On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:18:42PM -0400, David Spencer, MediaWiki User wrote:
- I feel it is a shame that the wiki publisher does not have the option
to code break out links to external web sites. It is very easy for those new to computers to head to a new link and forget what they originally were looking for on the original wiki. Then they leave our wiki.
- When I send someone to an external link from my wiki, I am not
responsible for the content of that external site. Sometimes "newbies" may think that I created the external link page too.
There's a maxim in the design field that you can get yourself in trouble by over-optimising for 1) untrained users or 2) too-slow hardware.
Ok; I just synthesized that now from things lots of other, smarter people than me have said. But it's still true. People have a tendency to try to make things easier for 'dummies' :-) while make much more important things much harder for 'smart people'.
On balance, it's probably much better for the entire audience to *train the non-savvy users*. If they can't be bothered to learn, then they're not *entitled* to have everyone else's work made more difficult on their behalf.
- FYI... I am a Mac user using FireFox. To make a break out link, all I
have to do is hover over the link, press lightly and choose "Open link in new window".
Mac mice have click-*pressure* sensors? Wow!
- The wiki I am developing is here http://www.christianmedia.ca
Interesting. I don't think I've seen anyone run a primarily-MW site where the front page *wasn't*.
Thanks again for all of your comments and words of wisdom. This is a very helpful listserv!
<pedant> "listserv" is a registered trademark of a mailing list software company whose products we aren't using. :-)
http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/legal.asp </pedant>
Glad we could help. And that we didn't scare you off. :-)
Cheers, -- jra
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Ok; I just synthesized that now from things lots of other, smarter people than me have said. But it's still true. People have a tendency to try to make things easier for 'dummies' :-) while make much more important things much harder for 'smart people'.
In the context of Wikipedia, we don't so much have "dummies" as we have "passers-by". You can't train someone who is only willing to spend 5 minutes of their life on your site. Your comments may be appropriate for contexts such as business wikis etc.
On balance, it's probably much better for the entire audience to *train the non-savvy users*. If they can't be bothered to learn, then they're not *entitled* to have everyone else's work made more difficult on their behalf.
That's kind of a commitment-heavy long-term approach. You're basically advocating forcing people to commit to your software for the long term before the software has done anything for them. You're more likely to succeed if the software gives them immediate warm fuzzy feelings. "Wow, I just clicked that, and that, and that, and look what I've got! I can't wait to find out how to other cool stuff!"
- FYI... I am a Mac user using FireFox. To make a break out link, all I
have to do is hover over the link, press lightly and choose "Open link in new window".
Mac mice have click-*pressure* sensors? Wow!
Time-sensitive.
<pedant> "listserv" is a registered trademark of a mailing list software company whose products we aren't using. :-)
http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/legal.asp
</pedant>
I'm strongly in favour of abusing trademarks wherever possible. [[Trademark genericization]] is totally in the interests of the consumer. But noone seems to grasp the fact that it's only the company itself who stands to benefit by stamping TM or (R) around everything...
(anyway.) ... Steve
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Ok; I just synthesized that now from things lots of other, smarter people than me have said. But it's still true. People have a tendency to try to make things easier for 'dummies' :-) while make much more important things much harder for 'smart people'.
In the context of Wikipedia, we don't so much have "dummies" as we
I *did* quote it. :-0
have "passers-by". You can't train someone who is only willing to spend 5 minutes of their life on your site. Your comments may be appropriate for contexts such as business wikis etc.
I'm not sure they're necessary on WP, either.
*What percentage* of our edits are from non-users?
I apologize, but I *still* am just not getting what's so damned difficult.
On balance, it's probably much better for the entire audience to *train the non-savvy users*. If they can't be bothered to learn, then they're not *entitled* to have everyone else's work made more difficult on their behalf.
That's kind of a commitment-heavy long-term approach. You're basically advocating forcing people to commit to your software for the long term before the software has done anything for them. You're more likely to succeed if the software gives them immediate warm fuzzy feelings.
Were the software *Interleaf*, yeah, I would understand that.
"Wow, I just clicked that, and that, and that, and look what I've got! I can't wait to find out how to other cool stuff!"
That's how *I* started on Wikipedia.
And to hark back to Jimbo's comments, and those of whomever suggested that our current position effectively self-selects for geeks -- Christiaan, I think -- that may not be as bad a thing as it appears on first blush either, to the extent that you believe that anoraks are more likely to *care about the quality of the information they put in* than 'civilians'.
Cause that the thing we *really* want to select for, right?
- FYI... I am a Mac user using FireFox. To make a break out link, all I
have to do is hover over the link, press lightly and choose "Open link in new window".
Mac mice have click-*pressure* sensors? Wow!
Time-sensitive.
"press lightly"
:-)
<pedant> "listserv" is a registered trademark of a mailing list software company whose products we aren't using. :-)
http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/legal.asp
</pedant>
I'm strongly in favour of abusing trademarks wherever possible. [[Trademark genericization]] is totally in the interests of the consumer. But noone seems to grasp the fact that it's only the company itself who stands to benefit by stamping TM or (R) around everything...
I disagree. I have no problem with flipping off companies who Try Too Hard (the Disney preschool incident being my favorite) -- Mark McCormack was right: never let the lawyers *run your company*.
But being able to distinguish the product you want from pretenders seems to me a useful capability.
Cheers, -- jra
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
People have a tendency to try to make things easier for 'dummies' :-) while make much more important things much harder for 'smart people'.
In the context of Wikipedia, we don't so much have "dummies" as we have "passers-by". You can't train someone who is only willing to spend 5 minutes of their life on your site
That's true, but unless I missed something, in the case of "break-out links" we're not talking about visitors to Wikipedia; we're talking about users of the World-Wide Web.
One of the fundamental original principles of the web was that links were cheap and could take you anywhere. People understood this, and in fact they thought nothing of it, because what we now call "external links" were essentially the norm. The concept of an integrated web "site" that you either wandered around within, or made some kind of a conscious decision to "break out" of, hadn't been developed yet.
The related notions of
* I must control my user and not let him leave My Domain.
* It is easy for someone new to computers to head to a. new link and forget what they originally were looking for. Then they leave our wiki.
* When I send someone to an external link, I am not responsible for the content of that external site. Sometimes newbies may think that I created the external pages, too.
are all comparatively recent, and although mechanisms like target=_blank or target=new do address at least the second two, they can also be wildly annoying to people who do understand how the web works and do know how to use their Back button. (I know y'all know this; I'm just stating the obvious.)
(On the other hand, though, I have to confess that a well-chosen target=new can be really handy sometimes, when a page designer "got it right" in terms of using it just where I would have wanted a new window anyway...)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:27:08PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
People have a tendency to try to make things easier for 'dummies' :-) while make much more important things much harder for 'smart people'.
In the context of Wikipedia, we don't so much have "dummies" as we have "passers-by". You can't train someone who is only willing to spend 5 minutes of their life on your site
That's true, but unless I missed something, in the case of "break-out links" we're not talking about visitors to Wikipedia; we're talking about users of the World-Wide Web.
Well, in the context of the current discussion, we were talking about visitors to some website running MediaWiki.
One of the fundamental original principles of the web was that links were cheap and could take you anywhere. People understood this, and in fact they thought nothing of it, because what we now call "external links" were essentially the norm. The concept of an integrated web "site" that you either wandered around within, or made some kind of a conscious decision to "break out" of, hadn't been developed yet.
Is that really true?
I've been using the web since, like, 1995 or so, and I don't recall that it was ever quite like that. Websites weren't quite as *big*, granted, but...
The related notions of
- I must control my user and not let him leave My Domain.
I hate these people.
- It is easy for someone new to computers to head to a. new link and forget what they originally were looking for. Then they leave our wiki.
Yes, they do. If no one taught them about Back and History, tough.
And this one really only makes any sense in the context of the previous one anyway, which is crap.
- When I send someone to an external link, I am not responsible for the content of that external site. Sometimes newbies may think that I created the external pages, too.
That one's a slightly bigger issue, but only slightly. I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
are all comparatively recent, and although mechanisms like target=_blank or target=new do address at least the second two, they can also be wildly annoying to people who do understand how the web works and do know how to use their Back button. (I know y'all know this; I'm just stating the obvious.)
And very nicely.
(On the other hand, though, I have to confess that a well-chosen target=new can be really handy sometimes, when a page designer "got it right" in terms of using it just where I would have wanted a new window anyway...)
Correct. Mostly, this is "Web apps" typs stuff.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:27:08PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
...The concept of an integrated web "site" that you either wandered around within, or made some kind of a conscious decision to "break out" of, hadn't been developed yet.
Is that really true? I've been using the web since, like, 1995 or so, and I don't recall...
Hey! Whose side you on? Let one of the skeptics question my blatant assertions... :-)
I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
It's a tough call, though, because is it the right analogy to compare back-button-challenged web surfers to illiterate drivers who can't read signs and maps, or to ordinary drivers who aren't able to perfectly prevent accidents, and on whose behalf we therefore invent (and require) seat belts and air bags?
Be that as it may, if the current generation of users (of any technology) is for whatever reason all complaining about some particular annoying problem, the vendors who denounce those users as dumb idiots who just need some education tend to have their lunch eaten by the savvier vendors who pander to those users, right or wrong. (But that's an argument for another day.)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 02:00:59PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:27:08PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
...The concept of an integrated web "site" that you either wandered around within, or made some kind of a conscious decision to "break out" of, hadn't been developed yet.
Is that really true? I've been using the web since, like, 1995 or so, and I don't recall...
Hey! Whose side you on? Let one of the skeptics question my blatant assertions... :-)
Oh, oops. Sorry.
;-)
I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
It's a tough call, though, because is it the right analogy to compare back-button-challenged web surfers to illiterate drivers who can't read signs and maps, or to ordinary drivers who aren't able to perfectly prevent accidents, and on whose behalf we therefore invent (and require) seat belts and air bags?
Hmmm...
Be that as it may, if the current generation of users (of any technology) is for whatever reason all complaining about some particular annoying problem, the vendors who denounce those users as dumb idiots who just need some education tend to have their lunch eaten by the savvier vendors who pander to those users, right or wrong. (But that's an argument for another day.)
Yeah, the Tragedy of the Commons is pretty tragic, isn't it?
For our current purposes, though, "all" is still highly in question.
Cheers, -- jra
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
That one's a slightly bigger issue, but only slightly. I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
I get the impression that to you, many things are "tools", that to most people are just boring facts of life. Like traffic lights, income tax forms, cars and mail boxes, web browsers are to most people just a necessary evil in life, rather than some fascinating "tool" they're interested in spending time learning about it.
Get over yourself. A little bit. Please?
Steve
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
That one's a slightly bigger issue, but only slightly. I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
I get the impression that to you, many things are "tools", that to most people are just boring facts of life. Like traffic lights, income tax forms, cars and mail boxes, web browsers are to most people just a necessary evil in life, rather than some fascinating "tool" they're interested in spending time learning about it.
Didn't say it was fascinating. Just that it's a tool, and if you want to use it efficiently, you need to learn how.
Get over yourself. A little bit. Please?
Sorry you consider that something I need to get over; I didn't realize self-reliance was a bad thing now.
I'll leave you alone.
Cheers, -- jra
On 8/11/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
That one's a slightly bigger issue, but only slightly. I liken it to people having to understand how roads and signs work to be able to drive. Why we enable such people who proudly decline to learn how to use their tools completely eludes me.
I get the impression that to you, many things are "tools", that to most people are just boring facts of life. Like traffic lights, income tax forms, cars and mail boxes, web browsers are to most people just a necessary evil in life, rather than some fascinating "tool" they're interested in spending time learning about it.
But that does not change the fact that you have to learn it, as you have to learn how to use a screwdriver.
On 8/12/06, Warhog (aja Julian Fleischer) mediazilla@warhog.net wrote:
But that does not change the fact that you have to learn it, as you have to learn how to use a screwdriver.
The less time it takes to learn how to use something, and the less learning required to be productive, the happier everyone is. "Learning how to use a tool" is a kind of last resort. "We tried to make it intuitive. We tried to make the process simpler. We did everything. Unfortunately it's just such a complicated domain, even our awesome intuitive tool still takes about half an hour to learn to use."
Ever "learn how to use Powerpoint"? A touchscreen information point? A book? MacDonalds? Ebay? etc etc etc. Insisting that people "learn how to use" your product is usually a combination of arrogance and laziness.
Steve
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:27:21AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/12/06, Warhog (aja Julian Fleischer) mediazilla@warhog.net wrote:
But that does not change the fact that you have to learn it, as you have to learn how to use a screwdriver.
The less time it takes to learn how to use something, and the less learning required to be productive, the happier everyone is. "Learning how to use a tool" is a kind of last resort. "We tried to make it intuitive. We tried to make the process simpler. We did everything. Unfortunately it's just such a complicated domain, even our awesome intuitive tool still takes about half an hour to learn to use."
Ever "learn how to use Powerpoint"? A touchscreen information point? A book? MacDonalds? Ebay? etc etc etc. Insisting that people "learn how to use" your product is usually a combination of arrogance and laziness.
I'm going to have to fall back on "if you insist" here, even though someone will probably point it out as further evidence of my 'attitude'.
So be it.
Cheers, -- jra
On 8/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
One of the fundamental original principles of the web was that links were cheap and could take you anywhere. People understood
Yeah, back in 1984 or whatever. Things changed a lot. I notice that now we have very different styles of link behaviour, and what you expect from a link changes a lot. On a blog, I expect every second word to be randomly linked to some random site. On a corporate site, I expect 95%+ of links to be internal. It's gotten pretty much to the stage that unannounced external links are surprising to me.
this, and in fact they thought nothing of it, because what we now call "external links" were essentially the norm. The concept of an integrated web "site" that you either wandered around within, or made some kind of a conscious decision to "break out" of, hadn't been developed yet.
Websites were also small then. They didn't have a lot of content of their own. They certainly didn't have a behemoth the size of Wikipedia.
The related notions of
* I must control my user and not let him leave My Domain. * It is easy for someone new to computers to head to a. new link and forget what they originally were looking for. Then they leave our wiki. * When I send someone to an external link, I am not responsible for the content of that external site. Sometimes newbies may think that I created the external pages, too.are all comparatively recent, and although mechanisms like
I'm dying to see the word "newfangled" in this discussion somewhere...
(On the other hand, though, I have to confess that a well-chosen target=new can be really handy sometimes, when a page designer "got it right" in terms of using it just where I would have wanted a new window anyway...)
It may just be the way I browse the web, but I don't have any gripes. I tend to open *every* link in a new tab, so it doesn't make much difference whether they were planning for a new window or not.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
One of the fundamental original principles of the web was that links were cheap and could take you anywhere. People understood
Yeah, back in 1984 or whatever.
Yup. :-)
Things changed a lot. I notice that now we have very different styles of link behaviour, and what you expect from a link changes a lot...
Indeed.
It really is an imponderable. Mediawiki already treats external links significantly differently from internal ones, proving (even to the 80's-vintage troglodytes among us) that there *is* a difference. And if mediawiki were to start adding "target=new" to the list of other ways it distinguishes external links, that would be arguably perfectly appropriate in the context of today's Web. There would be some few who would spit nails and/or rage against the dying of the light, but they would be comparatively few (though *very* vocal :-) ).
I haven't looked at the code, but I would guess that making this a site-configurable option would be very easy, and I'd think it ought to be pretty noncontentious, too (at least until someone tried enabling it on the Wikimedia sites...)
I haven't looked at the code, but I would guess that making this a site-configurable option would be very easy, and I'd think it ought to be pretty noncontentious, too (at least until someone tried enabling it on the Wikimedia sites...)
To enable target=_blank for links should be a template-issue or not?
regards, Warhog
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 07:25:17PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
One of the fundamental original principles of the web was that links were cheap and could take you anywhere. People understood
Yeah, back in 1984 or whatever. Things changed a lot. I notice that now we have very different styles of link behaviour, and what you expect from a link changes a lot. On a blog, I expect every second word to be randomly linked to some random site. On a corporate site, I expect 95%+ of links to be internal. It's gotten pretty much to the stage that unannounced external links are surprising to me.
I think it's *specifically* corporate sites.
Some 'designer' told them that off-site linking would rape their small children, or something.
The related notions of
* I must control my user and not let him leave My Domain. * It is easy for someone new to computers to head to a. new link and forget what they originally were looking for. Then they leave our wiki. * When I send someone to an external link, I am not responsible for the content of that external site. Sometimes newbies may think that I created the external pages, too.are all comparatively recent, and although mechanisms like
I'm dying to see the word "newfangled" in this discussion somewhere...
Five miles. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.
(On the other hand, though, I have to confess that a well-chosen target=new can be really handy sometimes, when a page designer "got it right" in terms of using it just where I would have wanted a new window anyway...)
It may just be the way I browse the web, but I don't have any gripes. I tend to open *every* link in a new tab, so it doesn't make much difference whether they were planning for a new window or not.
Certainly a matter of taste.
The reason this whole thread got started was because browsers don't have reasonable facilities for *overriding* Target=_new for those who prefer not to.
And don't get me started on people gratuitously locking window sizes, and turning off chrome and scroll bars.
On my 1400x1050 monitor.
With Ctrl-+ up 2 notches.
Cheers, -- jra
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org