Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Wiki light

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

andreengels at gmail

Aug 10, 2005, 3:13 AM

Post #1 of 29 (1402 views)
Permalink

Wiki light

I'm not sure whether I would better send this to this list, to
wikipedia-l or to wikitech-l. If it is better elsewhere, maybe someone
should crosspost.

During Wikimania, I heard of or realized a couple of things:

Wikipedia authors are still mostly beta people, involved with
computers and such. When I compare with other encyclopedias, our
technology department is strong, history is average, but art is weak.
Might it be that the interface, with all its options, is still too
complicated for them? Also, not a few people come to Wikipedia without
realizing they, or someone else, can edit the pages. Finally, wiki
markup, intended to be simple, at several places (in particular
tables) is not. Although all additions have their uses, and I would
not be in favour of abolishing them, it might be good not to scare
away authors through them.

And this gave me this idea: Wikipedia light

Wikipedia light would have to have the same content as Wikipedia does,
but the interface would be smaller. Much less navigation buttons and
such. There would however be a prominent 'edit' button. With this
button, direct editing would not be necessary - it might be given as a
choice, or not at all. Instead, there is a textfield where one can
type in additions and comments. The software then adds this text under
the page, with a special header, and the edit is made well-visible in
recentchanges and such (plus its own Special:-page), after which one
of the regulars can work the text into the normal article with all
wikification etcetera.

My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
VCR can help improving Wikipedia.

Andre Engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

przykuta at o2

Aug 10, 2005, 3:41 AM

Post #2 of 29 (1378 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

> Wikipedia authors are still mostly beta people, involved with
> computers and such. When I compare with other encyclopedias, our
> technology department is strong, history is average, but art is
weak.

IMHO it's not tech-problem, but problem with art pages - this is
problematic to write with NPOV about films, music groups etc. It's
big problem with copyrights too. Who from as do not want to show the
best screen from his/her best film? (motivation problem) But maybe
it is right - easy interface to art scientists - so, we will have
more art pages.

And last but not least - I think people who like art, do art rather,
than write about it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

marius.treitz at i-u

Aug 10, 2005, 3:45 AM

Post #3 of 29 (1380 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

I don't know if I'm actually allowed to write to this list, since I'm
not a member of Wikimedia but I'll just take that freedom for now :)

Andre, I think what you want could be achieved with an additional skin.
Mediawiki supports the use of different skins that can be chosen freely
by the user. This would solve the problem of the (sometimes) confusing
default design of the wikimedia pages.

Concerning the markup language: I think doesn't really get much simpler
than it is right now. You're right, table markup in the middle of a text
is ugly, but the only way to simplify it is to create an actual editing
suite like OpenOffice and such, and hide the markup to the user
entirely. This could be web-based or offline. I personally would be very
interested in realising something similar, is something like that
already in the workings?

Greetings,

Marius Treitz

Andre Engels wrote:

>I'm not sure whether I would better send this to this list, to
>wikipedia-l or to wikitech-l. If it is better elsewhere, maybe someone
>should crosspost.
>
>During Wikimania, I heard of or realized a couple of things:
>
>Wikipedia authors are still mostly beta people, involved with
>computers and such. When I compare with other encyclopedias, our
>technology department is strong, history is average, but art is weak.
>Might it be that the interface, with all its options, is still too
>complicated for them? Also, not a few people come to Wikipedia without
>realizing they, or someone else, can edit the pages. Finally, wiki
>markup, intended to be simple, at several places (in particular
>tables) is not. Although all additions have their uses, and I would
>not be in favour of abolishing them, it might be good not to scare
>away authors through them.
>
>And this gave me this idea: Wikipedia light
>
>Wikipedia light would have to have the same content as Wikipedia does,
>but the interface would be smaller. Much less navigation buttons and
>such. There would however be a prominent 'edit' button. With this
>button, direct editing would not be necessary - it might be given as a
>choice, or not at all. Instead, there is a textfield where one can
>type in additions and comments. The software then adds this text under
>the page, with a special header, and the edit is made well-visible in
>recentchanges and such (plus its own Special:-page), after which one
>of the regulars can work the text into the normal article with all
>wikification etcetera.
>
>My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
>also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
>VCR can help improving Wikipedia.
>
>Andre Engels
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l [at] wikimedia
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

sabine_cretella at yahoo

Aug 10, 2005, 4:29 AM

Post #4 of 29 (1381 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Hi Andre,

this is not only a problem of wikipedia, but of all projects.

Imagine me talking more than one year now to a group of colleagues
(translators) about wiktionary and how to add content, that everybody
can add content etc. and during the last days, in long discussions I
received several questions and comments (by chance this happened when
wikimania was on ... maybe the spirit of wikimania was around :-)
including a crucial one "can I put at disposal my glossaries and update
them online so that I have them at disposal and also all other
colleagues" - now: or when we talk and explain we talke in a too
difficult manner for ordinary people or they just don't listen and only
listen when they are in the mood and then you have to explain stuff over
and over again.

Hmmm ... considering manuals: how many of us really do read them and
when do we read them, don't we tend to first of all ask someone who is
likely to know things? As for e-mails in mailing lists: who of us really
reads them all and then remebers the contents? (I do not - both of them
- I translate plenty of manuals but hardly ever use them ... ehm ... but
it could also be that over years I became allergic to manuals seeing
them too often around ;-) How often does it happen that we have to
explain things over and over again?

I think we have to deal with a very human issue: we only read what we
think is relevat in that moment. This takes me to people who know about
arts etc. How relevant are tables, layouts etc for them? How are books
about art written? How do these people work on this subjects when they
need it for work. It is already seldom that they are able to create a
"word document" and use the tags for header1/header 2/body text etc. You
normally find word being used like a typewriter and formatting of
letters by selecting text and clicking on bold/underlined etc.

A wiki is much more complex (at least in their point of view) and
therefore I think that your idea of adding to the end of the page and
then integrating/formatting things makes a lot of sense for such people.
They should just be able to use two or three things - normal text, bold,
underlined and that's it.

This will also help when we ask someone for co-operation - we can tell
them: wouldn't you like to see this theme added - just write a text, the
layout doesn't matter: we will do this for you.

Can you imagine how many older people, pensionates (is this the right
word?) etc. have plenty of wisdom to give and just are worried about
"how could I do that - I am not able to insert this" - but they would
... how many of them take time to tell you things by voice if they see
you listen - and how many of them would agree to write something in a
file and then give it to us and say "just put it there". You will also
find people who are not computerliterate at all, but know so much: so
why not haven them use the typewriter and then have people copy it online?

This would imply to create local interest groups about themes, meetings,
collect stuff, create the article, give it back to have eventual
comments and amendments and then upload the definite version. Of course
it is not the ordinary way, but it is a way.

I know a traffic warden here in Maiori who knows loads of stuff about
arts, but he doesn't even know how to use a computer and does not have
even a typewriter at home - I suppose I'd receive things written by hand
- I would like to ask people to do this - it can be scanned and put
online and then others can start working on it.

The ways are there - most of all it is the "human interface" that is
missing - and in my case: it is simply time. I am already in more
projects that I can really handle - often I have to choose on which one
to go ahead - I would like to do them all and I feel bad when I must say
good bye to one ... but that's life.

We need people, all kinds of people - also those who only do technical
work and those who write on paper - and we should think about a way to
know who they are - we need contact lists for these people - often you
must tell them "we need this or that" to get things done people are not
used to start on themselves - once they are in they start to understand
and to go ahead on their own, but the first steps very often depend on
us, depend on one-to-one-discussions and lessons.

Another thing to think about: often it is not so much the software that
needs amendment, but the way we lead people to the projects.

My 2 cts.

Ciao, Sabine

>Wikipedia authors are still mostly beta people, involved with
>computers and such. When I compare with other encyclopedias, our
>technology department is strong, history is average, but art is weak.
>
>
.....

>And this gave me this idea: Wikipedia light
>
>
>
>
.....

>My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
>also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
>VCR can help improving Wikipedia.
>
>Andre Engels
>_______________________________________________
>
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

robert_horning at netzero

Aug 10, 2005, 4:30 AM

Post #5 of 29 (1390 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Marius Treitz wrote:

> I don't know if I'm actually allowed to write to this list, since I'm
> not a member of Wikimedia but I'll just take that freedom for now :)

Welcome to the mailing list.

>
> Andre, I think what you want could be achieved with an additional
> skin. Mediawiki supports the use of different skins that can be chosen
> freely by the user. This would solve the problem of the (sometimes)
> confusing default design of the wikimedia pages.

You beat me to the punch. I was just about ready to send a reply
suggesting this same thing. A simplified skin that emphasizes the edit
function or even key parts (like the Community Portal page) might be a
way to solve this problem, particularly if you make that skin the
default one for a new visitor to the site.

>
> Concerning the markup language: I think doesn't really get much
> simpler than it is right now. You're right, table markup in the middle
> of a text is ugly, but the only way to simplify it is to create an
> actual editing suite like OpenOffice and such, and hide the markup to
> the user entirely. This could be web-based or offline. I personally
> would be very interested in realising something similar, is something
> like that already in the workings?

There are some "tools" that do this, including a Mozilla plug-in to help
with editing MediaWiki content. Trying to find that plug-in is a pain,
and not easy for a new user to find, nor is having to download an
alternative interface besides a brower something that is easy to do as
well. The #1 benefit for developing a seperate MediaWiki content editor
would be to help reduce the load on the server farm, although adding
editing tools like table creation/editing features and word
processor-like functions like highlighting text to make bold and/or
italic as well as other common markup codes.

The largest problem that I would have with such an engine is that most
automatic markup code generators are incredibly inefficient in terms of
their use of markup codes. If you are familiar with HTML, try to create
some content with Open Office (or MS-Word) and then export it to HTML.
I find the HTML code that is generated to be simply ugly (especially to
a hand-coder of HTML like myself). This is a similar problem that
software engineers deal with in terms of compilers and the associated
assembly code that gets generated, although in this case the "machine
code" is raw ASCII text with a few markup tags instead that most
MediaWiki users are (currently) more familiar in working with directly.
Most of that can be solved with a well-written piece of software, but I
guarentee that there will be arguments on day one of when such a
software package would be used for editing Wikipedia content... mostly
comments of a negative nature as well.

>
>
> Greetings,
>
> Marius Treitz
>
> Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia authors are still mostly beta people, involved with
>> computers and such. When I compare with other encyclopedias, our
>> technology department is strong, history is average, but art is weak.
>> Might it be that the interface, with all its options, is still too
>> complicated for them? Also, not a few people come to Wikipedia without
>> realizing they, or someone else, can edit the pages. Finally, wiki
>> markup, intended to be simple, at several places (in particular
>> tables) is not. Although all additions have their uses, and I would
>> not be in favour of abolishing them, it might be good not to scare
>> away authors through them.
>>
>> And this gave me this idea: Wikipedia light
>>

--
Robert Scott Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

maveric149 at yahoo

Aug 10, 2005, 9:51 AM

Post #6 of 29 (1370 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

--- Andre Engels <andreengels [at] gmail> wrote:
> My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
> also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
> VCR can help improving Wikipedia.

That was much of the intent behind creating the MonoBook skin. This skin
already is about as simple as it can get and was a huge improvement over the
old standard skin.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rowan.collins at gmail

Aug 10, 2005, 10:59 AM

Post #7 of 29 (1369 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

On 10/08/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> --- Andre Engels <andreengels [at] gmail> wrote:
> > My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
> > also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
> > VCR can help improving Wikipedia.
>
> That was much of the intent behind creating the MonoBook skin. This skin
> already is about as simple as it can get and was a huge improvement over the
> old standard skin.

While I would in no way belittle the quality of the MonoBook skin - I
find it extremely pleasurable to work in - I think there are some ways
in which it could be improved on in terms of accessibility to
beginners. These are mostly to do with highlighting/prioritising
certain items - as it is, monobook tends to treat all navigational
elements as a) about equal and b) secondary to "real" content. This is
reasonable enough in some ways, but it does mean people miss things
sometimes.

>From hanging out on the "Help Desk" and similar, here are some of the
features that should maybe be more obvious:

* the "edit this page" link; OK, so it looks very tidy the way it is,
but with section editting enabled for new users, people are often
confused that there are prominent links to edit every section except
the top one - not realising that they can just edit the whole page.
The tabs at the top just aren't as visible as the links through the
text (of course, one solution would be to have a "section 0" edit link
somewhere, though it's not obvious where it would be best placed). [.I
thought of mentionning the "+"/"add section" link as well, but in
practice it's no bad thing that users don't necessarily spot that,
since those that do tend to make rather a mess by using it inexpertly
- better that they just editted the page and added something to it]

* the "redirected from" message; this is a big flaw with a small
solution, IMHO - at the moment this is tiny, as though it were
incidental information, useful only to advanced users, when in fact
*every* user should be able to understand that they have been
redirected, and that the page they were redirected *from* also exists
in some form. Just making the message a bit bigger would probably do a
lot to help people discover this.

* much though I disliked the bar as a whole at first, maybe the
"signature" button on the editting toolbar could become more
prominent? This markup is so voodoo that 99.9% of newbies fail to work
out how to do it

There may be others, as well... Like I say, these are minor criticisms
compared to the overall quality of the skin, but in terms of letting
random users come and participate, there is always room for
improvement.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

robert_horning at netzero

Aug 10, 2005, 11:24 AM

Post #8 of 29 (1382 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Rowan Collins wrote:

>* much though I disliked the bar as a whole at first, maybe the
>"signature" button on the editting toolbar could become more
>prominent? This markup is so voodoo that 99.9% of newbies fail to work
>out how to do it
>
>There may be others, as well... Like I say, these are minor criticisms
>compared to the overall quality of the skin, but in terms of letting
>random users come and participate, there is always room for
>improvement.
>
>
I still don't use the editing toolbar for anything.... instead I just
use manual markup tags, and that I had to dig up from sometimes
non-existant help pages or digging around on what "cool" pages did some
markup I liked and then tried to copy that formatting tag elsewhere
(probabally much more common to new users). I consider the edit toolbar
to be wasted space in the edit window for entering text (for myself)
mainly because I can't get the darn thing to work. The "~~~~" (four
tilda) tag for signing names at the bottom of comment on talk pages is
particularly hard for new users to figure out, as the documentation for
this is buried and is not obvious when you see the markup on existing
talk pages (where it has already been converted into the timestamp).

--
Robert Scott Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rowan.collins at gmail

Aug 10, 2005, 11:34 AM

Post #9 of 29 (1381 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

On 10/08/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning [at] netzero> wrote:
> I still don't use the editing toolbar for anything.... instead I just
> use manual markup tags,

Ditto - hence my comment that I initially disliked the very concept of
the toolbar.

> I consider the edit toolbar
> to be wasted space in the edit window for entering text (for myself)
> mainly because I can't get the darn thing to work.

That is a serious issue - I don't know what sort of state in terms of
compatibility, bug-less-ness, etc the toolbar is in, or if anyone is
actively working on improving it right now. For me, it seems to work
fine when I want it to.

> The "~~~~" (four tilda) tag for signing names at the bottom of comment
> on talk pages is particularly hard for new users to figure out

Which is precisely why I suggested it was a good use for the editting
toolbar - it's the only button on that bar which couldn't just as
easily be learned by seeing examples. Obviously, this benefit is
entirely negated if the user doesn't see it or understand what it is,
but if labelled well and prominently, I think a button saying "insert
your signature and a timestamp" that inserts "~~~~" would allow new
users to make the connection.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

chris_mahan at yahoo

Aug 10, 2005, 2:14 PM

Post #10 of 29 (1379 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

--- Rowan Collins <rowan.collins [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> Ditto - hence my comment that I initially disliked the very concept
> of
> the toolbar.

Personally, I have never once used the toolbar. Is there an option to
not show it? There is isn't there... I'd better go check.

Daaang you guys thought of everything... Good job!

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan [at] yahoo
chris.mahan [at] gmail
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

andreengels at gmail

Aug 10, 2005, 3:33 PM

Post #11 of 29 (1383 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

On 8/10/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> --- Andre Engels <andreengels [at] gmail> wrote:
> > My hope is in this way make Wiki-editing simple again, so simple that
> > also the proverbial guy who needs to call his children to start the
> > VCR can help improving Wikipedia.
>
> That was much of the intent behind creating the MonoBook skin. This skin
> already is about as simple as it can get and was a huge improvement over the
> old standard skin.

It's excellent for regular users, and also for the more savvy newbies.
But I think a simple user, the fact that there's about 20 links
outside the text, interwiki-links not counted in, will make it hard to
find that that one "edit this page" link is so important. I'd like to
bring that down to two or three links (edit/add, go to the 'real'
wikipedia page, and perhaps one single 'navigation' link) for the
'slimmed down' version.

Andre Engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

erik_moeller at gmx

Aug 10, 2005, 4:02 PM

Post #12 of 29 (1383 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Rowan-
> That is a serious issue - I don't know what sort of state in terms of
> compatibility, bug-less-ness, etc the toolbar is in, or if anyone is
> actively working on improving it right now. For me, it seems to work
> fine when I want it to.

I implemented the toolbar. It works fine with recent editions of Mozilla
(Gecko engine) and IE, but Safari and Konqueror (KHTML engine), as of
last time I checked, cannot get a selection of text. So for these
browsers I implemented a "help bar" instead of an "edit bar" which shows
explanations if you click on the buttons, but cannot actually manipulate
text.

This "help bar" is sometimes perceived as confusing, as it is unlike any
other user interface. For this reason, I've decided to disable it and
just show the toolbar on browsers that fully support the necessary
functionality. I haven't gotten around to that yet.

I think the toolbar is demonstrably useful -- I see users experimenting
with it all the time -- but the "help bar" was a bad idea. Yes, you can
learn syntax by looking at examples, but the way many users see the edit
interface for the first time is not actually through the "edit" link,
but through red links, which just lead to a blank page.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

robert_horning at netzero

Aug 11, 2005, 2:58 AM

Post #13 of 29 (1385 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Rowan-
>
>> That is a serious issue - I don't know what sort of state in terms of
>> compatibility, bug-less-ness, etc the toolbar is in, or if anyone is
>> actively working on improving it right now. For me, it seems to work
>> fine when I want it to.
>
>
> I implemented the toolbar. It works fine with recent editions of
> Mozilla (Gecko engine) and IE, but Safari and Konqueror (KHTML
> engine), as of last time I checked, cannot get a selection of text. So
> for these browsers I implemented a "help bar" instead of an "edit bar"
> which shows explanations if you click on the buttons, but cannot
> actually manipulate text.
>
> This "help bar" is sometimes perceived as confusing, as it is unlike
> any other user interface. For this reason, I've decided to disable it
> and just show the toolbar on browsers that fully support the necessary
> functionality. I haven't gotten around to that yet.
>
> I think the toolbar is demonstrably useful -- I see users
> experimenting with it all the time -- but the "help bar" was a bad
> idea. Yes, you can learn syntax by looking at examples, but the way
> many users see the edit interface for the first time is not actually
> through the "edit" link, but through red links, which just lead to a
> blank page.
>
> Erik

The problem with trying to implement an interface on web browsers is
that you always have the lowest common demoninator problem: Not
everybody uses the latest version of each browser so to do "testing" on
that latest version of each software suite is not going to give you an
accurate view of what ordinary users are experiencing. If something
doesn't work on a particular web browser and gives a very bad first
impression (such as a broken toolbar in this case... I don't care if it
works on your browser, it doesn't work on mine), you start to wonder
about what else is broken and how amaturish everything else is. And web
browsing is considered to be more or less stable, at least to ordinary
users.

I know the W3C keeps messing around with new ideas and ways to screw up
HTML, but that is not the point. Experimental projects can be just
that: Experimental. But something so basic and essential such as
editing content for Wikimedia servers should not be experimental. It
should work for 99% of all potential users coming to try it out. (OK, I
admit that Netscape 2.0 users should not expect all web content to work
for them now... but there still are web authors that try to accomodate
them). Useless buttons are not just bad, they are worse than
non-functional. It makes a new user wonder if they are welcome, or even
if they don't know what is going on and therefore clueless, which also
discourages them from making contributions to Wikimedia projects.

You also can't expect that every user should download the latest version
of each browser, and often they don't have a choice either: If you are
using a public terminal (like at a public library or net cafe) you are
stuck with whatever version of the software is on there. And don't tell
me that none of the Wikimedia contributors don't add content from places
like this. As for my personal browser, I specifically keep older
version of web browsers and use them specifically *because* I want to
avoid the latest fads in HTML markup codes for those web pages that I
generate manually.

--
Robert Scott Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

erik_moeller at gmx

Aug 11, 2005, 5:21 AM

Post #14 of 29 (1383 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Robert Scott Horning:

> The problem with trying to implement an interface on web browsers is
> that you always have the lowest common demoninator problem: Not
> everybody uses the latest version of each browser so to do "testing" on
> that latest version of each software suite is not going to give you an
> accurate view of what ordinary users are experiencing.

You can develop JavaScript so it downgrades gracefully. This should
already be the case with the toolbar, e.g. if JavaScript is disabled,
nothing is shown at all. If you tell me what browser version you're
using and what exactly the behavior is you're getting, we can try to
special case it. I suggest creating a new bug report at

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

for this purpose, as it's really off-topic for foundation-l.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

robert_horning at netzero

Aug 11, 2005, 5:37 AM

Post #15 of 29 (1379 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning:
>
>> The problem with trying to implement an interface on web browsers is
>> that you always have the lowest common demoninator problem: Not
>> everybody uses the latest version of each browser so to do "testing"
>> on that latest version of each software suite is not going to give
>> you an accurate view of what ordinary users are experiencing.
>
>
> You can develop JavaScript so it downgrades gracefully. This should
> already be the case with the toolbar, e.g. if JavaScript is disabled,
> nothing is shown at all. If you tell me what browser version you're
> using and what exactly the behavior is you're getting, we can try to
> special case it. I suggest creating a new bug report at
>
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
>
> for this purpose, as it's really off-topic for foundation-l.
>
> Erik

I don't think it is off-topic for foundation-l to complain about
critical issues that ordinary users are facing. I appreciate the work
you've done on this, and I'll fill out the bug report as you've
requested. Still, as a *policy* as opposed to technical issues, feature
enhancements such as this should be kept away from new users unless they
have been given a hard look at and tested in a number of environments.
That of course is my opinion and you are free to argue differently.
And trying to enhance the experience of people who may not be
completely comfortable with computers in the first place to make them
feel welcome with Wikimedia projects should always be welcome on this
mailing list.

--
Robert Scott Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rowan.collins at gmail

Aug 11, 2005, 5:53 AM

Post #16 of 29 (1370 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

On 11/08/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning [at] netzero> wrote:
> I don't think it is off-topic for foundation-l to complain about
> critical issues that ordinary users are facing. I appreciate the work
> you've done on this, and I'll fill out the bug report as you've
> requested. Still, as a *policy* as opposed to technical issues, feature
> enhancements such as this should be kept away from new users unless they
> have been given a hard look at and tested in a number of environments.

To be fair, I think the editting toolbar *was* tested in a number of
environments before deployment, and underwent some pretty major
changes during early development because of feedback. The fact that it
doesn't work in a particular browser (which you still haven't
specified) is unfortunate, and something which I'm sure Erik will look
into. But unless this unspecified browser is one that huge numbers of
users are likely to be using, it would be hopeless to have a policy
that required no feature to be enabled until every possible browser
had been tested - until a feature is enabled, it generally isn't
*seen* by users of more "minority" browsers, and once it is, their
feedback is welcome. (And, of course, we can try to adhere to
recognised standards, but since browsers generally don't, specific
workarounds are very often necessary).

There is, of course, a separate conflict between technical simplicity
- which allows the site to be accessed in as many different clients as
possible - and what you might call presentational simplicity - the
ease-of-use factors we're discussing here. The editting toolbar is an
attempt to increase the latter by decreasing the former; if we wanted
to be *really* plain, we could stick with something looking like
c2.com or MeatBall, but I think you'll agree the current interface
tends to be nicer and easier to work with...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2.718281828 at gmail

Aug 11, 2005, 12:49 PM

Post #17 of 29 (1369 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Lovely idea. A greatly simplified default interface, with a prominent
"edit" button, and a prominent "switch to advanced skin" button as well.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 11, 2005, 1:05 PM

Post #18 of 29 (1377 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Rowan Collins wrote:

> On 11/08/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning [at] netzero> wrote:
>
>>I don't think it is off-topic for foundation-l to complain about
>>critical issues that ordinary users are facing. I appreciate the work
>>you've done on this, and I'll fill out the bug report as you've
>>requested. Still, as a *policy* as opposed to technical issues, feature
>>enhancements such as this should be kept away from new users unless they
>>have been given a hard look at and tested in a number of environments.
>
>
> To be fair, I think the editting toolbar *was* tested in a number of
> environments before deployment, and underwent some pretty major
> changes during early development because of feedback. The fact that it
> doesn't work in a particular browser (which you still haven't
> specified) is unfortunate, and something which I'm sure Erik will look
> into. But unless this unspecified browser is one that huge numbers of
> users are likely to be using, it would be hopeless to have a policy
> that required no feature to be enabled until every possible browser
> had been tested - until a feature is enabled, it generally isn't
> *seen* by users of more "minority" browsers, and once it is, their
> feedback is welcome. (And, of course, we can try to adhere to
> recognised standards, but since browsers generally don't, specific
> workarounds are very often necessary).

The tool bar has never worked on my browser, which is netscape (last
version). Erik knew about it from the very beginning, and I think has
tried to adress that concern. But it just does not work. This was a
known fact when it was enabled. But the report of it being totally
broken on some browsers were of no interest for the decision of enabling it.

I am personnaly very unhappy of the existence of this bar, because the
consequences it has on my own edit window is such that it is certainly
very very very confusing to new users, and far from being helpful, are
actually hurting the easiness of the process.

Anthere

> There is, of course, a separate conflict between technical simplicity
> - which allows the site to be accessed in as many different clients as
> possible - and what you might call presentational simplicity - the
> ease-of-use factors we're discussing here. The editting toolbar is an
> attempt to increase the latter by decreasing the former; if we wanted
> to be *really* plain, we could stick with something looking like
> c2.com or MeatBall, but I think you'll agree the current interface
> tends to be nicer and easier to work with...
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

erik_moeller at gmx

Aug 11, 2005, 2:35 PM

Post #19 of 29 (1369 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Anthere:

> The tool bar has never worked on my browser, which is netscape (last
> version). Erik knew about it from the very beginning, and I think has
> tried to adress that concern. But it just does not work.

Again, I don't know what browser version you're using and what exactly
the current toolbar behavior is under these conditions. I know you're
still using a very old Mac, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some
issues left to work out. Please report them on Bugzilla. In the
meantime, the toolbar can be disabled in the user preferences.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 12, 2005, 12:16 AM

Post #20 of 29 (1379 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> Anthere:
>
>> The tool bar has never worked on my browser, which is netscape (last
>> version). Erik knew about it from the very beginning, and I think has
>> tried to adress that concern. But it just does not work.
>
>
> Again, I don't know what browser version you're using and what exactly
> the current toolbar behavior is under these conditions. I know you're
> still using a very old Mac, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some
> issues left to work out. Please report them on Bugzilla. In the
> meantime, the toolbar can be disabled in the user preferences.
>
> Erik

Erik, when you made this tool, I remember I explained to you exactly
which browser and which version I was under, as well as described what
the problems exactly were. And I remember we discussed it; so please do
not act now as if you were never told or had no idea.

I also remember quite well that I said the argument of disabling the
feature in the preferences was a BAD argument. Once an editor is used to
wiki, and ask questions around, he knows he can disable it. This is
naturally what I did. But a newbie has this tool right in his face and
just does not know why it is acting so strangely. And has no idea he can
disable it. It is very disturbing. This could have been fixed by making
this tool for experienced users only (ie opt-in).

What I am objecting here Erik, is not the fact the tool bar is not
working in some old browser. I can understand that, even if I think it
is seriously lacking respect for those not able to buy a brand new
computer every two years.

I am objecting to two things

1) whatever what some editors said when the feature was under
development, and it particular the fact it was broken and confusing for
those with old computers or old browsers, it did not matter, the feature
was set up nevertheless. My problem here is an issue of process. You
developers should not make broken features or unwanted features and
force them on the audience if you perfectly know that they are broken or
unwanted, but will bring you fame with some people, or money.

2) calling after 2 years a bug what is absolutely not a bug, but a
broken feature from the very beginning and attempting to divert
attention by telling the one reporting the probleme that he should go
and report it to bugzilla, while it is absolutely CLEAR this issue will
NEVER be fixed, is frankly not a good procedure either. It is useless to
make people dream.

Anthere

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

hashar at altern

Aug 12, 2005, 2:16 AM

Post #21 of 29 (1377 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Anthere wrote:
<snip>
> 2) calling after 2 years a bug what is absolutely not a bug, but a
> broken feature from the very beginning and attempting to divert
> attention by telling the one reporting the probleme that he should go
> and report it to bugzilla, while it is absolutely CLEAR this issue will
> NEVER be fixed, is frankly not a good procedure either. It is useless to
> make people dream.

Anthere,

Please report the bug on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ Give out your
macintosh and browser versions. Then describe as much as you can the
toolbar bug you are facing, eventually attach a screenshot if there is
any error.

Flaming developers on a mailing list is probably the best way for a bug
to never get fixed :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar [at] jabber ICQ: 15325080

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 12, 2005, 3:22 AM

Post #22 of 29 (1372 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>2) calling after 2 years a bug what is absolutely not a bug, but a
>>broken feature from the very beginning and attempting to divert
>>attention by telling the one reporting the probleme that he should go
>>and report it to bugzilla, while it is absolutely CLEAR this issue will
>>NEVER be fixed, is frankly not a good procedure either. It is useless to
>>make people dream.
>
>
> Anthere,
>
> Please report the bug on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ Give out your
> macintosh and browser versions. Then describe as much as you can the
> toolbar bug you are facing, eventually attach a screenshot if there is
> any error.
>
> Flaming developers on a mailing list is probably the best way for a bug
> to never get fixed :)

I fear getting the bug fixed is absolutely not my primary concern right
now Hashar :-) but thanks anyway

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

erik_moeller at gmx

Aug 12, 2005, 5:25 AM

Post #23 of 29 (1381 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Anthere:

> Erik, when you made this tool, I remember I explained to you exactly
> which browser and which version I was under, as well as described what
> the problems exactly were. And I remember we discussed it; so please do
> not act now as if you were never told or had no idea.

I do have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about the
"help bar", which I said in the earlier thread I would disable because
it is more confusing than helping? Or any actual incorrect behavior? I
seem to recall that we got the help bar to work in your browser.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 12, 2005, 9:46 AM

Post #24 of 29 (1382 views)
Permalink

Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> Anthere:
>
>> Erik, when you made this tool, I remember I explained to you exactly
>> which browser and which version I was under, as well as described what
>> the problems exactly were. And I remember we discussed it; so please
>> do not act now as if you were never told or had no idea.
>
>
> I do have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about the
> "help bar", which I said in the earlier thread I would disable because
> it is more confusing than helping? Or any actual incorrect behavior? I
> seem to recall that we got the help bar to work in your browser.
>
> Erik

No idea what I am talking about ?

Right.

Here is a link to refresh your memory.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-January/031511.html

And many discussions under "new edit modus" and "tool bar" made during
that whole month. Please see
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-January/thread.html

I also remember irc discussion with live testing. Which the conclusion
being that it could not be easily fixed, rather that *I* had to buy a
new computer.

I also think we had a lonnnnng private irc discussion on that matter, at
the end of which, I realised my opinion had no chance to change
anything, so I dropped the matter entirely.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dangrey at gmail

Aug 12, 2005, 9:56 AM

Post #25 of 29 (1376 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: Wiki light [In reply to]

On 12/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
> No idea what I am talking about ?
>
>
> Right.
>

My word, you two have issues don't you? I suggest you both try and
sort them out in private. It's not terribly impressive that two board
members cannot remain more professional than this.

Dan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads