One of the side points about the recent image filter survey* was a discussion of the idea of a "switch" for readers to turn ALL multimedia off - primarily to reduce the bandwidth required to load a page if you want to. Then, by chance, I was reading a WP article on my phone this weekend and noted that there is now a link at the bottom of the mobile gateway http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ that says "Disable images on mobile sitehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useformat=mobile&disableImages=1" (and the inverse, "enable images on the mobile site", is shown if you click it).
Is that a new feature or was it always there and I just didn't notice it? If it's a new feature, was it enabled as a result these recent discussions or was it just by chance? Is there any stats (or plans to collect stats) on how many people chose this option and what kind of mobile device they are browsing from?
Since the "disable images" function is already working, would it be useful to trial a subtle link to that function on the normal (non-mobile) site for a couple of weeks? Place it right down the bottom next to the tiny "privacy policy, about, disclaimers, mobile view" links? This would not be intrusive and we could see, through this most-subtle of links, whether anyone takes us up on the offer. If we find that more people click on the feature than expected then that would potentially justify making the feature more prominent (either in the toolbox, integrated into the "filter" software, as a user-preference etc.)?
Just a suggestion.
-Liam
* Yes, it was a survey not a referendum. A referendum is where, according to our favourite website "...an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal." Personally I'm generally in favour of the proposed personal image-hiding concept but please let's stop calling it a referendum.
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
Hi,
On 09/13/2011 08:06 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
Is that a new feature or was it always there and I just didn't notice it?
It's a fairly new feature of the mobile re-write. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MobileFrontend/status
If it's a new feature, was it enabled as a result these recent discussions or was it just by chance?
Just a feature, not connected to image filter discussions AFAIK. Especially for mobile connections with a tiny bandwidth.
Is there any stats (or plans to collect stats) on how many people chose this option and what kind of mobile device they are browsing from?
Since it's mainly used for other purposes, I don't think it'd serve as an adequate estimate of how many people want to hide offending images. Also, people might disable images by accident (it happens to me all the time, that I click on the wrong link on such a small display *g*).
I don't know if there are stats, though.
Since the "disable images" function is already working, would it be useful to trial a subtle link to that function on the normal (non-mobile) site for a couple of weeks? Place it right down the bottom next to the tiny "privacy policy, about, disclaimers, mobile view" links? This would not be intrusive and we could see, through this most-subtle of links, whether anyone takes us up on the offer. If we find that more people click on the feature than expected then that would potentially justify making the feature more prominent (either in the toolbox, integrated into the "filter" software, as a user-preference etc.)?
There are proposals that are less inconvenient for the reader. Take for example this implementation: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069147.html (Example image of German WP article "Penis" http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-DE-Screenshot-Article-Penis...)
Regards, Tobias
church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, and (b) if you have anything worthwhile to say, and are competent at interacting on a mailing list, I see no reason why you should not be able to hit the "reply" button in your mail program, and it actually reaches its target. Sorry if I've missed anything important you might have said, but my inbox is full enough already. Cheers.
Church's email worked fine for me. The only attachment was a signature, the content itself was in normal email form. What mail client are you using? On Oct 7, 2011 12:27 AM, "Phil Nash" phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, and
(b) if you have anything worthwhile to say, and are competent at
interacting
on a mailing list, I see no reason why you should not be able to hit the "reply" button in your mail program, and it actually reaches its target. Sorry if I've missed anything important you might have said, but my inbox
is
full enough already. Cheers.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I use Outlook Express. But, for some reason, some posts do not seem to be rendered as they should be, whether they are attachments or otherwise. Maybe that's my fault, but to be honest, I have other stuff to be concerned about, e.g. my current work on Commons, so with the best will in the world, I'll leave it
Cheers
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Church's email worked fine for me. The only attachment was a signature, the content itself was in normal email form. What mail client are you using? On Oct 7, 2011 12:27 AM, "Phil Nash" phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, and
(b) if you have anything worthwhile to say, and are competent at interacting on a mailing list, I see no reason why you should not be able to hit the "reply" button in your mail program, and it actually reaches its target. Sorry if I've missed anything important you might have said, but my inbox is full enough already. Cheers.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Phil,
I appreciate your feedback on my posts, although I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me.
I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, and
I use a digital signature to sign my Emails. That way, people can verify that the Email on this list are really mine. This is a common practice that many people exercise, some on this Mailing list (Raymond, DaB.), many more on other lists. It's completly secure, and if you don't wan't to verify my digital signature, just ignore the attachments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
There *have* been instances where Emails with a faked address arrived on Wikipedia mailing lists (which is something quite easy to do). So it's not just a theoretical problem :)
(b) if you have anything worthwhile to say, and are competent at interacting on a mailing list, I see no reason why you should not be able to hit the "reply" button in your mail program, and it actually reaches its target.
I do. I use Thunderbird/3.1.13. My "in-reply-to" and "references" header field is set, so you should see my mails just normal in the conversation tree. What Email client are you using?
Regards, Tobias
Ps.: Digital signature disabled in this Email for testing purposes
The image hide feature is useful, but the same feature to hide tables would be great. In mobile mode, infobox tables fill the whole screen width and you have to scroll a lot to read the article, which in my case, is what I want to see.
2011/9/13 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
One of the side points about the recent image filter survey* was a discussion of the idea of a "switch" for readers to turn ALL multimedia off
- primarily to reduce the bandwidth required to load a page if you want to.
Then, by chance, I was reading a WP article on my phone this weekend and noted that there is now a link at the bottom of the mobile gateway http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ that says "Disable images on mobile site< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useformat=mobile&a...
"
(and the inverse, "enable images on the mobile site", is shown if you click it).
Is that a new feature or was it always there and I just didn't notice it? If it's a new feature, was it enabled as a result these recent discussions or was it just by chance? Is there any stats (or plans to collect stats) on how many people chose this option and what kind of mobile device they are browsing from?
Since the "disable images" function is already working, would it be useful to trial a subtle link to that function on the normal (non-mobile) site for a couple of weeks? Place it right down the bottom next to the tiny "privacy policy, about, disclaimers, mobile view" links? This would not be intrusive and we could see, through this most-subtle of links, whether anyone takes us up on the offer. If we find that more people click on the feature than expected then that would potentially justify making the feature more prominent (either in the toolbox, integrated into the "filter" software, as a user-preference etc.)?
Just a suggestion.
-Liam
- Yes, it was a survey not a referendum. A referendum is where, according
to our favourite website "...an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal." Personally I'm generally in favour of the proposed personal image-hiding concept but please let's stop calling it a referendum.
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org