Larry Israel

It was Larry who provided AnOutsidersReviewOfWiki (for a community college web design course, specifically commenting on navigation). Perhaps he'd like to become an insider...

''Welcome to Wiki, LarryIsrael!

Here's a MENU example. Something similar could appear on all Wiki pages. Ideally, the menu would be script-generated; located in the top-right corner of each page.

Related to This Page

Site Navigation

The top (Related to This Page) menu above looks exactly as it should, but it won't function properly due to less than ideal naming/linking conventions used by the Wiki software. Clicking the links should produce a list of the pages related to this page!

The list below has the same links, with very confusing link names but the correct functions. THIS ONE WORKS presently, but the one above should be made to work; it's much more understandable.

Related to This Page

Perhaps the pages that have info about these functions - pages like BackLinks and VisualTour - can be renamed About____. For example: AboutBackLinks and AboutVisualTour. Once that was done, the hard part would be changing the software so that those names (VisualTour, etc.) can be written anywhere, on any page, and would function as direct links from that page.

I don't think there's a problem in always needing to return to StaticMenuForWardsWiki. That's always the way links work on the web - if you click a link, the new page replaces the old one (or advanced users can get them to open in a new window or tab). The point is that the menu generates pages that are related to the page you are currently viewing. When I move to the next page, the menu on that page would be the same, but it will link to the items related to *that* page.

I don't program in C++. I'm a beginning programmer. I know some Perl and PHP. Stronger skills are (X)HTML and CSS markup, as well as various aspects of web design and development.

Thank you for the warm welcome. I do appreciate it.

There is much that goes on here that I don't understand (and which most newcomers wouldn't).

Another thing about this whole site that is very confusing is you can only rarely tell who the author is. Very little is signed.

Perhaps signing is a little bit too unfashionable at present.

In addition, people sometimes add comments in the middle of other people's writing, to make it even more confusing. Similarly, nothing is dated.

I may write back at some point to try to further clarify my navigation critique.

I agree that it is confusing. The lack of signatures and lack of a date (WikiNow) make ThreadMode hard to understand. The ostensible goal of Wiki is to refine conversations into documents. Everyone is still trying to find the balance of signatures and dates which make ongoing threads followable while allowing easy distillation. Sometimes a person comes a long who has worse than usual conventions for inserting comments into thread mode; the community often looks upon this with disdain for exactly the reasons you noted.

I type a blank line between 2 paragraphs, but I don't see the blank line when the page is rendered

Why can't I get paragraphs to work? I typed a blank line between them on the edit page. But in IE 5 Mac, the above (what I just wrote, but not what others wrote) has no blank lines between paragraphs. Is this due to Mac line break characters?

-- Larry Israel

Ah, IE5/Mac, I see your problem. This is a known issue with the way that Wiki's use of vertical whitespace markup interacts with some browser's rendering. Sorry. [Known? I can't locate a mention of it.]

Regarding paragraphs, please retype *this test paragraph* (replacing each asterisk (together with the adjacent space) with two newline characters. If this puts the three words in a separate paragraph, all is well, otherwise something really is wrong.

OK, I'll retype it here, typing two line breaks (returns) between each paragraph in IE 5 Mac, just as I have been doing (or sometimes I use a text editor instead, then paste it here; same result).

Regarding paragraphs, please retype

this test paragraph

(replacing each asterisk...)

-- LarryIsrael

OK, it still has the same problem when viewed in IE Mac.

The source of the problem is undoubtedly the invalid HTML markup. In particular the fact that <p></p> is used to separate the paragraphs, which is backwards. It should be </p><p>.

Surely that is illogical. You said that paragraphs created by others did not show the problem, but they too would be separated by <p></p>. For example, this paragraph (which ends here).

OK, I see your point. I guess what I was indentifying was not the cause of the problem, but was the solution. What I'm saying is, if the wiki software would be changed so that it generates paragraph breaks as </p><p>, I bet the problem will go away and paragraphs will display properly in ALL browsers. -- Larry

The <p></p> is a zero-length paragraph, and inserting a space helps with certain browsers (some versions of Opera). I think that is a totally separate matter from the problem you encountered. Therefore, please carry out the suggestion in the next paragraph and report the result. I would do this myself, but my Mac doesn't have a modem.

As a first attempt at a workaround for the problem, try creating a paragraph without explicitly typing the return characters. To do that, first copy and paste an existing paragraph that renders properly, and then change the text to be what you want. If that fails to render properly, I'll try to come up with another idea.

2004-04-17: Does wiki still exhibit this bug ? If so, please report it at WikiWikiBugs. -- DavidCary

Bear in mind that everything is an opinion, there is no higher Wiki law, just a bunch of WikiSocialNorms.

Don't forget PatternMode, one of the highest ideals of Wiki.

Regarding thread mode confusion: It is sometimes useful to pretend that Wiki is some BrainInaVat? which happens to have a bad case of MultiplePersonalityDisorder and is debating with itself constantly. If you look at it this way, and listen to a single anonymous VoiceOfWiki in your head, things actually start to make sense. In fact, the fewer signatures the better in this case; the fewer dates the better (unless it's really relevant, such as talking about some historical fact). Think StreamOfConsciousness.

If the thread mode is so messed up, that even this doesn't help, you can refactor it, or hope someone else cares enough about the subject to refactor it.

I don't think I'll be around here that much to even bother. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered to post my critique here in the first place. I knew that was kind of asking for trouble, throwing myself right into the lion's den by criticizing the site used by hundreds. Anyway, I did post it, received some decent replies, and responded to it in a way that I feel quite good about. I made my point, and I still think the navigation here is terrible and very user-unfriendly. If the regulars here don't see that or don't care, well, that's their prerogative.

And yes, if I set up a Wiki on a site I manage, I will definitely be finding one that I like. I've already looked into that somewhat.

-- LarryIsrael

Hi Larry, thanks for your contributions and discussions. I just wanted to point out one last little thing that has a huge impact on Wiki. Wiki is an evolving system on its own. The set of Wiki implementations in existence is also an evolving system. What this means: The time scale of this wiki is quite long. Instead of discussions lasting a few weeks (such as on UseNet or SlashDot), they last months and years. Ideas get re-thought, re-worked, expanded, distilled, and mutated over time. Ideas trigger related ideas, and so replicate over time. You may think that it is impossible to make any progressive changes to this wiki. I'll use the example of WikiInterface?. Someone wanted to make an interface for wiki. He suggested it, we asked him to justify it, he gave an example, we criticized it, he improved the example, people started to link to it. The interface now exists. The mere act of discussing it caused it to come into being. I don't know if I'm making that point clear or not. It is quite important in my view. Of course, it's not exactly like he wanted it (we don't have the icon linking directly to it yet), but that's just WabiSabi, GoodEnough, and that's WhyWikiWorks. The wiki has been changed. It will continue to change in an evolutionary way. Perhaps one day Ward will add that link to WikiInterface?, and his dream will come true. If that's really what wiki wants. Only time will tell.

Your suggestions are also producing the same evolutionary force. That's why I thank you for them. I know that over time, Wiki will evolve to be more user friendly. I started a page called NewUserPages just for this purpose. Someone asked AreNewUserPagesEnough? Someone tried to improve OneMinuteWiki. Robert and others suggested WikiInterface? and the static menus. Before that, Wiki was even harder to grok for newcomers. Wiki has changed quite a bit over the years.

And that's not even considering the mutations and replications of other wiki implementations. There's evolution there as well. I'm sure there are sites that already have a navigational menu as you suggest. For instance, WikiPedia is much easier to navigate than this wiki.

Recently, ie 2004-03-24, I implemented a kind of self-sitemapping wiki; please see YetAnotherWikiName. Cheers! -- DavidAumueller

I love the concept of the editable section of the page at the bottom and I am happy you use it in your wiki. The edit box is way too wide! The edit button has to be called "Save" since you are always on the edit.

See AdviceToNewcomers

CategoryHomePage

EditText of this page (last edited October 29, 2005) or FindPage with title or text search