Comments on the Wikipedia Site

Comments Associated with "Ease of Finding Information" Rating:

• Difficult to get listing of each of the missions and difficult to do a find for information across multiple missions.
• I found that once I started to scroll downwards, and saw an image, I used this method to find other images. I then used text hyperlinks to try and locate answers.
• its hard to read the stuff in blue lettering
• There is a LOT of information to sort through to get the required information. It took more time than it should have because of the structure of the wikipedia page.
• Mostly used search
• I linked to http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/Apollo/AS12/a12.htm from external links on wikipedia to get additional information for the last 2 questions.
• It would have been very difficult without using the wiki search bar
• For some of the questions I had to use Wikipedia's search function.
• I don't have a high speed connection so I waited a bit searching different places.
• I was unable to find much of the information.
• if you know the F12 combination then it's easy.
• I thought at first that I could only use the single page that came up.
• Too much content to find a specific information
• Bad organisation of information - too much on the page - bad indexing
• In wikipedia, information can be found quickly by using the browser search function
• searching dint work had to read entire article for certain words
• Is the information even up there or did someone remove it from the Wiki?
• Thank you for allowing me to complete this survey. It was really easy but I also learned a lot about Nasa and space in general. :)
• Some of the terms in the questions do not show-up on a text search of a page and were ranked difficult by me.
• Not too sure if these are sentences appearing in images. If it did not appear in search, then it's not there.
• Initially difficult, but it got easier.
• Maybe it's because I didn't care about finding this information (no personal motivation), but the headings or anything we're giving very good clues. Maybe the questions were obtuse? I couldn't even find anything using text find in the browser.
• i used the browser search for the first task, but thought that would be cheating. Things got much harder when I didn't use it.
• some answers required looking at or reading in pictures
• Some items were logically organized, while others were not.
• Finding the list of missions was hard.
  

Comments Associated with "Visual Appeal" Rating:

• not enough pictures
• It's got good images which are helpful. Otherwise, it's pretty standard.
• Sort of boring but it is very functional.
• It's layout is decent. The photographs have titles. Sometimes the tables can be confusing.
• Visually it is very nice.
• Looking better would not necessarily improve its function
• you mean wikipedia?
• As users arrive on this site for information, visual appeal is not that imortant and it is fine as it is.
• Standard wikipedia look. Practical but just looks like a wiki!
• not organized and messed all over the place
• It's a Wiki.
• Love it. I think it looks really great.
• I like the simplicity fo the page design. I particularly like the blue highlight text which makes it easy to skim through the page.
• It's wikipedia... it's what it is.
• i like the pictures.
• simple with meaningful pics
• Visual appeal isn't as important as clear organization and navigation. I want to find information quickly.
• Plain old wikipedia
  

Responses to Open-ended Question about Challenging or Frustrating Aspects of the Site

• Doing a find across multiple missions.
• Not having navigation buttons if doing searches that took you to unknown pages
• Took awhile to realize that I had to go to each mission page for the first task.
• Main level navigation, once I clicked off of the main page I was presented, I couldn't easily identify where I came from and relied on memory.
• determining the correct terminology to use in the search; but this website makes it fairly easy by returning good options so you eventually determine the correct route
• Parsing through all of the info on the page......had to really read it not easy to scan
• None, really. Maybe a little bit that it's so text rich, you are often faced with a wall of text to wade through. Did you, by chance, take my Internet Explorer menus away? I found myself looking for the "Find on this page" menu option and it wasn't
• The site is rather verbose and doesn't allow you to scan very easily.
• search
• The font size was small and difficult to read. The page layout, with the Wikipedia plug in the primary left side took up more room than necessary, and caused the more necessary info to be spread over several screens.
• all of the stuff in blue is hard to read
• I used control F to find a lot of my answers. So... a lot of it is jumbled and confusing.
• It would have been nice to see a timeline of all of the Apollo Missions
• Too much text are grouped together, and topics are kind of scattered around
• Only that there were large chunks of text to sift through for detailed information.
• the many different apollo missions was a bit confusing
• It was sometimes hard to read the tables. With the list of apollo missions page, each mission had two rows of information, and there was no color coding.
• Nothing really - sometimes have to click through multiple pages to find what you are looking for
• NA
• I'm only noticing the search box now. I didn't use it. Perhaps I could have found the first answer using it.
• The information seemed cluttered. I would have liked a listing of the Apollo flights instead of paragraph form.
• no
• You have to know what you are looking for to find it (hence the difficult question)...
• Information categorization: voluminous information
• organization of info
• the page is very long
• The information was presented in very long paragraphs, unusual for the web
• too much information together
• Because of my unfamiliarity with this subject matter, it's challenging to choose keywords to find within the page.
• Lot of similar information on a single for example Apollo repeating, which was confusing and difficult to scan.
• Looking for those specific content (answers) on this huge page of information was difficult. Having a Search option within the page or article would be of great help.
• content can be made more readable and visually appealing
• Amount of information, density of text, layout of page, lack of indexing, scrolling
• the categories werent as descriptive as they needed to be
• too much text
• I was frustrated by the lack of mapping between the questions and the site. Are those even questions anyone would care about?
• Locating key words in the paragraphs
• no, none
• It is not a frustrating experience, but just felt that this could be considered. A suggestion on synonyms and close search words may be of help. For example, when I am searching for "walk on the moon", a suggestion to look for 'moonwalk' would be helpful
• Opened 2 tabs on my Firefox and had to navigate between them
• I found it frustrating to be limited in browser function, because I wanted to use "Find." Because I had to read and look at other links, it became more difficult to accomplish the task.
• Not being able to find specific information, but possible b/c I didn't have personal motivation to find it. Was just searching the text.
• Not in particular... scavenger hunts are generally hard.
• I thought that some of the informatinon was difficult to find
  there's lots of text and I thought i should be able to answer all the questions from the page, but I'm not sure now.
• counting legs
• Lack of organization in some areas. There is no standard to how the information is organized.
  

Responses to Open-ended Question about Effective or Intuitive Aspects of the Site

• Good use of heading, sidebars, bulleted text and images
• searches that found unique components
• Have been using it too long to answer I think. I like the internal links.
• Good descriptions under the images helped with the answers.
• the linking to related information; the search mechanism is good
• I used the search for most of the questions
• Search, which is pretty much the only feature that I used. It was easy to find and right where I thought it should be.
• The photos were a quick way to find the answers to Questions 2 & 3, but I couldn't find the answer to #1.
• pictures
• Once I caught on to the idea of clicking on the highlighted phrases to get details on that subject, it became easier. But it was certainly not intuitive to me, and I use the computer a lot.
• the topics for each paragraph are easy to read
• Bolding and linking keywords is nice.
• The images that were used and the cross-linking between concepts.
• Yes, links to other topics that specifies/generalizes a concept is very helpful.
• I like the summary at the top and the list of contents to link to different parts of the article.
• the outline is really helpful
• The Contents section. There was a clear outline that could be used to navigate to the content below.
• The vast amount of information is very effective. The search function is also very effective.
• The outlines for the pages were helpful in locating a specific section of the site to find the desired information.
• no
• Table of Contents and the Pictures
• The content list
• Good search and consistent structure
• links to seprate missions of
• labels
• No
• well organized
• The contents part and the specific images in between which made some what easy to find what we are looking for.
• Visual supporting the content is effective.
• Further reading, links
• table of contents and tables of information made some things easy to find
• the search box on the left
• having the abstract description then the table of contents following it
• the box on the top with links to topics below
• Not really. The key words were not under headings i would expect
• no, none
• references and blue text 'hyperlinks' are intuitive and helps learn more about the subject.
• The questions? :)
• Search works well in Wikipedia.
• Table of Contents menu at the beginning
• The contents section was generally useful. And the in-browser search.
• The picture part was easy.
• the pictures help with the long page, but the table of contents isn't very useful. I thoght it would be split by the missions Apollo 13 ets.
• There are a few consistent elements that are located in consistent spots, such as the Contents table and summary box on the right-side.