> bawolff wrote: "... Out of curiosity, can
> you give an example of what can't be
> currently done in rearranging the styles
> which you think could or should be
> done. In my opinion, if you take the
> time, you can change it to pretty
> much anything. -bawolff
Peter Blaise responds:
Maybe we're talking about different things.
I'm only suggesting that we put our energy into making the MediaWiki
interface itself more capable ... so we don't have to go out and use
text editing tools and programming language savvy to change
configuration files ... because editing *.php or *.css files (and so on)
is an order of magnitude more complex (and off-putting) than the next
wave of MediaWiki adopters can successfully handle and self-maintain.
In other words, if we want to reduce the overwhelming (and growing)
support demands while expanding the audience for MediaWiki
installations, we have to empower the main program itself to be all
powerful regarding the installation, setup, configuration, and
maintenance of the MediaWiki experience.
Yes, experienced *.php and *.css (and so on) tweakers can tune a
MediaWiki installation to a faretheewell. But, the problem is, they
have to! And, the uninitiated are either blocked out from enjoying the
MediaWiki experience, or try to get started, and then overwhelm the
support channels with newbie questions across the spectrum -
installation, setup, configuration, and maintenance. We can either say,
"Learn (or hire) PHP and css skills," or we can incorporate the tasks
into the MediaWiki interface once and for all.
My goal, or the target is: if the admin has to go outside of MediaWiki
for anything relating to installation, setup, configuration, and
maintenance, then we have more to do to make the MediaWiki interface
smarter!
That is all. Of course, there are more words in the list: installation,
setup, configuration, maintenance, customization, backup, verify,
restore, export, import, make reports, reorganize, language change, make
PDFs, repurpose contents, import contents form other sources, automate
data exchange, and so on. And, on. And, on.
Am I thinking of MediaWiki version 4 or version 1.12?
-- Peter Blaise
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:20:05 -0400
> From: "Monahon, Peter B." <Peter.Monahon(a)USPTO.GOV>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Monobook.css update?
> To: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <13E609DD5C46E64EBC847D37B677370D0817C9B7(a)EXCHANGE2.uspto.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> > Simetrical wrote: You seem to be confusing
> > two issues: the ability to edit styles from
> > within MediaWiki, and the ability to do it
> > without technical know-how ...
>
> Peter Blaise responds: Actually, I am trying to rise above both issues.
>
> There was a call for putting energies into redesigning monobook.css for "commons" (to differentiate it visually so contributors knew they were at "commons" and not another wiki - apparently there is at least one person who got confused and wants the on-screen interface design to help distinguish between wikis for them).
>
> In response, I suggested that instead, put energies into maturing the MediaWiki interface itself to become the place where ALL configuration is done.
>
> In other words, NOT as much a cry for dumbing down the need for *.css skills (which MUST die anyway, eventually), but a cry for growing the sysops/bureaucrat/admin/developer/registereduser/bot/user/reader/printer/yada,yada,yada interface to take over more and more control of anything and everything anyone does in a MediaWiki.
>
> Otherwise, we're just rearranging the deck chairs.
>
> -- Peter Blaise
Out of curiosity, can you give an example of what can't be currently
done in rearranging the styles which you think could or should be
done. In my opinion, if you take the time, you can change it to pretty
much anything.
-bawolff
> Simetrical wrote: You seem to be confusing
> two issues: the ability to edit styles from
> within MediaWiki, and the ability to do it
> without technical know-how ...
Peter Blaise responds: Actually, I am trying to rise above both issues.
There was a call for putting energies into redesigning monobook.css for "commons" (to differentiate it visually so contributors knew they were at "commons" and not another wiki - apparently there is at least one person who got confused and wants the on-screen interface design to help distinguish between wikis for them).
In response, I suggested that instead, put energies into maturing the MediaWiki interface itself to become the place where ALL configuration is done.
In other words, NOT as much a cry for dumbing down the need for *.css skills (which MUST die anyway, eventually), but a cry for growing the sysops/bureaucrat/admin/developer/registereduser/bot/user/reader/printer/yada,yada,yada interface to take over more and more control of anything and everything anyone does in a MediaWiki.
Otherwise, we're just rearranging the deck chairs.
-- Peter Blaise
Original message:
> From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> Date: Jun 15, 2007 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] Monobook.css update?
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> On 6/15/07, Robert Leverington <lcarsdata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ... instead of having to search for and find and hand edit *.css, *.js,
> > > *.ini, *.conf, *.php and so on files. I say, do all that programming
> > > ONCE, and do it INSIDE a new version of the MediaWiki distribution
> > > program. Then let sysops/admins tweak everything to their heart's
> > > content from within the MediaWiki program without having to become
> > > OS/MySQL/PHP/CSS/and-so-on programming nerds (with NO documentation
> > > skills, apparently?!?). You want the commons blue? Make it blue from
> > > WITHIN MediaWiki, rather than hand coding a new *.css!
>
> You seem to be confusing two issues: the ability to edit styles from
> within MediaWiki, and the ability to do it without technical know-how.
> We have the former: you can do a tremendous amount with
> MediaWiki:Monobook.css, even though no projects that I know of have
> done more than tiny tweaks.
Although no project has adopted a major css skin change, that is not
to say they don't exist. Take for example the datrio+mrm skin on the
english wikinews (view->page style->Datrio+MrM in firefox and Opera,
[[n:wikinews:Skins]] for other browsers) or the egyptian skin from the
user skin gallery on meta. They are extremely different from the
default monobook css.
>
> The second issue is the knowledge of CSS required to do all this.
> That part is substantial. If someone wants to design a simple
> special-page extension that will generate a pretty interface to the
> CSS, perhaps the Foundation would be interested in enabling it on its
> wikis. Then again, perhaps not, if it prefers uniformity among its
> own projects (and I think you can make a strong argument for that --
> although all things being equal, I'd guess the Foundation would let
> its wikis style things however the community wants them). Either way,
> I'm personally not interested in coding such a thing, but if someone
> else wants to, they can go ahead.
>
> > This idea is very interesting, I can already imagine what this could
> > look like - I am forwarding this to the wikitech-l mailing list so
> > that the people involved in that can also add their ideas. No doubt
> > this would require some nifty JavaScript though.
>
> It wouldn't require JavaScript unless you wanted to get really fancy,
> like letting people drag around interface elements. A simple form
> allowing entry of various colors, borders, background images, etc.
> would suffice, with some extra options for moving around stuff like
> the logo and parts of the sidebar.
I think most people who are willing to put the necessary effort into
designing something well, would probably be willing to experiment with
css. most people are able to figure out what a rule like "body
{background-color: white;}" does. but that is just my uninformed
opinion (which is probably wrong).
-bawolff
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:39:54 -0400
> From: Cary Bass <cbass(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Commons-l] Monobook.css update?
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4671998A.3090106(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> IMHO, the old monobook is getting old and tired, and it's marginally
> relevant to Wikimedia Commons. And it's so similar to many of the
> projects that it's not always easy to tell that you've moved from one
> wiki to another.
>
> And, judging from offsite conversations, some of you are agreeing with me.
> But not all of us are good at designing skins. And how do we change it
> while upsetting the least amount of people?
>
> I propose that we formulate a contest to come up with a new, more
> exciting monobook.css.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> -C
Wikinews had a design contest once (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_design_contest ). Problem is
no one could agree on anything but that the current monobook sucked
for anything not an encyclopedia (and to this day, that is the
prevailing opinion more or less) .
Anyways, one of the useful things we did do that might be useful for
your contest, is make some of the entries alternate stylesheets on
wikinews. This allowed people to try them out easily without going
through [[special:mypage/monobook.css]]. For example, goto any page on
the english wikinews. On a browser that supports alt stylesheets (like
firefox, opera), View->Page Style->foo.
Good luck
-bawolff
> Cary wrote: ... monobook is getting old
> ... and it's marginally relevant to
> Wikimedia Commons ... so similar to
> many of the projects that it's not ...
> easy to tell that you've moved from one
> wiki to another ... But not all of us are
> good at designing skins ... how do we
> change it while upsetting the least
> amount of people? I propose ... a
> contest to come up with a new, more
> exciting monobook.css ... -C
Peter Blaise responds: I know this is a "commons" discussion list, so
my contribution in this thread is specious, but where else should we
discuss this ... and you started it! So...
Although I agree with much of your observations, I disagree with your
conclusions.
I suggest that we instead design a new MediaWiki front end to allow the
look and feel and function of any MediaWiki element to be customized
USING MediaWiki directly through the same interface everyone else uses.
... instead of having to search for and find and hand edit *.css, *.js,
*.ini, *.conf, *.php and so on files. I say, do all that programming
ONCE, and do it INSIDE a new version of the MediaWiki distribution
program. Then let sysops/admins tweak everything to their heart's
content from within the MediaWiki program without having to become
OS/MySQL/PHP/CSS/and-so-on programming nerds (with NO documentation
skills, apparently?!?). You want the commons blue? Make it blue from
WITHIN MediaWiki, rather than hand coding a new *.css!
I hope my 2 cents catches someone's imagination. I'm not up to either
task - customizing MediaWiki using the current resources as a one-off
design, nor programming such a modern interface enhancement tool as an
upgrade included into MediaWiki. I just want one. And the people I'm
trying to get to adopt MediaWiki would really appreciate it.
That said, keeping everything as "Wikipedia" as possible makes training
and experience with one transferable to any other. "Have you seen
Wikipedia?" "Yes." "Well, then, THIS is the exactly same. Dive in and
enjoy!" Works for me.
In other words, I'm reframing the challenge: rather than adding yet
another one-off skin, why not design a "skin designer" and incorporate
it right into MediaWiki?
;-) -- Peter Blaise
And forwarded back to Commons-l
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] Monobook.css update?
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 6/15/07, Robert Leverington <lcarsdata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ... instead of having to search for and find and hand edit *.css, *.js,
> > *.ini, *.conf, *.php and so on files. I say, do all that programming
> > ONCE, and do it INSIDE a new version of the MediaWiki distribution
> > program. Then let sysops/admins tweak everything to their heart's
> > content from within the MediaWiki program without having to become
> > OS/MySQL/PHP/CSS/and-so-on programming nerds (with NO documentation
> > skills, apparently?!?). You want the commons blue? Make it blue from
> > WITHIN MediaWiki, rather than hand coding a new *.css!
You seem to be confusing two issues: the ability to edit styles from
within MediaWiki, and the ability to do it without technical know-how.
We have the former: you can do a tremendous amount with
MediaWiki:Monobook.css, even though no projects that I know of have
done more than tiny tweaks. You could, for instance, change
background images, fonts, positioning, and so on. If you look at the
HTML source, for instance, the navigation sidebar is marked up
identically to the content action buttons (talk, edit, history, ...):
it's just CSS that distinguishes the two, having one arranged
vertically on the left with bullets and the other horizontally on the
top in boxes, and that can be changed from within the wiki.
The second issue is the knowledge of CSS required to do all this.
That part is substantial. If someone wants to design a simple
special-page extension that will generate a pretty interface to the
CSS, perhaps the Foundation would be interested in enabling it on its
wikis. Then again, perhaps not, if it prefers uniformity among its
own projects (and I think you can make a strong argument for that --
although all things being equal, I'd guess the Foundation would let
its wikis style things however the community wants them). Either way,
I'm personally not interested in coding such a thing, but if someone
else wants to, they can go ahead.
> This idea is very interesting, I can already imagine what this could
> look like - I am forwarding this to the wikitech-l mailing list so
> that the people involved in that can also add their ideas. No doubt
> this would require some nifty JavaScript though.
It wouldn't require JavaScript unless you wanted to get really fancy,
like letting people drag around interface elements. A simple form
allowing entry of various colors, borders, background images, etc.
would suffice, with some extra options for moving around stuff like
the logo and parts of the sidebar.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
IMHO, the old monobook is getting old and tired, and it's marginally
relevant to Wikimedia Commons. And it's so similar to many of the
projects that it's not always easy to tell that you've moved from one
wiki to another.
And, judging from offsite conversations, some of you are agreeing with me.
But not all of us are good at designing skins. And how do we change it
while upsetting the least amount of people?
I propose that we formulate a contest to come up with a new, more
exciting monobook.css.
What do you all think?
-C
somebody wrote:
>Some bullets and points comparing categories and galleries:
> - Categories are easier to add to an image, as you merely add the
> [[Category:foo]] while adding other info anyway
Currently categories are sorted by doing [[category:foo|sortkey]].
What if when you added the sort key, it would auto-appear as the
caption in the magic category galleries. for example:
putting [[category:cat|My cat Mr. Twinkles]] on the image of mr
teinkles, the images on that category would have:
________
| |
| pict of |
| cat |
|________|
|My cat Mr|
| Twinkles|
------------
instead of no caption at all.
Also wouldn't it make more sense to have some sort of parserFunction
like {{#UnusedImageFromCat: category:foo}} that displays the non-used
images so then the gallery could be made to fit around the non-used
images with appropriate headings edited in, rather then it
automatically just thrown at the bottom with a one size fits all for
how it is displayed?
-bawolff
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Meet_our_photographers
Anyone adding themselves to this? (No, I haven't myself as yet ...)
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers
who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as
well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because
GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible
in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to
convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their
talents.
- d.