Discussion:
Start of the test phase: Preparations
P. Birken
2007-04-16 19:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi folks,

although both Aaron and Jörg keep eluding my requests for some
definite time tables like Jelly, they cannot keep it a secret that the
implementation of the specs is nearly finished. Therefore, we should
start the planning of the next phase, namely testing this on a broader
basis.

First of all, we need a wiki and a datadump. Any suggestions?

Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.

Finally, there is the question of what to test. The implementation was
done in a more flexible way than in the original german proposal, to
allow for more tweaking to the needs of one community or the other.
However, a test is not so good of we do not test in the way it will be
turned on in the wiki. Therefore, I suggest either testing at first
only the simpler original functionality.

Cheers,

Philipp
Aaron Schulz
2007-04-16 20:45:26 UTC
Permalink
As long as it stays up to date, we can continue to use Joerg's site, as long
as he is willing to import a database dump. Though the site needs another
update to svn.

As for completion, yes the extension is not too far off, but most of the
issues now resolve around core code, i.e. the he proposed timeframe
functions. The extension itself stores an expanded copy of the text at the
time, so if those parser functions have to be scaled back, I suppose it is
not too much of a problem.

<html><div><FONT color=#3333cc>-Jason Schulz</FONT></div></html>
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Start of the test phase: Preparations
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:01:56 +0200
Hi folks,
although both Aaron and Jörg keep eluding my requests for some
definite time tables like Jelly, they cannot keep it a secret that the
implementation of the specs is nearly finished. Therefore, we should
start the planning of the next phase, namely testing this on a broader
basis.
First of all, we need a wiki and a datadump. Any suggestions?
Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.
Finally, there is the question of what to test. The implementation was
done in a more flexible way than in the original german proposal, to
allow for more tweaking to the needs of one community or the other.
However, a test is not so good of we do not test in the way it will be
turned on in the wiki. Therefore, I suggest either testing at first
only the simpler original functionality.
Cheers,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John.  Enter to win today.
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline
Joerg Baach
2007-04-17 14:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi *,
long as he is willing to import a database dump. Though the site needs
another update to svn.
updated ;-)

Joerg
Joerg Baach
2007-04-17 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi *,
Post by Aaron Schulz
As long as it stays up to date, we can continue to use Joerg's site, as
long as he is willing to import a database dump. Though the site needs
if we are going to test with a bit broader userbase and a larger
database dump I would rather move the wiki to another machine, with a
bit more resources. Thinking a bit ahead it might be good though to have
a setup where more than user can administer the database and to the
updating of the server (patching etc.). Would make sense if especially
Aaron had some access as well. Would that be possible on the wikipedia
machines? My feeling is that it would make more sense to move it there,
but if its a hassle I am very willing to host the tests as well.

What do you think?

Joerg
Daniel Arnold
2007-04-17 17:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg Baach
if we are going to test with a bit broader userbase and a larger
database dump I would rather move the wiki to another machine, with a
bit more resources. Thinking a bit ahead it might be good though to have
a setup where more than user can administer the database and to the
updating of the server (patching etc.). Would make sense if especially
Aaron had some access as well. Would that be possible on the wikipedia
machines? My feeling is that it would make more sense to move it there,
but if its a hassle I am very willing to host the tests as well.
Hm concerning the "let us keep this under the media radar". How about a
invitation only wiki (for reading and writing) or maybe a normal wiki with a
htaccess auth (and writing login and pass on this list)?

I think a closed wiki can have virtually any subdomain without creating any
attention. So how about "cooker.mediawiki.org" and housing it on Wikimedia
servers? Maybe Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia CH have some servers ready
for usage?

I think wo levels of administration would serve best:

One level would be people that just have buraucrat/admin rights in that wiki.
Especially people that are more talented on visual stuff probably just want
to tweak the individual css classes and message strings just by touching them
directly "the wiki way" (and later the results get applied to svn as
defaults).

And of course the technical skilled people. People that want to try a new
bugfix, enhancement, speed improvement (which requires sql queries) and such.

So I think just ask what the people actually need. In order to avoid too much
overhead just create a page in that wiki and people shall sign if they need
just wiki admin rights or a shell account as well.

Arnomane
Joerg Baach
2007-04-18 14:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Hello *,
Post by Daniel Arnold
I think a closed wiki can have virtually any subdomain without creating any
attention. So how about "cooker.mediawiki.org" and housing it on Wikimedia
servers? Maybe Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia CH have some servers ready
for usage?
Sounds good to me, would be good if somebody would set that up. In the
meantime I have an import of wikiversity running, on the old
baach.de/phase3 address. This is an old server with limited traffic, so
it better stays under the radar :-).

Cheers,

Joerg
Daniel Arnold
2007-04-18 21:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joerg Baach
Hello *,
Post by Daniel Arnold
I think a closed wiki can have virtually any subdomain without creating
any attention. So how about "cooker.mediawiki.org" and housing it on
Wikimedia servers? Maybe Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia CH have some
servers ready for usage?
Sounds good to me, would be good if somebody would set that up. In the
meantime I have an import of wikiversity running, on the old
baach.de/phase3 address. This is an old server with limited traffic, so
it better stays under the radar :-).
I have briefly talked to DaB. (toolserver admin and member of Wikimedia
Deutschland).

He said that the toolserver (tools.wikimedia.de) could be used for a wiki with
a restricted group of people. The big advantage would be that the full
database (every Wikimedia wiki) already is imported there in real time (only
about 30s delay average to the real site).

@ P. Birken. Can you contact DaB. for details?

Cheers,
Arnomane
P. Birken
2007-04-19 15:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Arnold
@ P. Birken. Can you contact DaB. for details?
OK!

Philipp
Daniel Mayer
2007-04-16 21:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by P. Birken
although both Aaron and Jörg keep eluding my requests for some
definite time tables like Jelly, they cannot keep it a secret that the
implementation of the specs is nearly finished. Therefore, we should
start the planning of the next phase, namely testing this on a broader
basis.
Excellent!
Post by P. Birken
First of all, we need a wiki and a datadump. Any suggestions?
I'm sure Brion can set one up at either test.mediawiki.org or test.wikimedia.org up fairly
quickly.
Post by P. Birken
Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.
Internal-l would be a great place to look for beta testers.
Post by P. Birken
Finally, there is the question of what to test. The implementation was
done in a more flexible way than in the original german proposal, to
allow for more tweaking to the needs of one community or the other.
However, a test is not so good of we do not test in the way it will be
turned on in the wiki. Therefore, I suggest either testing at first
only the simpler original functionality.
I agree - keep it simple at first and turn more stuff on if testing leads in that direction.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer
2007-04-16 21:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Mayer
Post by P. Birken
First of all, we need a wiki and a datadump. Any suggestions?
I'm sure Brion can set one up at either test.mediawiki.org or test.wikimedia.org up fairly
quickly.
Strike that. Those urls are far too public at this stage and would almost certainly cause some
pre-mature press. http://baach.de/phase3/index.php/Main_Page is fine until we have an official
beta/load test (which would only happen after we agree on exactly what to officially test).

I saw some things at the current test site that I think could be done better from an end-user
standpoint (the reason I'm here :), but will wait until I see the new snapshot.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller
2007-04-18 13:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by P. Birken
Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.
We should be clear what the purpose of the testing is. IMHO it is to
identify major issues that prevent it from being used in any real
world environment. For that purpose, the current baach.de/phase3
install is probably good enough. We could put it behind HTTP
authentication and spread the word carefully on wmfcc-l and internal-l
(the two main confidential Wikimedia lists). If the server breaks
down, I've got a couple of others we can use.

After that, I think it would be wise to set up a public site at
http://quality.wikimedia.org/ (with redirect from wikipedia.org)

which would include:
- a brief summary for the public what this is all about
- information about this particular extension
- info for developers who want to work on it
- links to 2-3 example setups (possibly in subdirectories) with
different configurations
- information about some other quality initiatives&brainstorming pages

We need to be very careful here. When we make a public announcement,
we potentially have millions of people hearing about this -- if we
play our cards right, this could lead to lots of new developers &
ideas. But we should only do this when
the extension is stable enough to use "as is". So I agree with a
slightly more systematic closed testing phase over the next couple of
weeks or so, preferably in an environment that is not officially
connected to the Wikimedia Foundation.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Gregory Maxwell
2007-04-18 14:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Moeller
We need to be very careful here. When we make a public announcement,
we potentially have millions of people hearing about this -- if we
play our cards right, this could lead to lots of new developers &
ideas. But we should only do this when
the extension is stable enough to use "as is". So I agree with a
slightly more systematic closed testing phase over the next couple of
weeks or so, preferably in an environment that is not officially
connected to the Wikimedia Foundation.
:)

Lets hope citizendium doesn't pull a copy of the code out of SVN, roll
it on their site, and beat us to the press.
Joerg Baach
2007-04-19 10:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Maxwell
Lets hope citizendium doesn't pull a copy of the code out of SVN, roll
it on their site, and beat us to the press.
Very good point ;-). Ah, the wonders of open source .... ;-)
P. Birken
2007-04-18 16:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Moeller
Post by P. Birken
Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.
We should be clear what the purpose of the testing is. IMHO it is to
identify major issues that prevent it from being used in any real
world environment. For that purpose, the current baach.de/phase3
install is probably good enough. We could put it behind HTTP
authentication and spread the word carefully on wmfcc-l and internal-l
(the two main confidential Wikimedia lists). If the server breaks
down, I've got a couple of others we can use.
OK. That automatically leads to the next question: what's the plan for
afterwards? There is still the topic of the frontend and of including
version remarks into the recent changes. What are our requisites
before we turn the feature on?

Bye,

Philipp
Erik Moeller
2007-04-19 00:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by P. Birken
OK. That automatically leads to the next question: what's the plan for
afterwards? There is still the topic of the frontend and of including
version remarks into the recent changes. What are our requisites
before we turn the feature on?
Let's collect these on the wiki in the next few days. I've started a page here:
http://baach.de/phase3/index.php/Launch_requirements
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Aaron Schulz
2007-06-23 06:05:59 UTC
Permalink
As I noted in an earlier post hear, the current UI is fine and simple, and
works. New UIs should be extra options, rather than replacing the current
one.

Anyway, I reverted that because:
a) I was getting an error about some variable
b) The Icon should be above the line (<hr> tag), to the right of the page
title (or such), not off in the content, this makes it more obvious and less
likely to go unnoticed. Given this, it should not open a large box then;
perhaps it could just say "sighted revision" or "quality revision"
depending. The box should go by the toolbox(it would fit nicely there) or
some other decent place.
c) Given the above, this needs to really be changed around to act
differently in different skins, as the above don't work in non-monobook and
the current was is still too sloppy.

-Aaron Schulz

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more!
http://mobile.msn.com
P. Birken
2007-06-23 11:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Hiho,
Post by Aaron Schulz
As I noted in an earlier post hear, the current UI is fine and simple, and
works. New UIs should be extra options, rather than replacing the current
one.
a) I was getting an error about some variable
Jörg told me that this version had some bugs and that it was more a
quick hack, so we can have a look at that. So the current try at the
design can be seen at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/.
Post by Aaron Schulz
b) The Icon should be above the line (<hr> tag), to the right of the page
title (or such), not off in the content, this makes it more obvious and less
likely to go unnoticed.
I agree.
Post by Aaron Schulz
Given this, it should not open a large box then;
perhaps it could just say "sighted revision" or "quality revision"
depending. The box should go by the toolbox(it would fit nicely there) or
some other decent place.
One thing about the box: it can be alternatively done such that the
text does not flow around it, but that it opens above the text. It's
simply a matter of taste. Personally, I would prefer the text not
flowing around it, as it can be closed quite simple.

As for the other comment, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason for
the box is, that the reader should get a simple way of navigating
between different types of versions, so that if you are at
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/index.php?title=Waterfalls_of_the_Havasupai_Indian_Reservation&oldid=23,
which is the last sighted version, you can go either to the current
version or the last reviewed. OK, the box currently does not do this,
but this is the purpose. I don't see any useful other way of doing
this?

The toolbox is the left column of the interface?
Post by Aaron Schulz
c) Given the above, this needs to really be changed around to act
differently in different skins, as the above don't work in non-monobook and
the current was is still too sloppy.
That's right, different skins will be something to work on, but let's
first concentrate on getting a final UI for the monobook.

Bye,

Philipp
P. Birken
2007-06-23 12:24:24 UTC
Permalink
I just talked to Arne Klempert and he had the idea, that the icon
would be combined with one explanatory word of text in the sense of:

Reliability: [Icon].

The reson would be, that the icons are not selfexplanatory and would
point everybody with a stick to what this is about. What do you think?

Bye,

Philipp
Aaron Schulz
2007-06-23 19:45:52 UTC
Permalink
I pretty much suggested this last post. Seems like a good idea.

-Aaron Schulz
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Partial UI revert
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:24:24 +0200
I just talked to Arne Klempert and he had the idea, that the icon
Reliability: [Icon].
The reson would be, that the icons are not selfexplanatory and would
point everybody with a stick to what this is about. What do you think?
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now.
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2
Aaron Schulz
2007-06-24 06:23:56 UTC
Permalink
OK, I spend all day hacking at this again. I've re-added some of the UI
stuff effectively based on my suggestions. However, the little box is still
below the title (It's hard to get it with the title without using nasty
hacks). It is fairly unobtrusive there.

It is only enable for monobook skins for now, and the regular tagging shows
on edit and at special:stableversion (somewhat intentional, editors may want
the info).

-Aaron Schulz
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Partial UI revert
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:24:24 +0200
I just talked to Arne Klempert and he had the idea, that the icon
Reliability: [Icon].
The reson would be, that the icons are not selfexplanatory and would
point everybody with a stick to what this is about. What do you think?
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now.
It’s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07
P. Birken
2007-06-24 21:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Aaron and the rest,

Jörg synchronized
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/index.php?title=Main_Page
with your changes to trunk. Well, at last before you hacked some more
;-) The other "new UI" can still be seen at
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/.

At this point there are in my view only a few questions left.

The first issue is: what is missing? In my eyes it is just getting the
new UI to work in monobook as an alternative to Aarons original UI,
which is working in every skin), making sure that the old UI is not
lost and integrating this user interface into recent changes and
watchlist, then some more testing, last bug fixes and we can turn this
on at wikipedia.

So the first question: Does everybody share this view? In particular
Aaron, do you want to do some more features? Or some other features?

The other issue is how the new UI will look like. In my view, unless
there are serious problems with the design proposed by Jörg (now seen
on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/), we should go with
this design, which we talked about at length. So, are there problems
with this design?

If yes, it might be worthwhile discussing the pro and cons also in
regard to Aarons new UI (which is also thought out well, but has other
problems in my eyes). If not, why don't we just stick with this and do
it? We are so close! We could flag revisions live on the wikipedia
within weeks! This is what we and in particular Aaron have been
working for, right?
Post by Aaron Schulz
OK, I spend all day hacking at this again. I've re-added some of the UI
stuff effectively based on my suggestions. However, the little box is still
below the title (It's hard to get it with the title without using nasty
hacks). It is fairly unobtrusive there.
Mhmh.
Post by Aaron Schulz
It is only enable for monobook skins for now, and the regular tagging shows
on edit and at special:stableversion (somewhat intentional, editors may want
the info).
Yes, that looks like a feature to me, not a but.

Bye,

Philipp
Daniel Arnold
2007-06-24 23:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by P. Birken
Jörg synchronized
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/index.php?title=Main_Page
with your changes to trunk. Well, at last before you hacked some more
;-) The other "new UI" can still be seen at
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/.
I have entered a further test article into both wikis in order to test if the
new GUI elements conflict with existing Wikipedia content:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/index.php?title=Irrlicht&stable=1
and
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/index.php?title=Will-o%27-the-wisp&stable=1

These articles are pretty much Wikipedia average with a header template on
top, an image/other box in the upper right, some paragraphs and categories.
However I could not add interwikis as they aren't enabled in the wikis
(beside that something is broken with images but that's not a real problem
for this test).

At first comons UI problems of both variants:
* The review rating form is above and not below the categories as it should be
IMHO.
* The review indicator box/indicator icon in the upper right conflicts with
elements (the image in the example here) in the upper right of the article.
Such elements are existing in nearly every good article in this place. :-( As
Aaron told that it is currently not that easy to put something into the title
without using nasty hacks I ask if it would be feasible changing MediaWiki
that way that it is more easier to inject an item into the title?
* the "stable version" tab on top is redundant to the review indicator
box/indicator icon. It should be dropped entirely and the "article" tab
should change itself in case you are on a stable version to something
like "stable article version". Another option would be dropping the
box/indicator icon in the upper right entirely and keeping the "stable
version" tab with an expandable review text which would be directly below the
tabs of the article.

Problems of the single UI variants:
* In the english version the review toolbox will conflict with the Interwikis
which are often very long and which would move on usual resolutions out of
the screen.
* In the German version the expanded box should move over (and partially hide)
the article content. This is smother IMHO.

That's all for the moment. ;-)

Cheers,
Arnomane
Frank Schulenburg
2007-06-25 04:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Arnold
* the "stable version" tab on top is redundant to the review indicator
box/indicator icon. It should be dropped entirely and the "article" tab
should change itself in case you are on a stable version to something
like "stable article version". Another option would be dropping the
box/indicator icon in the upper right entirely and keeping the "stable
version" tab with an expandable review text which would be directly below the
tabs of the article.
We should drop the term "stabile version" ("stable version") in all tabs
and use "gesichtete Version" and "geprüfte Version" instead. The term
"stable version" was more or less a working title and it will make
future discussions difficult if we continue to use it in the UI or
elsewhere (especially with regard to the press). Furthermore the user
should clearly know which version ("gesichtet" or "geprüft") is available.

Greetings
Frank
Aaron Schulz
2007-06-25 09:55:17 UTC
Permalink
OK, here are my thought so far:

First, note that the original UI is still in the software, and is the
default. Anyway, I don't like either of the alternates. Just having a
checkbox (which either overlaps or moves the content around oddly when
clicked isn't pretty and will go unnoticed. Thats why I add the "See the X
revision" thing next to it. Also, my variant only works on monobook.

Phillip suggested putting ratings below the categories. Expanding on that,
this seems like a good solution for the alternative UI. Doesn't get messed
up by interwikis and works with all skins. I'll probably replace
$wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI with $wgFlaggedRevsTagsOnTop. That way, the tag would
be on bottom and the little icon would appear on top only.

As for the tabs, they can stay, as they make things more clear, at worst, I
can make a setting to disable them.

-Aaron Schulz
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Partial UI revert
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:47:37 +0200
Hi Aaron and the rest,
Jörg synchronized
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3/index.php?title=Main_Page
with your changes to trunk. Well, at last before you hacked some more
;-) The other "new UI" can still be seen at
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/.
At this point there are in my view only a few questions left.
The first issue is: what is missing? In my eyes it is just getting the
new UI to work in monobook as an alternative to Aarons original UI,
which is working in every skin), making sure that the old UI is not
lost and integrating this user interface into recent changes and
watchlist, then some more testing, last bug fixes and we can turn this
on at wikipedia.
So the first question: Does everybody share this view? In particular
Aaron, do you want to do some more features? Or some other features?
The other issue is how the new UI will look like. In my view, unless
there are serious problems with the design proposed by Jörg (now seen
on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/), we should go with
this design, which we talked about at length. So, are there problems
with this design?
If yes, it might be worthwhile discussing the pro and cons also in
regard to Aarons new UI (which is also thought out well, but has other
problems in my eyes). If not, why don't we just stick with this and do
it? We are so close! We could flag revisions live on the wikipedia
within weeks! This is what we and in particular Aaron have been
working for, right?
Post by Aaron Schulz
OK, I spend all day hacking at this again. I've re-added some of the UI
stuff effectively based on my suggestions. However, the little box is
still
Post by Aaron Schulz
below the title (It's hard to get it with the title without using nasty
hacks). It is fairly unobtrusive there.
Mhmh.
Post by Aaron Schulz
It is only enable for monobook skins for now, and the regular tagging
shows
Post by Aaron Schulz
on edit and at special:stableversion (somewhat intentional, editors may
want
Post by Aaron Schulz
the info).
Yes, that looks like a feature to me, not a but.
Bye,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm
P. Birken
2007-06-26 07:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Hiho,

we had yesterday a chat with several people from this list (Aaron,
Daniel and me, for the most time). Some things were agreed by all
present: the icon does not belong into the content box and the box
that opens in "Jörgs Design" should not move, but overlap the text.
Furthermore, having a window in the toolbox is also suboptimal, since
it disturbs the content there.

One suggestion of Aaron was to move the textbox to the footer, so that
it does not disturb the text. Me, I'm still a fan of "Jörgs Design";-)

Aaron has now started to work on recent changes, by reusing
functionality from patrolled edits. So, everybody which the toolserver
guys luck, since it is down at the moment.

Cheers,

Philipp
Daniel Arnold
2007-06-26 21:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by P. Birken
we had yesterday a chat with several people from this list (Aaron,
Daniel and me, for the most time).
At first sorry for suddenly leaving in the middle of the discussion, I lost
internet connection...
Post by P. Birken
Some things were agreed by all present: the icon does not belong into the
content box and the box that opens in "Jörgs Design" should not move, but
overlap the text.
By the way: Duesentrieb has programmed and extension that (when using
LANGUAGE_SELECTOR_INTO_TITLE) optionally injects an element into the title:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LanguageSelector

So maybe we can have a look at his code? However I wasn't able to get this
particular inject option to work (it just displayed the raw HTML in the
title).

Another thing I like at Duesentriebs extension: He provides several GUI
alternatives for injecting the extension into the page. I think his
configuration scheme is quite nice.

Cheers,
Arnomane

Loading...