We've been getting a lot of comments recently about how bad/unintuitive the current vocabulary pages are. We couldn't agree more, but since it has already been completely redesigned 5 times now we weren't exactly sure how to guarantee that this next redesign would actually be an improvement. And that's where you come in!
This time, instead of assuming we know what's wrong and how to fix it, making several internal mockups, implementing those, and then waiting for complaints, we wanted to open up the redesign process to all of our users. We're especially keen to know what new users think, so if you're new to the site, don't be shy, let us know what's wrong and give us some suggestions.
Scott and I are going to keep iterating through designs, creating a new forum post for each until we get enough of a positive reaction to warrant implementing the new design.
For our first idea, we have (hopefully) simplified the function of the vocabulary pages by splitting them up into three levels.
When you go to select a textbook list, for instance, you would see this screen: http://img149.imageshack.us/i/level1.png/ Again, this is just a rough mockup, and would need visual polishing, but the basic idea is there. You would click a check box to start studying from the beginning of that list.
If, however, you wanted to only start studying from section 4 of a given list, you'd click that list's title and see this screen: http://img441.imageshack.us/i/level2.png/ From there you can start studying from any section and skip sections at will.
If you want word-level information about a section, you click the one you're curious about, and you would see this screen: http://img44.imageshack.us/i/level3l.png/ Notice that you can start studying a list from either the 1st or the 2nd level, but not the third, which is intended as a more fine-grained look at the list (if users who want to add individual words custom list creator and the queue are waiting).
So the obvious question is: do you think that this will make vocabulary adding and navigation any simpler? If not, do you have any suggestions for improvement?
As always, we appreciate your time and input, and we hope you can help us make this unintuitive system more easy to use.