On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Have the successes and failures of the existing
approaches and tools been
considered? Are things LQT got right present in Flow?
Some, yes (remember Andrew and Brandon have worked on both LQT and
Flow) -- in other cases the team deliberately made a different call,
and they may have gotten it wrong, or not. Let's reason it through.
Flow has LQT-style headers, for example, and thread-level summaries,
both with a much nicer UX than LQT, but adopting some of the same
principles.
Signatures that break the page are currently dealt
with by yelling at the
user to fix their sig and then blocking them if need be. I dunno how a
structured talkpage would necessarily change that, though having the
signatures automatically tidied might be useful in general, as it should at
least help prevent unclosed tags.
Sure, some leeway (and some testing/sanitization) makes sense to me to
see what works.
Formatting the pages as flat with just ids and links
to what the things are
replying to could be an interesting option experiment with, especially when
you don't have a lot of space. Like boards. Be like 4chan! Everyone loves
4chan.
*cough*
Why in the world would posts not be editable? I've
never used a platform
where discussion was important in which users couldn't at least edit their
own posts (along with mods) where the lack of such wasn't often complained
about (for instance bugzilla and gerrit don't allow it; moodle and tumblr
do).
Sorry, I should have been clearer. By default, Flow lets you edit your
own comments, and lets admins edit all comments, just like typical
forum conventions. It just doesn't let everyone edit everything.
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation