2010/1/4 Steve Bennett :
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, altally wrote:
>> When I started, I created an account from the beginning. Why? Because it
>> wasn't hard to notice the big "Sign in/create account" link in the corner.
>> Newbies aren't all clueless idiots. You are making the mistake of
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://usability.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=6
Any particularly good ones there?
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To uns
Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking "edit", but
actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's
experience:
http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732
http://twitter.com/joshuaclerner/status/3602544810
Wikitext used to be a lot simpler. Now it's impen
On Monday 04 Jan 2010 16:23:29 David Gerard wrote:
> Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking "edit", but
> actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's
> experience:
>
> http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732
> http://twitter.com/joshuaclerner/statu
2010/1/4 Shlomi Fish :
> I personally detest all WYSIWYG web-based editors. They are slow and clunky
> and produce broken markup, and just get in the way. I'm also not fond of
> WYSIWYG word processors and prefer using XHTML or DocBook/XML or other non-
> WYSIWYG markup languages. If you are going
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking "edit", but
> actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's
> experience:
>
> http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732
> http://twitter.com/joshuaclerner/stat
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
> I think that, fundamentally, "WYSIWYG" isn't the right model for
> Wikipedia or even wikis in general. What fits our model is "what you
> get is what you mean". We really shouldn't want most editors worrying
> too much about how the page looks because its important for
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
> So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
> NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much "wiki"
> concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
> hidden complexity.
And never mind the actual numbers from
2010/1/4 David Gerard :
> 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
>
>> So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
>> NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much "wiki"
>> concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
>> hidden complexity.
>
>
> And
2010/1/4 Thomas Dalton :
> 2010/1/4 David Gerard :
>> And never mind the actual numbers from Wikia, which look very like
>> having a WYSIWYG system for presentational markup was *the* key to
>> having people actually complete a planned edit rather than click
>> 'edit', go "what on earth" at the co
[to list as well, sorry Shlomi!]
2010/1/4 Shlomi Fish :
> I personally detest all WYSIWYG web-based editors. They are slow and clunky
> and produce broken markup, and just get in the way. I'm also not fond of
> WYSIWYG word processors and prefer using XHTML or DocBook/XML or other non-
> WYSIWYG
David Gerard wrote:
> 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
>
>
>> So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
>> NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much "wiki"
>> concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
>> hidden complexity.
>>
>
2010/1/4 David Gerard :
> 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
>
>> I think that, fundamentally, "WYSIWYG" isn't the right model for
>> Wikipedia or even wikis in general. What fits our model is "what you
>> get is what you mean". We really shouldn't want most editors worrying
>> too much about how the page
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> A half step is possible: Editing with syntax highlighting and hiding
> of common blocks (i.e. references collapse down to just the tag unless
> you navigate the cursor into them).
No syntax highlighting, but the rest I can offer:
http://en.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell :
>> So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
>> NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much "wiki"
>> concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
>> h
On 01/02/2010 03:25 PM, altally wrote:
> Yes, it's not that difficult to create an account and wait a few days is it?
My general rule of thumb is that you lose 20% of participants for each
click you add to a flow. It varies a lot by circumstance, but the
principle has been proven over and over:
2010/1/4 William Pietri :
> In this case, I'd expect creating an account and waiting 3 days to lose
> 50-90% of the contributions we'd get with an unimpeded flow. (To what
> extent we value or want those contributions is a different question; I'm
> just talking about raw user actions.)
What was
Strategic Planning Office Hours this week are Wednesday from
04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 8-9pm PST
Tuesday, 11pm-12am EST
As task forces start to move toward recommendations, things are really
starting to get interesting. We invite everyone to join and get
updates about process, whe
On 01/04/2010 12:45 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> What was Aaron Swartz's numbers - a huge percentage of the actual text
> kept in articles added by anons? Then heavily processed by the
> regulars.
>
> But keeping out the n00bs is how to make Wikipedia decline into complacency.
>
Makes sense to
I tend to agree with GM here, and am generally opposed to a WYSIWYG
editor
for a widely read wiki.
For a start, HTML renderers will output different pixels for the same
source
- for example in the case of a partially sighted person who may have
bigger text,
or people like me who often read
I seem to remember a certain admin suggested banning me (not just
blocking, you note!) a few months after I got started at WP. This was
after I had discussed all my ideas on the appropriate policy
discussion groups (which were not that easy for a new user to find, as
it happens) for severa
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> But most the rest of the markup we have is semantic. Every infobox and
> nav-box is semantic markup. Categories, etc. All semantic. It's the
>
What would help here would be getting the "semantic markup" out of the edit
box. There's no rea
On 01/04/2010 11:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Bad presentation in the edit isn't, in my view, the biggest problem
> with WYSIWYG systems the problem is that they frequently behave
> inscrutably, even ones designed from the start as WYSIWYG (as opposed
> to boltons as we'd have). Issues like...
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
>> interesting quick article about the trials and tribulations of other
>> open access encyclopedia projects:
>> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/14/encyclopedias
>>
> In another direction, I'm interested in
24 matches
Mail list logo
