The Unified Login System, it doesn't actually cut down on my need to type login and password at all, does it?
From the point of view of me, all I see different using the new
Unified Login System is that I don't have to worry about some user taking my Jidanni username on some MediaWiki wiki that I haven't taken it already on.
Maybe it should just be called the Universal Username reservation system.
I don't see how it might make my day to day need to type Login and password to MediaWiki sites who's cookies aren't already in my browser easier.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Unified_login#How_is_it_going_to_lo...
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
The Unified Login System, it doesn't actually cut down on my need to type login and password at all, does it?
Signing into a global account logs you in on all Wikimedia wikis. You can then visit any such wiki, and you will already be logged in (even if you didn't previously have an account there!). As a steward who needs to visit a dozen or two wikis every day, this has been a wonderful time-saver.
jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
The Unified Login System, it doesn't actually cut down on my need to type login and password at all, does it?
From the point of view of me, all I see different using the new Unified Login System is that I don't have to worry about some user taking my Jidanni username on some MediaWiki wiki that I haven't taken it already on.
Maybe it should just be called the Universal Username reservation system.
I don't see how it might make my day to day need to type Login and password to MediaWiki sites who's cookies aren't already in my browser easier.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Unified_login#How_is_it_going_to_lo...
It's because you have images disabled. You could move down from that mountain of yours and get a real internet connection, or you could log into each second-level domain separately, plus each of the *.wikimedia.org domains you wish to use.
If you log in to Meta, you only get cookies for meta (plus cookies for other domains transferred via image requests). If you log in to the English Wikipedia, you get cookies for all Wikipedias.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling schrieb:
If you log in to Meta, you only get cookies for meta (plus cookies for other domains transferred via image requests). If you log in to the English Wikipedia, you get cookies for all Wikipedias.
How does that actually work from a technical POV? *.wikipedia.org cookies?
Marco
Marco Schuster wrote:
Tim Starling schrieb:
If you log in to Meta, you only get cookies for meta (plus cookies for other domains transferred via image requests). If you log in to the English Wikipedia, you get cookies for all Wikipedias.
How does that actually work from a technical POV? *.wikipedia.org cookies?
Marco
Yes. *.wikipedia.org, *.wiktionary.org... Wikimedia.org is an special case in which are some external subdomains so *.wikimedia.org cookies are not used.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's because you have images disabled.
I wonder if there's any way to get this to work automatically for people with images/styles/scripts disabled. Frames? :)
Simetrical wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's because you have images disabled.
I wonder if there's any way to get this to work automatically for people with images/styles/scripts disabled. Frames? :)
<iframe>s probably would work, actually. *Shudder*. :D
-- brion
TS> It's because you have images disabled.
Well then please instead of having that ALT text say that I am now logged in to all those domains (with all their names glued together), why not have that ALT text say I am "NOT logged in ... because I have images disabled."
TS> You could move down from that mountain of yours and get a real TS> internet connection, (Now I have 256/64K ADSL, but just don't want all those goofy images here in my somber emacs-w3m browser, unless I hit "t".)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 8:40 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Well then please instead of having that ALT text say that I am now logged in to all those domains (with all their names glued together), why not have that ALT text say I am "NOT logged in ... because I have images disabled."
Now that's a sensible idea.
Now that's a sensible idea.
not really. it would mean that 99.(9)% of users will get "you are not logged in" when they over their mouse above the images.
BR,
And it wouldn't show up for sane browsers like FF which use the title="" instead of alt="" to display when no images are in the page. If you did include a title in addition to that, then 100% of users would get that false information on hover.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Now that's a sensible idea.
not really. it would mean that 99.(9)% of users will get "you are not logged in" when they over their mouse above the images.
BR,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Now that's a sensible idea.
not really. it would mean that 99.(9)% of users will get "you are not logged in" when they over their mouse above the images.
In that case we should probably just remove the alt text at all.
Bryan
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
not really. it would mean that 99.(9)% of users will get "you are not logged in" when they over their mouse above the images.
"alt" is not supposed to be used for hover text for like ten years. HTML 4.0 introduced the "title" attribute for this purpose:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/global.html#title
Firefox, Opera, and other reasonable and remotely recent browsers don't display the alt attribute as a tooltip under any circumstances. IE, of course, does, but that can be easily circumvented by adding a title attribute, which overrides the alt attribute in any version of IE more recent than the Neolithic. In particular, an empty title attribute causes it to display no popup. Alternatively, an informative title attribute could be added for its hover text.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:31 AM, DanTMan dan_the_man@telus.net wrote:
And it wouldn't show up for sane browsers like FF which use the title="" instead of alt="" to display when no images are in the page. If you did include a title in addition to that, then 100% of users would get that false information on hover.
The point is that you would *not* put the information on hover, only as alt text.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Firefox, Opera, and other reasonable and remotely recent browsers don't display the alt attribute as a tooltip under any circumstances. IE, of course, does, but that can be easily circumvented by adding a title attribute, which overrides the alt attribute in any version of IE more recent than the Neolithic. In particular, an empty title attribute causes it to display no popup. Alternatively, an informative title attribute could be added for its hover text.
Why couldn't we just display a message saying that unified login only works with images enabled? Last time I checked, all browsers display text.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't we just display a message saying that unified login only works with images enabled? Last time I checked, all browsers display text.
It's better to display it as alt text, so that the irrelevant information is hidden if the browser does in fact support images (which will practically always be the case).
2008/6/16 Lane, Ryan Ryan.Lane@ocean.navo.navy.mil:
It's better to display it as alt text, so that the irrelevant information is hidden if the browser does in fact support images (which will practically always be the case).
Wouldn't this cause confusion for people using screen readers?
Yes, I think it would. Alt text isn't just used if the image hasn't loaded, it's used whenever the image isn't available to the user, which includes screen readers.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/6/16 Lane, Ryan:
It's better to display it as alt text, so that the irrelevant information is hidden if the browser does in fact support images (which will practically always be the case).
Wouldn't this cause confusion for people using screen readers?
Yes, I think it would. Alt text isn't just used if the image hasn't loaded, it's used whenever the image isn't available to the user, which includes screen readers.
What about using "You will be logged into $1 on the load of this image"? So, if you're reading it you have probably have NOT loaded it, but people with screen readers, text browsers or viewing the page source will get the exact answer. Which of course means they'll need to figure out by themselves if they have images enabled or not, but we don't need to guess that much.
Simetrical:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
<iframe>s probably would work, actually. *Shudder*. :D
Do text browsers generally load iframes? I imagine so. If so, it seems like it would be a better solution all around.
I bet there're some wanne-be browsers out there supporting images and not iframes. Particulary if they only targetted preferred versions of XHTML.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I bet there're some wanne-be browsers out there supporting images and not iframes. Particulary if they only targetted preferred versions of XHTML.
Better to force them to log in multiple times (if there even is such a browser, which seems somewhat unlikely) than to force everyone with images disabled, which is almost certainly a larger group.
You can always use both.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
Simetrical wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I bet there're some wanne-be browsers out there supporting images and not iframes. Particulary if they only targetted preferred versions of XHTML.
Better to force them to log in multiple times (if there even is such a browser, which seems somewhat unlikely) than to force everyone with images disabled, which is almost certainly a larger group.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I think that's an issue of using the correct text. Try to find some text that doesn't say that one has or has not been unified loginned, but that this depends on image loading. If I were using a screen reader, after such a text I would not be expecting either behaviour very confidently.
2008/6/16 Lane, Ryan Ryan.Lane@ocean.navo.navy.mil:
It's better to display it as alt text, so that the irrelevant information is hidden if the browser does in fact support images (which will practically always be the case).
Wouldn't this cause confusion for people using screen readers?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Lane, Ryan Ryan.Lane@ocean.navo.navy.mil wrote:
Wouldn't this cause confusion for people using screen readers?
Um, no. That's the whole point. It will *remove* confusion for such people, by adding a message like "Note: you will not be automatically logged into wikis not at wikipedia.org unless images on this page are loaded." This message will be invisible for anyone whose browser is displaying the image. The suggestion was originally made by someone using a text-only browser, effectively the same as a screen-reader for this purpose.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
<iframe>s probably would work, actually. *Shudder*. :D
Do text browsers generally load iframes? I imagine so. If so, it seems like it would be a better solution all around.
Lane, Ryan Ryan.Lane@ocean.navo.navy.mil wrote:
It's better to display it as alt text, so that the irrelevant information is hidden if the browser does in fact support images (which will practically always be the case).
Wouldn't this cause confusion for people using screen readers?
Not if it's carefully worded. With the alt text, screen readers might output something like "Logging you in to Wikimedia's other projects / (this requires that images be enabled)".
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org