At 17:49 +0000 7/1/07, Virgil Ierubino wrote:
To follow up some of the replies:
I'm not suggesting WYSIWYG. I don't like Wysiwyg personnally, I think it
makes content editing more difficult and less clear.
My point in its simplest form was that there ARE ways of doing VERY funky
stuff. And I don't mean flashing animations, I mean stuff that actually
makes MediaWiki run better, be easier to use, attract more users, etc.
Compatibility isn't that much of an issue because:
* The features can be opt-in via user preferences (could even be as simple
as selecting one of 3 modes, or something)
* This kind of funky stuff IS actually very stable, and can even detect the
browser it's being viewed in and turn itself off.
* Most people CAN run it without problems.
For the Somalians without Dell Dimensions, (interesting example!) there's
always the normal Wikipedia (before turning on these options), CDs, DVDs and
Print Encyclopedias.
Well, I am user in the UK and I have mobile phone. I often edit
Mediawiki based wikis on the phone. Just basic stuff.
If lack of developers and money is the only problem
then why not be more
WIKI about it?
Money pays for servers. Developers work for nothing.
Call to the Wikimedian community for volunteer coders
to help
improve MediaWiki. Of course this is a lot more complex than I make it
sound, but the point is that somewhere out there will be a professional AJAX
coder willing to code free for Wikimedia. I know that if I knew the
language, I'd do it.
AJAX? Are you serious? Most of these interfaces are way beyond what
Wikipedia calls for.
I have had one request from a wiki I run for a local history group -
a spell checker. Everything else they like (the group had TWiki
experience from another project).
Anyway, like somebody else, feel free to contribute...
--
Gordo (an amateur)
http://www.loopzilla.org/