Librivox Wiki

harvey · Post by **harvey** » March 10th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Using the right terminology when and where it's appropriate

Our purpose is to make the LibriVox site as helpful and easy to use as
possible, one that accommodates users of all abilities and inclinations.
We're debating the approach and some of the details of how to do that.

I agree there is an appropriate time and place to both introduce and
use the correct terminology. There are also cases where "techno-talk"
is inappropriate. I urge caution in putting too many potentially
unfamiliar terms on the LibriVox home page, where it seems to me, at
best, to be a distraction to users to display non-essential jargon or
technical terms; distraction is detrimental to their experience at
LibriVox.

An issue of hot debate here is how to balance the desire for great
quality recordings with the wish not to discourage newbie readers with
too many requirements and too much technology that may be new to them.
So it is also with the terminology associated with LibriVox. On the
one hand, we don't want to discourage visitors by overwhelming them
with terms like wiki, or database, or pHp when all they want is to
learn about LibriVox, view the catalog, or find help with listening.
Yes, I'd like to see those details of how it works "under the hood"
available so interested users can find out. But I'm not persuaded the
hyper-text of the main site navigational menu is the right place for
it. On the other hand, volunteers -- both new and newest -- should be
encouraged to learn the correct terms and their correct spellings. If
a volunteer wants to contribute to the documentation, then, yes, they
need to learn what a "wiki" is.

gToon · Post by **gToon** » March 10th, 2006, 7:59 pm

Harvey steered me to this thread while he and I were discussing the "background noise" problem on some of the released recordings. I've gotten up to speed here (I hope) and would like to contribute a few thoughts.

An issue of hot debate here is how to balance the desire for great
quality recordings with the wish not to discourage newbie readers with
too many requirements and too much technology that may be new to them.

Since the site is new (and growing very fast) and it relies on volunteers, it seems very important to keep the demands upon the volunteer (either reader or project coordinator) as simple as possible. On the other hand, the site should have some basic, bare-bones standards for recording quality. I spent some time last night listening to segments of released recordings and while most of the recordings were fine there were several that were borderline and one or two that shouldn't have been released. The two main problems with these recordings were, one, background noise, and two, volume levels. Both of these issues can be fixed either by the reader or by the co-ordinator; and possibly by a third volunteer who would handle audio issues with problem recordings. It's entirely possible to ftp a file to me or anyone else with the proper equipment and fix a dozen files in an hour.

Of course, the issue of time and effort comes into the discussion. Who will do this? And, do they have the time? I think, with proper tutorials and examples of "good" recordings and "bad" recordings (created from scratch; not using any one particular recording) we can reduce the amount of problems the co-ordinators (or tech volunteers) have to deal with. Someone who is knowledgeable and has the proper tools can solve these audio problems quickly. If you like I can provide an example so you can see what I am talking about (again, not from any volunteer's recording, but something I can do from scratch that will demonstrate the problem)

I'd also like to add that Harvey's notion of balancing techspeak vs educating people to use the correct terms and spellings is an excellent idea. And since the "wiki" concept is becoming pervasive on the net, having a well organized wiki at librivox is essential.

HerrSchildkroete · Post by **HerrSchildkroete** » March 11th, 2006, 12:47 am

kri wrote: Why do we have any industry specific vocabulary?
It is to better communicate your point.

True - however that only works while talking to someone in the industry. I have many friends that regard a wiki, a cms and a blog as pretty much the same thing: A technical tool to publisch content on the web

kri wrote:It is sometimes important to know the difference between a wiki, blog, cms, whatever. For example, someone gives you two resources to choose from to find your information.

I completely agree here. I just think that to a reader seeking help on how to record something for librivox, it is not important

kri wrote: Anyways, the whole point of this is to say that I think it's important to keep the reference to the Documentation being a "wiki". This may not be important to everyone, but it will be useful to enough people.

I am completely fine with the hint "this is a wiki" being plastered all over the place. And you are totally right, this will help people classify the information found there.
I just don't think we can expect someone who may be new to the internet to make the connection between "LibriVox wiki" and "Oh, this is, where all the valuable information is." This actually is inherent in the wiki-concept: There may be anything there: Guides, reviews, links, maybe the actual e-books and it certainly is a great link when I am in the "exploring" mood, but not when searching for the very specific information about how to record. Therefore the link name should make very clear that it leads to this information. At that stage, it doesn't matter that its in fact a wiki

HerrSchildkroete · Post by **HerrSchildkroete** » March 11th, 2006, 1:18 am

harvey wrote:Using the right terminology when and where it's appropriate

Our purpose is to make the LibriVox site as helpful and easy to use as
possible, one that accommodates users of all abilities and inclinations.
We're debating the approach and some of the details of how to do that.

Just two thoughts that crossed my mind.
1) Diversity is good if you know how to choose, bad if you want to learn. Maybe we would be helping newbies more effectively if we stick to one option and explain that. So we choose e.g. audacity as an audio editor and mp3tag as a tag editor and then have tutorials regarding only these two programs. At the top of the page would then only be one link reading: Tutorials using other software
2) Every page is a tradeoff between correctness and the number of domain-specific terms used. Maybed we should try to indicate the target audience of a page. E.g: Noise reduction and postprocessing would get a rating of advanced whereas identifying mistakes and cutting them out would get a rating of beginner.

kri · Post by **kri** » March 13th, 2006, 12:06 pm

I was wondering if we could make an ongoing list of blank pages. I wanted to fill in some of the pages that have been created, yet don't have content yet. However, the thought of searching through each page and checking them all is very daunting. Would someone who is less daunted by this task like to go through the Wiki and check for blank pages and create a list of them somewhere on the Wiki? That way we can make it a habit of adding each page to this list if it is created without adding any content. Then the person who fills the page with something can take it off the list.

What do you think?

harvey · Post by **harvey** » March 21st, 2006, 5:36 pm

kri wrote:I was wondering if we could make an ongoing list of blank pages.

See the section "Blank pages and pages needing sections filled in" on
Chris' Wiki Tasks page: http://www.librivox.org/wiki/moin.cgi/ChrisVee/WikiTasks

Post by **hugh** » March 21st, 2006, 8:49 pm

wiki is good!

kri · Post by **kri** » April 4th, 2006, 10:15 am

Is someone going through the wiki pages to find newly created and completed pages that aren't linked on the main page? I should say, pages that need to be linked on the main page, because some probably don't.

vee · Post by **vee** » April 5th, 2006, 9:20 am

I can go through that again. Quick debate. Do you think maybe each of the sub pages should be broken off onto other pages and the main page simply be a set of links to those sub pages? Maybe not so drastic. Maybe just the intro information (How to Listen, Newbie Guide, Promotional Materials) would be front and center, with everything else sorted to sub pages.

Post by **hugh** » April 5th, 2006, 9:41 am

that sounds good chris.

kri · Post by **kri** » April 5th, 2006, 10:32 am

Chris that sounds good to me as well. People can get to the sub pages through the main pages, plus if they want a full list of the Wiki's pages they can look at the site map.

kri · Post by **kri** » April 15th, 2006, 2:40 pm

I don't think I like the new organization of the main page, with the "Additional -- Information". This makes it much harder to find information, because I can never remember which heading certain pages I've seen are under. Who agrees, disagrees?

vee · Post by **vee** » April 17th, 2006, 7:29 am

I shrunk just because I thought it was too long. Unfortunately we can't really do a layout with multiple columns. Maybe it would look neater if we only had the titles of the subpages and links to those instead of having individual link on the front page?

kri · Post by **kri** » April 17th, 2006, 7:31 am

vee wrote:I shrunk just because I thought it was too long. Unfortunately we can't really do a layout with multiple columns. Maybe it would look neater if we only had the titles of the subpages and links to those instead of having individual link on the front page?

Well, I guess the problem for me is that I forget what is where. I would think to myself....I need the Newbie Guide to Recording. I'd probably go through several different headings before I found it. With the less obvious titles - ones that could fit under multiple headings - this is a problem for me. I guess though, if it isn't a problem for others I should just stop whining

Gesine · Post by **Gesine** » April 17th, 2006, 9:05 am

Yes, also took me several attempts today. The usual problem with menus - a layout that seems completely logical to one person doesn't make sense to the next. :) I doubt we'll ever find a structure that pleases everyone! - I've started bookmarking the pages I need to refer to often, like the newbie guide, the readers' catalogue names list etc.