Hi,
Yes, of course we are interested on it.
Specifically, the ideal WISIWYG MediaWiki editor would allow easy
WISIWYG editing to newbies, while still allowing to use the full
wikisyntax to power users, without inserting crappy markup when using
it, or reordering everything to its liking when WISIWYG was used to do a
little change.
Thanks for the note, it may be an important issue.
From the screencast, it seems your technology is
based in a local
application instead of web. That's is a little inconvenience for the
users, but an acceptable one IMHO. You could plug your app as an
external editor, see:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:External_editors
Yep according to my understanding this is major problem, but unfortunately
we are rich client developers, so going web is only in our future plans.
(Actually we are thinking about moving to it, but waiting for a first
customer to help with transition)
On other side being a rich client app may add some benefits for advanced
users, which are still hard
to do in web apps (according to my poor desktop developer understanding).
custom groupings, personal inbox, local for work flow/validation rules and
review. (just as initial examples)
The problem that makes this really hard is that
MediaWiki syntax is not
nice. So I'm a bit skeptical about that fast quality editor. You can
find in the list archives many discussions about it, and also in
wikitext-l.
Things like providing a ribbon is a completely
esthetical choice, it
can't really help on the result of its editing. Maybe your backend is
powerful enough to handle this without problems. Please, show me wrong :)
Yep - already meet some crap in dealing with it(much more complex than,
Trac wiki one).
But still hope to over helm most of problems, in a couple of month
I don't have an issue with there being a
closed source Windows app that
edits wikitext well, but then there is going to be a bit of a difficult
transition from reading to editing and back again.
Yes, this is one of pote
And just FYI, generally our community is more
interested in free and
cross-platform software than proprietary, single platform software.
Actually we
are going to be open source and cross platform (we are Eclipse
RCP based)
That was very interesting. Any chance the rest of
us can try it for
ourselves?
Our media wiki support is at very early stage now. Actually we are still
not sure how much we are going to be committed into it,
If there will be enough interest (at least couple of volunteer beta
testers), we will start publishing builds somewhere.
Regards,
Pavel
OnPositive Technologies.
2010/8/3 Neil Kandalgaonkar <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>
On 8/2/10 9:29 AM, Павел Петроченко wrote:
Hi guys,
At the moment we are discussing an opportunity to create full scale
true WYSIWYG client for media wiki. To the moment we have a technology
which should allow us to implement with a good quality and quite fast.
Unfortunately we are not sure
if there is a real need/interest for having such kind of client at the
media wiki world, as well as what are actual needs of media wiki
users.
Definitely interested.
As for what the needs of MediaWiki users are, you can check out everything
on
http://usability.wikimedia.org/ . We are just beginning to address
usability concerns. This study might be interesting to you:
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study
P.S. Screen cast demonstrating our experimental client for Trac wiki
That was very interesting. Any chance the rest of us can try it for
ourselves?
I personally like the idea of a ribbon. I think we can assume that most
wiki editors are always going to be novice editors, so taking up tremendous
amounts of space by default to explain things is warranted. Experts should
be able to drop into raw wikitext, or otherwise minimize the interface.
I don't have an issue with there being a closed source Windows app that
edits wikitext well, but then there is going to be a bit of a difficult
transition from reading to editing and back again.
And just FYI, generally our community is more interested in free and
cross-platform software than proprietary, single platform software.
Still it looks interesting. Please let us know more.
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar (| <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>