It strikes me as violating the principle of least astonishment that
"Delete this page" and the little "(del)" link next to the current image
revision do different things on an image description page, namely:
* "Delete this page" deletes only the image description page, leaving
the image file and its revisions intact, and the image remains in the
images list
* "(del)" deletes the image file, any old revisions, the entry from the
images list, *and* the description page.
User expectation seems to be that "delete this page" should perform the
second function.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
What's with the Tex feature update? Anything final yet?
(I'm only asking because I'd like to use my new Recent Changes toy, but
I'm afraid to break something when installing the current CVS, because
of the Tex stuff).
Magnus
Because of the nature of Wikipedia, articles tend to get rather congested
with links. All these super-bright reds and blues and gaudy underlines can
sometimes get the better of an article. I was working on [[w:LAMP]] just
now when my eyes just couldn't take anymore.
It might be nice to find some softer colors for links, visited links, and
non-existent links. And to also, via CSS, get rid of the underlines on
links within the body of an article (the underlines are kinda helpful for
the menus to left, above, and below articles, though [but maybe for style
these underlines could be done away with, too, and instead go with bolding
the font faces]). I do like red for non-existent articles, and blue for
existent articles; they're just way too bright as it is.
Anyways, I really think something ought to be done about this, as too many
link-filled articles just look terrible, and their readability is quite
degraded. It's just too distracting on the eyes, especially when you're
tryin' to study the text.
What do others think?
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=74…http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamp…
On mar, 2002-12-31 at 06:11, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> One easy solution is to allow a CSS URL as a personal setting. If it
> is not set, everything works like today. Users who are unhappy with
> the default design can design a CSS style sheet, put it on some
> webserver (maybe upload to Wikipedia) and enter its URL in the
> personal settings. Everyone can have their own, or share URLs.
Looked in your browser's settings lately? If it doesn't have an option
for a user-defined style sheet override, you're using either a very old
or a very rare one.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Derek Moore wrote:
> > Because of the nature of Wikipedia, articles tend to get rather congested
> > with links. All these super-bright reds and blues and gaudy underlines can
>
> One easy solution is to allow a CSS URL as a personal setting. If it
> is not set, everything works like today. Users who are unhappy with
> the default design can design a CSS style sheet, put it on some
> webserver (maybe upload to Wikipedia) and enter its URL in the
> personal settings. Everyone can have their own, or share URLs.
Part of the skin is in CSS, other part is in .php file.
Not everything can be modified that way.
>I'm *very* much against this. It's standard convention for links on the
>web to be underlined; not doing so (on top of changing the standard
>colors) makes them practically invisible. I've been on sites where I
>literally couldn't tell what was a link and what wasn't short of putting
>the cursor over every word, because some smartass webmaster decided that
>links should be bold, not underlined, and the same color as regular
>text, and would use the same bold for simple emphasis...
Yeah, I'm sure we've all had those problems when surfing. *grin* Now that
I think about it more (my last email was shot off rather quickly, typing as
I thought of the ideas), I agree that sticking with the underline
conventions for links is probably the best thing to do.
It's the underlines, though, that effect readability in link-ridden articles
the most, at least for me. But, then again, I'm mildly colorblind, so the
contrast between bright colors (say, bright red or blue against a bright
white background) tends to stress and distract my eyes (especially when
bright red is butted up against bright green, it sometimes makes my eyes
almost water). The extra brightness from the underlines doesn't help. A
link here and there doesn't bug my eyes, it's when an article is
link-ridden, when there's two, three, or more links on each line for a few
lines, etc.
How about this: Have link underlines be dashed, similar to the way
<acronym> is rendered in most browsers. Then on hover, the dashed-underline
becomes the traditional underline. Is that even possible with CSS1/2? If
it's not, it should be, as it'd be a nice feature.
If the dashed underline thing isn't possible, I suppose I'm the colorblind
minority, so I can just put up with full underlines. However, it would help
if the reds and blues were toned down a bit, if they weren't so terribly
bright.
Okay, I'm done now,
Derek
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ish…
Hi,
At the 19. Chaos communication Congress in Berlin
(www.ccc.de/congress/2002/) I've heard, that wikipedia is considering
rewriting the Code as an Apache Module. My question is, wether you have
already started writing it and where can I find the code?
Cu,
Igor
The inline stylesheet served in the head of each wikipedia page has a
media=screen attribute in its declaration. This is problematic in Opera
when you hit F11 to take the browser to full-screen mode, which uses
media=projection (a handy replacement for powerpoint, as it happens). The
styles within that sheet are ignored, and since it contains the margin for
the main div, the main and left divs overlap rather messily.
Print preview shows the same overlapped rendering.
Unfortunately media="screen,projection" results in the stylesheet being
ignored in Netscape4 and IE4 (an oft-used hack for hiding style from these
browsers). Is the intention of the media=screen to disable the style for
print, or merely to be standards compliant?
The best solution might be to declare the stylesheet with no media
attribute.
In fact, inclusion of a media="print" stylesheet to follow it with the rule
#quickbar {display:none;} would allow printing without having to laod the
"printable version" - which has fonts that are too large IMO (I can cope
with smaller fonts printed than I can on screen). Most of the features of
the current printable page can be achieved via css2, including the citation
at the bottom.
--
Richard Grevers
There is a very good change that somebody of the Dutch wikipedia soon will
be able to give the first real interview soon for a important dutch
magazine (a real one, on paper) about Wikipedia and Wikipedia NL.
I would like to know some numbers and general information about
wikipedia if possible to give good information about wikipedia.
1)
The project in general; i know of course that Jimmy Weals is the person
who has give us Wikipedia and pays for everything. I know that he is
the CEO of Bomis (TM). I do not understand how it is possible that he
makes any money whit his website www.bomis.com
If that is, non of youre business, be happy that hey pays for it, i
understand.
2)
There is still no "formal wikipedia", no real organisation or legal
structure. Is it still the intent that something like that will be done?
3)
www.wikipedia.org is still a "American/English" website and not a
neutral portal. Is it still the idea to do something about that?
4)
The English Wikipedia; how many unique visitors a day does it get?
How many different people on a typical day are working on the English
wikipedia? 50 ? 100? 400?
5)
For the Dutch Wikipedia, we have a Nedstat counter on the main page that
gives us some limited information. It only counts page views, not unique
visitors and mostly counts the traffic of the Wikipedians i think. Are
there other, better logs that i can receive about the traffic to
Wikipedia NL?
6)
I suppose the English Wikipedia has give more interviews; any
suggestions?
Giskart
Hi all...I've done some more playing with the Wikipedia software for
my "Disinfopedia" project, and I noticed an apparent error in the
documentation. Specifically, the "user.doc" file contains the
following statement:
> user_rights
> Comma-separated list of rights. Right now, only "is_editor"
> and "is_sysop".
I believe this should be changed to say,
> user_rights
> Comma-separated list of rights. Right now, only "developer"
> and "sysop".
I was able to change my user rights to "sysop" using a direct SQL
command. Is there a better way to do this? Assuming the Disinfopedia
grows as hoped, I imagine I'll want to give sysop rights to other
users.
I'm assuming that I won't have any occasion to give anyone
"developer" rights. Is this a fair assumption?
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------