[17:18:17] http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-weekly.png [17:53:43] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en [19:06:14] :O [19:06:23] there's an elephant in the room [19:06:31] It's an mwbot clone [22:36:09] hi nkomura [22:36:22] parutron: did you check the new alternating shades? :) [22:36:38] hi werdna [22:36:41] checking now! [22:37:01] yay [22:37:08] checking here: http://wiki.werdn.us/test/view/Talk:Main_Page [22:37:26] hi andrew [22:37:46] ugh spam [22:38:59] hmm, well i'm glad the box (outlines) are gone [22:39:10] but there is still too much going on - must simplify! [22:40:20] i can do another round of mockups when i carve out some time, but i'm wondering why you don't find the left indenting sufficient for indicating....er, placement in thread? [22:40:51] the alternating shading reinforces this. but it makes it VERY busy [22:41:58] oh no, i lost you werdna! [22:42:00] :) [22:42:25] well you said you wanted alternating shading ;) [22:43:09] ah, maybe there was miscommunication.........i suggested alternate shading as an alternative to the left indentation. [22:43:20] ah [22:43:36] well if you're trying to make it less "busy" then indentation is the best way [22:43:52] personally, i think indentation is the best way to go. [22:43:56] generally, i think both work. [22:44:17] lemme look at the quick mock up from way back when [22:45:00] http://collab.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lt_quickie.pdf [22:45:14] hehe, I'm not on collabwiki, but I have a copyu [22:45:32] so these have very simple thread structures. i can do a mock up to see if it holds up with much more complicated and lengthy threads. [22:45:37] werdna: How are you not on collab? You're a contractor, right? [22:47:15] also, see how i've just used a stroke (or gray box - no outline) to differentiate the post header from the post content? [22:47:37] if you like that, i think it'll eliminate some of the "clutter" [22:47:51] RoanKattouw: because I'm not a fancy contractor [22:48:00] I assume brion is in charge of access to weird wikis :P [22:48:06] werdna - you are SO fancy. [22:48:08] :) [22:48:40] also - we have to get rid of that yellow/green color for "edited by other users" [22:48:54] weeeeeird wikis [22:48:57] and the "first page, previous page, next page, etc" is an easy thing to fix/clean up [22:49:14] let's get ya set up [22:49:19] I think it's important that it stands out [22:49:20] werdna: want 'Werdna' username? [22:49:24] brion: guess so [22:49:43] if you don't like the < prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next > on the mock, i can defintiely come up with some more suggestions, some of which you're bound to like ;) [22:50:10] A randomly generated password for Werdna has been sent to agarrett@wikimedia.org. [22:50:16] hope that was spelled right [22:50:25] \o/ [22:51:16] parutron: i'd recommend having a search-in-thread or search-in-page box conspicuously visible at top too [22:52:12] oh cool - didn't know that was an option!!! [22:52:16] i'm undecided on whether we really want a bunch of threads expanded on the index page. they could be really long :) [22:52:53] definitely - i think the amount of space they take up should be.....limited. [22:53:04] brion: I've already got a bug open for collapsibility [22:53:15] we could, of course, collapse the replies section of all threads by default [22:53:33] You just see the original message, if you wanna see more, you click "Show replies" [22:53:37] how do you feel about that? [22:53:44] oh wait - are you talking about the "contents" section [22:53:50] no [22:53:53] or having the full thread always expanded [22:54:01] having the full thread [22:54:05] or collapsing them gmail styleeee [22:54:22] I'd collapse them LJ style? [22:54:27] have you seen LJ comment threads before? [22:54:38] no. what's LJ? [22:57:16] LiveJournal [22:57:21] are you a nerd or what? :) [22:58:47] brion: Is something like the LJ approach what you're thinking of? [23:01:42] tee hee. [23:01:56] not sure. but i do love to eat nerds. [23:02:04] not people nerds. candy nerds. [23:02:42] have you considered having just an index page. and then having a page for each parent thread? [23:02:55] i.e. one page per thread? [23:03:05] well the page per thread already exists [23:03:35] I dunno, I think it would be annoying to have to click through [23:04:33] yeah, dunno either, really requires knowing what discusssion threads "typically" look like. if there is anything typical about them. [23:05:50] werdna: um? [23:05:59] brion: I mean the collapsibility [23:06:00] show me an lj page with collapsing and i'll tell ya if i like it [23:06:06] hmm, let me find one [23:06:10] *brion doesn't recall collapsed threads there offhand [23:07:56] hmm, can't find one [23:08:12] I remember playing with them the other day [23:08:38] I think it's bedtime [23:08:42] *werdna being summoned [23:08:53] do we want to finish up quickly or shall I go? [23:09:58] I guess I'll head, night all [23:31:45] goodnight werdna. we're just talking here about scheduling a meeting to talk liquid threads! [23:32:07] hopefully sooooooooooooooooon [23:54:16] http://collab.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_Initiative/OptOut [23:54:20] please edit where needed! [23:54:39] otherwise, it's a little long, but i think it'll get us some useful info!! [23:56:51] pruturon: it reads great [23:57:46] \me just learned that too! [23:57:51] *parutron just learned that too! [23:58:14] *parutron knows better now [23:58:20] RoanKattouw: [23:58:25] nkomura: [23:58:26] practicing [23:58:27] hello hello [23:58:33] TrevorParscal: [23:58:36] nkomura: YO! [23:58:45] parutron: [23:58:48] RoanKattouw: [23:58:52] TrevorParscal: [23:58:53] haha [23:58:57] TrevorParscal: [23:59:03] nkomura: [23:59:03] parutron: [23:59:10] parutron: Whee [23:59:19] *parutron beame /me-away