Here is a small issue and a larger issue about the various flagged revision message boxes that appear at the top of articles.
The small issue is that on my IE and Firefox browsers the text usually is too small to read. This seems to be due to the CSS file (and my PC environment). A gif showing a sample is attached. It seems that this box uses the CSS class "flaggedrevs_tag1", which specifies "font-size: 50%" which results in text too small to be useful (it seems to me).
The other issue is whether these sorts of message boxes should be appearing in all the places they currently do. In particular, I think many wikis will want to avoid having any box at the top of the default revision (the "latest stable revision" as the box text says). IMHO, the typical Wikipedia (noneditor) reader shouldn't be burdened with a message box in his face with irrelevant, to him, stuff. If some people are sure this will be wanted sometimes, perhaps it needs to be an option. (I'm guessing an installation CSS change couldn't make the whole box disappear, but I don't know.)
-RS
R. S. Shaw wrote:
The small issue is that on my IE and Firefox browsers the text usually is too small to read.
One of the ideas is to use some css to replace some of the writing with icons, to make it a bit more appealing. So the important bit to me is that we have the classes in there. In the meantime we can scale the fonts up, of course...
Cheers,
Joerg
2007/4/19, Joerg Baach lists@baach.de:
One of the ideas is to use some css to replace some of the writing with icons, to make it a bit more appealing.
Which brings me to the point that we need someone to create these icons. I asked User:Elian, but she declined. Anyone here who knows someone who could do this?
Bye,
Philipp
Which brings me to the point that we need someone to create these icons.
Attached is an icon I drafted for the "latest reviewed revision" message box and one for the "There are no reviewed revisions" box. If you want to use this theme or a derivative, I'll clean them up. If the "Review this revision" input box is to have one, I was thinking of a version with a magnifying glass. If something more artistic is wanted, you'll need to look to someone else.
-RS
2007/4/22, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com:
Attached is an icon I drafted for the "latest reviewed revision" message box and one for the "There are no reviewed revisions" box. If you want to use this theme or a derivative, I'll clean them up. If the "Review this revision" input box is to have one, I was thinking of a version with a magnifying glass. If something more artistic is wanted, you'll need to look to someone else.
No, simple is very good. The intention is to identify states of versions both in the box above the article, the version history, as well as in the recent changes. Imagine an additional column in the recent changes where you can see whether this IP edit has been sighted.
Originally, Arnomane and me though of simple things like yellow circles or grey rectangulars, but I think that I like your question mark even more, as this indicates to the editors that something has to be done. Therefore, why not use simply the circular box with the question mark? As for the other things, maybe a green check mark for reviewed and a neutral yellow circle for sighted?
Bye,
Philipp
P. Birken wrote:
... The intention is to identify states of versions both in the box above the article, the version history, as well as in the recent changes. ...
If I understand your message correctly, there are three states a revision can be in which you want to distinguish by a graphic:
(1) Unapproved (or unreviewed, or ...?) ......the (accuracy,depth,readability) are (Unapproved,Unapproved,Unapproved) (2) "Sighted" (or skimmed, or surveyed, or ...?) ......Is this (Draft level,Unapproved,Unapproved), or maybe ...... (Draft level,<anything>, <anything>) ? (3) Reviewed (or ...?) ......Any (accuracy,depth,readability) state other than in (1) or (2).
Is this approximately correct? What is the Sighted state (and if the first interpretation, how does one manage to set it; the current software prohibits such a setting)?
Anyway, the graphics for the version history and such must be small so that they fit well with the text of the line. I've attached 3 icons based on a small box for the above, respectively, yellow with question mark, plain yellow, and white with green check. A quite similar effect could probably be achieved without image files, by using HTML (the check mark has a Unicode coding, although perhaps some browsers wouldn't have a supporting font available).
-RS
____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
2007/4/24, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com:
Is this approximately correct? What is the Sighted state (and if the first interpretation, how does one manage to set it; the current software prohibits such a setting)?
In the original proposal from the german Wikipedia, there are simply two flags and they have only one level (On or off). Namely, the sighted (aka unvandalized) flag, the reviewed flag and no flag at all. Because Erik wanted more flexibility, the possibility of more than two flags is included, as well as multiple levels for flags. In particular, the english wikipedia will probably have a more complicated setting with more flags than the german wikipedia. So that's why I talk of three settings.
Nevertheless don't think of the labels for the flags currently used on the test server as fixed. In particular, I don't think that there's a definition for sighted (aka unvandalized) in the multiple flag setting yet.
Anyway, the graphics for the version history and such must be small so that they fit well with the text of the line. I've attached 3 icons based on a small box for the above, respectively, yellow with question mark, plain yellow, and white with green check. A quite similar effect could probably be achieved without image files, by using HTML (the check mark has a Unicode coding, although perhaps some browsers wouldn't have a supporting font available).
Great! Jörg, can you put these into the CSS?
Bye,
Philipp
P. Birken wrote:
Anyway, the graphics for the version history and such must be small so that they fit well with the text of the line. I've attached 3 icons based on a small box for the above, respectively, yellow with question mark, plain yellow, and white with green check. A quite similar effect could probably be achieved without image files, by using HTML (the check mark has a Unicode coding, although perhaps some browsers wouldn't have a supporting font available).
Great! Jörg, can you put these into the CSS?
There is now a first approach - Firefox friendly. It seems to me not that useful though - have to give it another thought, on how exactly we want to use the icons.
So maybe, instead of putting them in as a replacement for the values of the flags it seems to me that we have either a completely unrated version, one that is rated, but does not meet the requirements for being stable, and one that is stable. Which would mean one icon as a summary for all flaggs. What do you think?
Cheers,
Joerg
There are currently 4 levels (not counting unreveiwed) a revision can have, so we should have four symbols. I don't like the yellow box at all but the checks are good.
Perhaps the image names could be dynamic (like rate1, rate2, rate3) based on the rating. I did this with the rating names too (like "accurate", "well sourced") to make it easy to add on to.
<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>
From: Joerg Baach lists@baach.de Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Representation of 3 revision states Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:22:29 +0100
P. Birken wrote:
Anyway, the graphics for the version history and such must be small so
that they fit well with the text of the line. I've attached 3 icons based on a small box for the above, respectively, yellow with question mark, plain yellow, and white with green check. A quite similar effect could probably be achieved without image files, by using HTML (the check mark has a Unicode coding, although perhaps some browsers wouldn't have a supporting font available).
Great! Jörg, can you put these into the CSS?
There is now a first approach - Firefox friendly. It seems to me not that useful though - have to give it another thought, on how exactly we want to use the icons.
So maybe, instead of putting them in as a replacement for the values of the flags it seems to me that we have either a completely unrated version, one that is rated, but does not meet the requirements for being stable, and one that is stable. Which would mean one icon as a summary for all flaggs. What do you think?
Cheers,
Joerg
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate new payment http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=1...
Perhaps the image names could be dynamic (like rate1, rate2, rate3) based on the rating. I did this with the rating names too (like "accurate", "well sourced") to make it easy to add on to.
At the moment the images are integrated with css , so that you see the text if css is not enabled (screen readers etc.).
I am actually not that sure if replacing the spelled out version with icons helps that much - maybe have additional icons, or do something with color would be good. But thats really not my topic - my designer told me to better stay with black and white. But I could ask him, maybe he has an idea...
Cheers,
Joerg
Jörg wrote:
There is now a first approach - Firefox friendly. It seems to me not that useful though - have to give it another thought, on how exactly we want to use the icons.
So maybe, instead of putting them in as a replacement for the values of the flags it seems to me that we have either a completely unrated version, one that is rated, but does not meet the requirements for being stable, and one that is stable. Which would mean one icon as a summary for all flaggs. What do you think?
I think this is what should be done for the Version History and maybe the Recent Changes lists. One of the three icons would appear on each revision's line of the history, showing that the revision is either unrated, rated below minimum, or meets minimum rating.
These three stability-icons guide the viewer of the history as to which revisions are of interest - for instance, the last stable one which he might want to look at or compare to. The three icon files should be given a file name related to this function.
For the revision status message boxes at the top of a page, though, a different situation occurs. For these, this might be the best choice:
Use a (potentially) completely different set of icons for helping visualization of the settings of the ratings. In the current Phase3 test setup where there are 3 dimensions of 5 values each, there would be a set of 15 icon filenames (in a regular pattern, such as icon-depth-0, icon-depth-1, etc) for each of the possible dimension x values. These would _not_ replace the text of the value, but would be presented in addition to that text, next to the text. Thus if X and Y are icons it would look something like this: Accuracy: X Draft level Depth: Y Stub
Exactly what these value-icons would be can be worked out over time, as there are many possibilities. The idea is that they help the user who is familiar with the system quickly see the setting, while the text helps the user who is not familiar with a setting icon to understand the rating value.
If desired, in addition to the N value-icons in the message box (or instead), we could also present a _larger_ version of _one_ of the stability-icons. This icon represents the overall status of the revision setting, either rated-but-not-meeting-minimums, or meets-minimums. It should be a larger icon because it will be more visible, and does not have to fit on a single line of a Version History listing.
-RS
2007/4/25, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com:
Use a (potentially) completely different set of icons for helping visualization of the settings of the ratings. In the current Phase3 test setup where there are 3 dimensions of 5 values each, there would be a set of 15 icon filenames (in a regular pattern, such as icon-depth-0, icon-depth-1, etc) for each of the possible dimension x values. These would _not_ replace the text of the value, but would be presented in addition to that text, next to the text. Thus if X and Y are icons it would look something like this: Accuracy: X Draft level Depth: Y Stub
Exactly what these value-icons would be can be worked out over time, as there are many possibilities. The idea is that they help the user who is familiar with the system quickly see the setting, while the text helps the user who is not familiar with a setting icon to understand the rating value.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is it something like this http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Sighted-version-mockup.png, only with a more detailed set of icons?
If desired, in addition to the N value-icons in the message box (or instead), we could also present a _larger_ version of _one_ of the stability-icons. This icon represents the overall status of the revision setting, either rated-but-not-meeting-minimums, or meets-minimums. It should be a larger icon because it will be more visible, and does not have to fit on a single line of a Version History listing.
I think I like that idea.
Bye,
Philipp
Maybe icons could mark "quality/stable" versions in some contexts, but as for each rating, I'd rather go with the text, or the text and the blue bars or such. Any use of icons alone would be more confusing as readers wouldn't know what they meant. Icons are really only good for yes/no fields.
<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>
From: "P. Birken" pbirken@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "Wikimedia Quality Discussions" wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Representation of 3 revision states Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:43:13 +0200
2007/4/25, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com:
Use a (potentially) completely different set of icons for helping
visualization of the settings of the ratings. In the current Phase3 test setup where there are 3 dimensions of 5 values each, there would be a set of 15 icon filenames (in a regular pattern, such as icon-depth-0, icon-depth-1, etc) for each of the possible dimension x values. These would _not_ replace the text of the value, but would be presented in addition to that text, next to the text. Thus if X and Y are icons it would look something like this:
Accuracy: X Draft level Depth: Y StubExactly what these value-icons would be can be worked out over time, as
there are many possibilities. The idea is that they help the user who is familiar with the system quickly see the setting, while the text helps the user who is not familiar with a setting icon to understand the rating value.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is it something like this http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Sighted-version-mockup.png, only with a more detailed set of icons?
If desired, in addition to the N value-icons in the message box (or
instead), we could also present a _larger_ version of _one_ of the stability-icons. This icon represents the overall status of the revision setting, either rated-but-not-meeting-minimums, or meets-minimums. It should be a larger icon because it will be more visible, and does not have to fit on a single line of a Version History listing.
I think I like that idea.
Bye,
Philipp
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
shaww@inbox.com wrote:
For the revision status message boxes at the top of a page ... [These icons] would be presented in addition to that text, next to the text. Thus if X and Y are icons it would look something like this: Accuracy: X Draft level Depth: Y Stub
jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
Maybe icons could mark "quality/stable" versions in some contexts, but as for each rating, I'd rather go with the text, or the text and the blue bars or such. Any use of icons alone would be more confusing as readers wouldn't know what they meant. Icons are really only good for yes/no fields.
Upon reflection, I agree we shouldn't use this value-icons idea. At best it would just be a frill, and is not needed now.
So the message boxes at page tops would go back to the way they had been on Phase3, with ratings expressed in text like this: Accuracy: Draft level Depth: Stub Readability: Good
I think the "quality/stable" marking in Version History pages is fairly important, and that should be done. The display could easily be done with either HTML (Colored background and a monospace character, for instance) or icons.
-RS
____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
R. S. Shaw wrote:
So the message boxes at page tops would go back to the way they had been on Phase3, with ratings expressed in text like this: Accuracy: Draft level Depth: Stub Readability: Good
I think the "quality/stable" marking in Version History pages is fairly important, and that should be done. The display could easily be done with either HTML (Colored background and a monospace character, for instance) or icons.
There are already some quickly made icons on phase3 for the message boxes, next step is to have something along the line of your icons for unreviewed/reviewed/stable. Need to integrate it.
Cheers,
Joerg
In my opinion, these icons are great. Both the question mark one, but really the check boxes idea is just great.
What I think should be done regarding the marking and CSS, is that the entire page (e.g. body tag) should be given its own CSS class, to maximize customizability for the users. So that experienced users in their personal stylesheet can e.g. make the background red or whatnot. But this should be in addition to other kind of marking, of course. With this system that marking could be hidden with CSS anyways, so it's a win-win.
(I'm writing this from my brand new Nokia 5300, so I apologize for any weird typos I make. If there's something you need me to explain better, I'll be more than happy to do that the next time I'm on a computer. :-)
On 4/22/07, R. S. Shaw shaww@inbox.com wrote:
Which brings me to the point that we need someone to create these icons.
Attached is an icon I drafted for the "latest reviewed revision" message box and one for the "There are no reviewed revisions" box. If you want to use this theme or a derivative, I'll clean them up. If the "Review this revision" input box is to have one, I was thinking of a version with a magnifying glass. If something more artistic is wanted, you'll need to look to someone else.
-RS
Your test site currently is broken. You must have svn upped and had files in a conflicted state.
You will have to merge them manually.
<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>
_________________________________________________________________ Mortgage refinance is Hot. *Terms. Get a 5.375%* fix rate. Check savings https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=...
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
