Tim Starling-2 wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
"IMHO the extension's rather low-level
and awkward. It works, but it's
ugly, and as with too many of our fancy syntaxes and extensions it drops
this big blob of incomprehensible _stuff_ directly into the text of the
article using it, cluttering up the editor's view.
What would be slicker would be if we can rig up a visual editor for the
thingy; compare with adding notations to images on flickr.
Yes, the user interface
sucks. I was aiming with this extension to
implement image maps in a manner consistent with the rest of MediaWiki --
a robust implementation but limited in scope. It sucks as much as
everything else we have.
Think of it as incremental development: we get the code up and running,
prove that it can cope with every stupid thing that anybody is likely to
throw at it, and a nice pretty interface can be added later.
So do you want it or don't you? I'm not
writing a visual editor right now,
so unless anyone else wants to step forward, it's this or nothing. Will
the extension be a help or a hindrance when we get around to
revolutionising MediaWiki's ease of use?
It's got my vote. Am I safe in thinking this might well be a good way to put
the dreaded {{click}} template to rest?
HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ImageMap-extension-tf2922726.html#a8178106
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.