Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Wiki pages should have same look as the rest of the website | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson> | ||||
| Component: | Website | Assignee: | phoenix.ui <phoenix.ui-inbox> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | gunnar, mik.kersten, nboldt, ward.cunningham, webmaster | ||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 169334, 179537 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Bjorn Freeman-Benson
This would need to be extended to other content that is currently part of our website, but doesn't look like it: - Mailing list and newsgroup archives - Newsgroup Simple Web Interface - Bugzilla welcome page(s) - dev.eclipse.org ViewCVS welcome page(s) What else? D. Sure, but this bug is just about the wiki - here's why: some projects are moving some of their website content from static pages to the wiki. Having the wiki be different from the static content provides an odd look and feel to those project's "websites". These other items are not (and I admit this is subjective) "part of" a project's website and thus a different look for them is more acceptable. But the wiki is not the website - although wiki is currently committer-only, plans are to make it editable by anyone who wishes to do so. If the wiki and the website are visually indistinguishable, there could be a perception issue where content, authored by the community at large, will be perceived as "official" eclipse.org content. D. Moving to Phoenix. As per http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/phoenix-dev/msg00318.html I think we need to define the content that's intended for web and wiki. Created attachment 41386 [details]
graphical issues with the current skin
This screenshot show some issues I have with the current skin. Probably it's because it uses absolute (pixel based) positioning and/or sizing?
(In reply to comment #5) > Created an attachment (id=41386) [edit] > graphical issues with the current skin > > This screenshot show some issues I have with the current skin. Probably it's > because it uses absolute (pixel based) positioning and/or sizing? > Gunnar, that's covered by bug 123657 I think that the wiki page should look the same as the website, for pretty much the same reason as Bjorn; it might be an easier place for projects to accumulate documentation. I also suspect it would be good to do the same look-and-feel migration for other parts, but they should have different bugs associated with them (and maybe a parent bug to group them all together). My $0.02 worth: I don't think that the wiki pages should be *identical*, but I do think that they should be much more *similar* than they are today. Reason: Common L&F is great, but the wiki content doesn't necessarily go through the same level of review and scrutiny as the web content. It would be helpful to have at least a few small subtle hints for people on what kind of content they're reading. Then again, if more and more projects use the wiki as their content engine, this might change. Perhaps the distinction needs to be between the Foundation-maintained pages and everything else? (In reply to comment #8) > I don't think that the wiki pages should be *identical*, but I do think that > they should be much more *similar* than they are today. That's a good idea. > ... the wiki content doesn't necessarily go > through the same level of review and scrutiny as the web content. I think you're making an assumption about the level of review and scrutiny that the project web pages get. Consider, for example, http://www.eclipse.org/tools/. That page hasn't changed for a long time. Notice the typo in the first paragraph of the C/C++ description "If you are are developer" - clearly there is little review and scrutiny of this page, eh? Then compare that to the change history of a page like this (http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=FAQ_How_do_I_sort_the_contents_of_a_viewer%3F&diff=5457&oldid=3104) where someone from the community took the time to fix formatting problems on someone else's page or this (http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Google_Summer_of_Code_2006&action=history) where multiple people are reading and improving the page all the time. So I don't think you can equate "wiki" with "lower quality". I will admit that there are some high quality pages on the eclipse.org site and some low quality pages, but I don't think the "wiki" bit is the distinguishing factor. One might even say that the wiki pages get more attention because the community knows that they can improve the pages themselves, without the hassle of filing a bug, waiting weeks or months for it to get attention, etc. Here's my vote: -1 for making the wiki look the same as the website Although highly unlikely, anyone is free to vandalize the Wiki's content, whereas this is not likely to happen on www.eclipse.org. - Users, even well-intentioned ones can submit information that turns out being factually incorrect, potentially misleading our users if there is no distinction between content "authored by Eclipse committers who know what they're talking about" and content "authored by anyone with a browser who may or may not know squat". Do consider this page: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=CVS_Howto&action=history Where Nitind wrote that the Anonymous CVS password should be "your email address, just like anonymous FTP", which is false. It took me 4 months to spot and correct this. +1 for establishing a common look across all *.eclipse.org pages. The wiki doesn't have to look exactly the same way but it should look similar: * It should use the same header as on www.eclipse.org (including the horizontal navigation, the quick search area and the Contact/Legal links). * There should be a nice graphic behind the Eclipse logo that says "Wiki" * There even should be a "Wiki" tab on the horizontal navigation bar * The footer should be the same as on www.eclipse.org * The wiki menus and editing functions should be regular menu items on the left menu and look like everything else on www.eclipse.org Especially the 3rd items also falls into the "Make Eclipse.org easier to use" category. A agree that a clear separation between wiki content and official Foundation content is appreciated but I disagree that it has to be so obvious. I doubt that any website user won't recognize a different logo in the header. And even if not, so what? The website terms of use clearly states that nobody is liable to anybody for anything. ;) *** Bug 163118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** target for Q1. The Wiki will get much TLC this quarter thanks to bug 169334. The new skin is almost a clone of the main website. Closing. -M. Verified. While the Search location is an improvement, I'm finding the View section in the nav bar not working well and am curious what others think of that. Mediawiki has a very standard place for putting the Edit and other actions and we now break from that convention by moving those things into what looks like and should be a navigation bar (bug 157707). Please consider moving those tabs back to the top of the page so that we retain consistency and so that the location of "Edit" is obvious for newcommers. Currently I believe that there is a good chance that newcommers will assume our pages either aren't wiki pages or aren't editable. try (In reply to comment #16) > I'm finding the View section in > the nav bar not working well and am curious what others think of that. > Mediawiki has a very standard place for putting the Edit and other actions and > we now break from that convention by moving those things I agree. I agree also; however, the requirement of this bug was that the wiki be identical to the website. If you'd like us to improve the look of the new wiki, please open a separate enhancement request. Wiki thrived with the Edit button on the bottom of the page. (Why would you want someone editing who hadn't read the whole page?) Five years later Wikipedia moved the Edit button to the top of the page. They invented Talk pages too so they had the street cred to get away with it. I recommend we try the Edit button on the left side for, oh say, five years. If it doesn't work out, we can always try the left side for a while. It might make sense to use the word "wiki" in the left nav menu somewhere since it is now a recoginized OED word meaning editable content. (In reply to comment #18) > I agree also; however, the requirement of this bug was that the wiki be > identical to the website. The requirement was not "identical" - it was for a "consistent" UI: see the original description, comment #8, comment #9, and comment #11. > If you'd like us to improve the look of the new wiki, > please open a separate enhancement request. Ok, I opened bug 179537. Moving to Community/Website |