Hi all,
In a recent meeting, a bunch of us discussed the various design styles specified in skins, jQuery.ui, the newer mediawiki.ui library, and in other places. There was general agreement that we're shooting for consistency as the ideal, but that we've got a lot of work ahead to standardize on any one look and feel, even just for Vector users.
One step agreed on was doing an audit of all the places and ways Vector, jQuery.ui, or mediawiki.ui are applied today. To that end, S Page started http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design_audit and an associated category today.
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works. We also considered just opening a Dropbox folder, since this stuff doesn't necessarily need to be permanent.
Anyway, this is a good place to start. Thanks to S for kicking it off.
Le 2013-07-03 05:48, Steven Walling a écrit :
Hi all,
In a recent meeting, a bunch of us discussed the various design styles specified in skins, jQuery.ui, the newer mediawiki.ui library, and in other places. There was general agreement that we're shooting for consistency as the ideal, but that we've got a lot of work ahead to standardize on any one look and feel, even just for Vector users.
One step agreed on was doing an audit of all the places and ways Vector, jQuery.ui, or mediawiki.ui are applied today. To that end, S Page started http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design_audit [1] and an associated category today.
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works. We also considered just opening a Dropbox folder, since this stuff doesn't necessarily need to be permanent.
I don't like this idea, because: * you make information less gathered and so for a new contributor, it become harder to get the subject * history * as far as I know, dropbox is a non-free tool, which to my mind is not consistent with the free/libre culture we are promoting.
Anyway, this is a good place to start. Thanks to S for kicking it off.
--
Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ [2]
Links:
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design_audit [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works. We also considered just opening a Dropbox folder, since this stuff doesn't necessarily need to be permanent.
Please don't just use dropbox. Transparency and all...
I don't understand why mediawiki.org would be easier to upload than commons. Just use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload instead of uploadwizard and put your custom license tag in the permissions field (and have the license drop down set to none).
--bawolff
For a project like this, I'd prefer it to go onto the wiki (and mediawiki.org is fine; we [developers] control it). For bulk uploads, get a copy of the Commonist and just point it at mw.org
Internally, we use dropbox for the storage of asset files (.psd, .ai, etc.) because they aren't allowed to be uploaded to our mediawiki instances.
On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:19 AM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works. We also considered just opening a Dropbox folder, since this stuff doesn't necessarily need to be permanent.
Please don't just use dropbox. Transparency and all...
I don't understand why mediawiki.org would be easier to upload than commons. Just use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload instead of uploadwizard and put your custom license tag in the permissions field (and have the license drop down set to none).
--bawolff
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Internally, we use dropbox for the storage of asset files (.psd, .ai, etc.) because they aren't allowed to be uploaded to our mediawiki instances.
Historically we put such things in svn [1] so they don't get lost (and many of the older original assets did get lost). Why can't these sorts of things go in git? Having them in some dropbox somewhere seems to be just begging for the original assets to get lost 5 years from now.
[1] https://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/artwork/
--bawolff
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
For a project like this, I'd prefer it to go onto the wiki (and mediawiki.org is fine; we [developers] control it). For bulk uploads, get a copy of the Commonist and just point it at mw.org Internally, we use dropbox for the storage of asset files (.psd, .ai, etc.) because they aren't allowed to be uploaded to our mediawiki instances.On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:19 AM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works. We also considered just opening a Dropbox folder, since this stuff doesn't necessarily need to be permanent.
Please don't just use dropbox. Transparency and all...
I don't understand why mediawiki.org would be easier to upload than commons. Just use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload instead of uploadwizard and put your custom license tag in the permissions field (and have the license drop down set to none).
--bawolff
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't these sorts of things go in git?
Important assets get added to git as they become a part of the repo in a commit by a developer. Important mockups and other non-production assets that need to be documented long term get uploaded to a wiki, preferably Commons. It's frankly not realistic to say that designers are going to commit every random psd or ai file they might create to a git repo. Many of them have never even used it.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't these sorts of things go in git?
Important assets get added to git as they become a part of the repo in a commit by a developer.
I've seen a *lot* of raster images get added without any vector originals, though, especially when the originals were created in proprietary tools like Photoshop or AI instead of using standard SVGs. Then a year or two later we come by, want to fix something for retina display or change colors around, and have to start from scratch.
Important mockups and other non-production assets that need to be documented long term get uploaded to a wiki, preferably Commons. It's frankly not realistic to say that designers are going to commit every random psd or ai file they might create to a git repo. Many of them have never even used it.
Well, it'd be nice for the employees to be trained on the tools the organization uses...
-- brion
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, it'd be nice for the employees to be trained on the tools the organization uses...
Engineer toolset != organizational toolset. Different strokes for different folks.
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:47:24 +0200, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, it'd be nice for the employees to be trained on the tools the organization uses...
Engineer toolset != organizational toolset. Different strokes for different folks.
Revision control is something even accountants should be trained in.
On Jul 3, 2013 11:48 AM, "Steven Walling" swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Well, it'd be nice for the employees to be trained on the tools the
organization uses...
Engineer toolset != organizational toolset. Different strokes for
different folks.
Fair enough! Lemme think on what it is I really mean to say, I know I didn't come across well there...
-- brion
-- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 07/03/2013 02:47 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org mailto:bvibber@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Well, it'd be nice for the employees to be trained on the tools the organization uses...Engineer toolset != organizational toolset. Different strokes for different folks.
With the new very friendly git UIs (e.g. GitHub's are http://windows.github.com/ and http://mac.github.com/, but there are others), I don't think it's asking too much for designers to use git for the source files of assets that are actually being committed/deployed. If they use the GitHub UI, we can use Yuvi's tool to sync with Gerrit.
If people want further guidance on git (and its UIs), it is worth setting up a tutorial/walkthrough. Version control is important for anyone working on something that changes over time, whether it's code or art. As Brion says, committing only the PNGs (or other rasters) quite commonly leads to repeated work.
Matt
On 3 Jul 2013, at 18:39, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Internally, we use dropbox for the storage of asset files (.psd, .ai, etc.) because they aren't allowed to be uploaded to our mediawiki instances.
Historically we put such things in svn [1] so they don't get lost (and many of the older original assets did get lost). Why can't these sorts of things go in git? Having them in some dropbox somewhere seems to be just begging for the original assets to get lost 5 years from now.
[1] https://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/artwork/
--bawolff
Don't we allow these sorts of file types on foundation wiki for this purpose too?
--- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand why mediawiki.org would be easier to upload than commons.
The design audit categories need to apply to existing mediawiki.org design pages as well as screenshots. mediawiki.org can reference screenshots from commons, but AFAICT it can't apply a local categorization such as [[Category:Inconsistent buttons]] to them. Also, Commons images have different norms, e.g. date is not part of the file name and people replace with improved versions.
Regards, -- =S Page software engineer on E3
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:38:09 +0200, S Page spage@wikimedia.org wrote:
mediawiki.org can reference screenshots from commons, but AFAICT it can't apply a local categorization such as [[Category:Inconsistent buttons]] to them.
It can do it just fine, just create local file page. (I agree it's awkward, though.)
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
One step agreed on was doing an audit of all the places and ways Vector, jQuery.ui, or mediawiki.ui are applied today. To that end, S Page started http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design_audit and an associated category today.
Explore https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Design_audit . I think subcategories work well to group UI elements. I hope it's useful.
On 07/02/2013 11:48 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Normally I try to upload screenshots to Commons, but it's kind of a pain in the butt to upload MediaWiki screenshots there because you have use custom licensing templates every time. So if you just want to upload locally to MediaWiki.org like S was doing I think that works.
I think that's fine for now. We can set up a process for migrating to Commons if that's desired by someone later.
I would prefer to keep it on wiki, though, rather than using Dropbox for this.
Matt