I'll start by admitting that the way I referred to HotCat was
unnecessarily dismissive, and apologizing for this. HotCat was
certainly a step in the right direction for usability, and my work
extends and improves on the ideas in HotCat.
On 16/09/2009, at 4:37 PM, Daniel Schwen wrote:
* It isn't
localised.
* It breaks if translations or aliases of the Category namespace are
used.
That is one point (the aliases). Localisation is otherwise irrelevant,
as there is nothing to localize.
* It adds random text to the category display,
instead of using nice
icons.
Why would you call the + - and +/- links "random text"? And why
would
icons be "nice"?!
It isn't really clear what + and - mean in the context, it's much
clearer what "Add Category" means (admittedly I've made the same
mistake in having a garbage bin as the icon for "remove").
This, of course, needs localisation. I think that if your software has
user interaction components, and has nothing to localise, then your
interface isn't well-designed.
With that said, there is *one* localisable component of HotCat (the
edit summary) that is not localised.
* It doesn't prompt for an edit summary, nor
does it provide any sort
of confirmation.
Confirmation should be evedent, as the page reloads with the
category
list changed. An edit summary is provided automatically
I think it's good to allow people to summarize their edits, and
confirm that they want to make them.
* Prompts for
confirmation and an edit summary before making an edit.
Hm, that is somewhat of an
inconvenience if you have to change
multiple categories, or does your version gather changes and submit
them in one edit and one summary?
No, but that would certainly be a good idea.
--
Andrew Garrett
agarrett(a)wikimedia.org
http://werdn.us/