[Development] Call for Volunteers: SSO-improvements for qt-project.org

[Atlant Schmidt]

Folks:

  I've avoided entering this topic because, as a Wikipedia administrator,
  I might be perceived as being biased in favor of Wikimedia, but I want
  to echo and amplify what Stephen has said:

  WYSIWYG editors may be easier for novice wikipedians to use, but
  markup-based editors are far easier for experienced people to use
  and get the results precisely correct (where "precisely correct" means
  exactly conformant to the intended "house style" of the wiki).

  One use case Stephen didn't mention is the case where you decide
  to make some sort of global change to the project. (I don't know if it's
  true of the Alassian wiki, but) In a pure WYSIWIG system, you'll get to
  make that change individually to every page in the project and the
  odds of you making the exact same change to every page are
  vanishingly small. In a markup-based system, though, such a change
  is trivially easy.

  I spend a lot of my life wrestling with several very large Microsoft Visio
  documents and I would trade away the WYSIWIG editor for a markup-
  based editor in a heartbeat.

  I've used quite a few Wiki systems (albeit, not the Alassian one) but
  in my experience, so far, the Wikimedia system is the best.

                                                  Atlant

From: development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org [mailto:development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 20:00
To: Jeff Mitchell
Cc: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Call for Volunteers: SSO-improvements for qt-project.org


On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 14:23:27 you wrote:

> On 12/7/2011 9:26 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:

> > The worst thing about Confluence is that it can only be edited in rich

> > text mode. There is no markup behind that which you can switch to in

> > order to edit pages.

>

> <snip>

>

> > It is highly frustrating for me, and I'd expect for other people who are

> > used to dealing with code.

>

> <snip>

>

> I'm with you in that it can be nice to format things in a textual way,

> but I do think for the average user out there, not having to learn or

> think about wiki syntax can be a powerful motivator for actually

> contributing to a wiki.



The rich text only editor would have to be trialed with the people who are expected to be using it with non-trivial use cases. Use cases like 'start a wiki page about blah' is too trivial.



Things like 'split a page into three different pages, splitting its categories too' or 'turn an email that was sent to the mailing list into a wiki page', or add the content from a newsletter that is sent every week to a wiki page for storing that content. Programmers (and myself) often use mediawiki markup in emails to mailing lists



== with headers like this ==

=== and subheaders like this ===



both for easy copy/pasting into a wiki and because readers (of appropriate mailing lists) recognise what it means.



Try pasting an email like that into confluence 4, and then going to each header one by one and doing the mouse clicky thing with a combobox to turn each one into an appropriate header, then realize that when you do that the entire paragraph above or below becomes formatted as a header, and you have to undo and add some newlines, then make it a header again.



Then notice that all of your paragraphs have wierd line spacing and decide whether you're bothered fixing it.



Or maybe a usecase to trial is to add markup to a page which a lazy person (like myself, possibly) just pasted in there because it is important content and the page should be formatted properly.



Maybe that's a usecase that doesn't need to be easy for people who value markup or is already easy enough, or maybe the people who the Qt wiki is aimed at are not expected to prefer markup over a rich text editor.



Or maybe they are expected to prefer it.



The choice of wiki engine probably wouldn't affect whether I use it in particular.



My point is that I before considering confluence 4, it should be trialed with non-trivial 2-months-on usecases with the people who are expected to be the ones using it.



Of course, depending on the plan with DevNet, it might be a moot point anyway.



Thanks,



--

Stephen Kelly <stephen at kdab.com> | Software Engineer

KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company

www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090

KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions

________________________________
This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message.

Thank you.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20111208/4a3eb7b8/attachment.html>