On 1/6/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:

Why is MediaWiki so low-tech?

I understand the imperitive for maximal accessibility, but is it not also true that, these days, fewer and fewer people are using browsers that can't handle advanced features? The fact of the matter is that a website's *usability* is improved by taking advantage of the higher-tech architecture that modern browsers allow you to use. Can't MediaWiki default to its current state, but offer a per-user preference to turn on advanced options?

Look at a site like Facebook, (http://www.facebook.com), for example, which is possibly one of the most beautifully constructed websites I have ever encountered. It is simple in layout and ridiculously easy to use on account of very good design, and the use of advanced code generating popups,

we have popups if you install the right extension see [[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups]]

immediate editing, etc.

we've got that.

Furthermore their code is pristine; I have never seen an error, even in the advanced features, on any browser.

Throws up errors in Mosaic (yes I know not a fair test). Either you over generalised or you didn't search very far.

The kind of MediaWiki advanced features I'm talking about could be something like instant editing. Think about if you're reading a long section of an article, and midway down there's a spelling error. There are so many reasons to not fix it: you'd have to scroll up to click the edit link on that section, you'd have to wait for it to load, you'd have to find the place again in the edit box, you'd have to wait for it to load again, and all this time you won't be able to continue reading your article, and you'll have lost your place. What if you could just click next to the relevant paragraph, turning it into an edit box on the same page - no loading - edit it, save it, and never once have to switch page. Something similar to the way you can edit posts in vBulletin without having to change pages. I know for sure that a feature like this would double the speed at which (and the likelihood of which) articles are improved.

When I click on something on wikipedia I generaly don't want to edit it.

Obviously once you accept the usage of advanced elements like this there's no stopping how much easier you can make the site, and how user friendly. If the only grounds to not include this kind of feature are accessibility, just put each feature on a switch in user preferences.

How about lack of coders and lack of money?

Virgil Ierubino wrote:

Why is MediaWiki so low-tech?

I understand the imperitive for maximal accessibility, but is it not also true that, these days, fewer and fewer people are using browsers that can't handle advanced features? The fact of the matter is that a website's *usability* is improved by taking advantage of the higher-tech architecture that modern browsers allow you to use. Can't MediaWiki default to its current state, but offer a per-user preference to turn on advanced options?

We have several JS/AJAX features, and I have attempted to encourage the development of more. See

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-August/025991.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-September/026387.html

The answer to your question is that we have far fewer developers (in full-time equivalent terms) than Facebook, Flickr or any of the other major AJAX-based sites. We will work towards improved client-side functionality, but it could take years to reach the level of functionality you're talking about.

-- Tim Starling