Grants talk:Project/Kiwix/User Experience

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Google Docs[edit]

I see the text links a Google doc authored by the Wikimedia Foundation. Please get it uploaded on Wikimedia Commons so that everybody is able to read it. --Nemo 12:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've sent a note to Abbey asking her to upload a PDF version of it. Stephane (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Nemo 10:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and text edited accordingly. Stephane (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2017[edit]

IEG review.png
This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through 17 October 2017.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2017 begins on 18 October 2017, and grants will be announced 1 December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Ruslik0[edit]

I have a few questions and suggestions:

  1. Is there any duplication of work with WikiMed project? Will the results of WikiMed be useful for the desktop and android versions of Kiwix and vice versa?
  2. You should probably separate the current proposal from WikiMed more clearly.
  3. You should improve the measures of success.
  4. Are you going to update the iOS app?

Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik - Great questions!

  1. It depends what you mean by duplication: if it is "doing twice the same thing", then no. If you meant "progress made for one benefiting the other", then yes. WikiMed and the present UX project are fundamentally different: Wikimed focused on a distinct content subset (medical), trying to make such content more accessible for users with specific needs (small disk space or looking for video/HighRes medical content). The UX grant applies to all types of content (WP, Wiktionary, but also MOOCs and Gutenberg), and tries to improve accessibility for all users.
    This being said, in order to build Wikimed the way we wanted, we needed to make significant changes to the Kiwix core code, and that meant breaking the software into smaller parts that everyone could later work with.
    To illustrate my point, imagine that before we started working on WikiMed, Kiwix was a one-size-fits-all block of code. This worked reasonably well when 99% of Kiwix users were using desktop computers, but has obvious limitations now that we have 50% of mobile users (with machines invented after Kiwix created; software normally goes the other way around). Working on Wikimed we started breaking the code into more manageable chunks that we can reassemble as we need - think using bricks to build different houses instead of putting everyone in the same cave. In short, had Wikimed not been there we'd have had to do some of that work anyway (and asked for a bigger, longer grant).
  2. I'll see what we can do. Anything that seemed unclear (besides the possible redundancies or cross-benefits)?
  3. idem
  4. The iOS app (and macOS) will certainly benefit from the general UX improvements (e.g. library interface), and the namespace/cluster decompression will also be beneficial in terms of speed. This being said, Apple is its own little world, and while we appreciate that a lot of people in the North use their products, they aren't that many in Iran, Mexico or India and we'd rather focus our resources there. But we have an awesome volunteer doing iOS development these days, so tech transfer will happen.

Stephane (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Kiwix/User Experience[edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
8.8
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
8.4
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
9.0
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
8.6
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • The project seems somewhat aligned with Wikimedia movement priorities, but the goals is fits in the strategic to spread the free knowledge. Instead of the project seems not replicable, the one-time project seems sufficient to make a great impact in our movement and other institutions that uses Kiwix.
  • Fits with both strategic directions (knowledge as a service and knowledge equity). I think it’s very important to support Kiwix developments and keep improving it as a project so we can reach our offline readers. Proposed work will make Kiwik more user friendly and sustainable in the long run
  • The project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priorities. It has a significant potential for both online and offline impacts. It can be scaled, sustained and adapted elsewhere.
  • The developpment of Kiwix is of core importance to both the strategic direction of Wikimedia2030.
  • There some risks about the development of UX that could be a little annoying to resolve, but, there is a lot of potential to be gained if the project is successful. The success is easy to be measured.
  • Risks are low - they have a developer who has worked on a very similar project (Wikimed) and have advisors from WMF. Would like to see measures of success and maybe user/acceptance testing incorporated into hackathon
  • The project is of iterative type and its potential impact is greater than risks. The success can be easily measured.
  • I see the grantee with many capacity and skills to develop and finish the project on-time. Hackathon could be a headache if is organized by grantee because it could distract to developers from its tasks.
  • Project scope is narrow, focused and achievable
  • The scope can be accomplished in the specified time-frame (7 months). The budget is probably realistic and participants do have necessary skills.
  • Plan includes participation and engagement with development community. Proposal has pretty good support/endorsements from a diverse group of Kiwix users and stakeholders
  • The project does support diversity, has target communities and has a community support.
  • I suggest explain the role of grantee in the hackathon, because there are a lack of support from other to organize it.
  • I’d like to see the final report from the Wikimed grant
  • I support this project as it will extends the success of WikiMed project to other types of content and to desktop/laptop users.
  • This team have been know for the refining of this rather useful software to our movement. They have the potential and can deliver on the said task should they be granted
  • Given the importance of Kiwix, I would gladly have them join the FDC or work directly with the Fundation so as to have a long-term budget.
IEG IdeaLab review.png

This proposal has been recommended for due diligence review.

The Project Grants Committee has conducted a preliminary assessment of your proposal and recommended it for due diligence review. This means that a majority of the committee reviewers favorably assessed this proposal and have requested further investigation by Wikimedia Foundation staff.


Next steps:

  1. Aggregated committee comments from the committee are posted above. Note that these comments may vary, or even contradict each other, since they reflect the conclusions of multiple individual committee members who independently reviewed this proposal. We recommend that you review all the feedback and post any responses, clarifications or questions on this talk page.
  2. Following due diligence review, a final funding decision will be announced on March 1st, 2019.

Questions? Contact us.


Thanks a lot everyone, and thanks for the incredibly nice comments! Stephane (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Round 2 2017 decision[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for a Project Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, 77,000 CHF

Comments regarding this decision:
Dear Kiwix team,

The Project Grants Committee recognizes the value of Kiwix and the impact it generates for our readership, particularly for those who may not have reliable access to an Internet connection. We see the development of Kiwix as an important part of our efforts in meeting our strategic direction of knowledge equity.

At the same time, the Project Grants program has limited funds to distribute each round to an increasingly competitive pool of applicants.

We therefore wish to work with you and the Wikimedia Foundation to find a more sustainable way for the Kiwix project to receive funds outside of Project Grants.

We look forward to hearing your response and to finding a way to collaborate on this matter in order to ensure continued support for the Kiwix projet.

The Project Grants Committee


Next steps:

  1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
  2. Review the information for grantees.
  3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
  4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.