WYSIWIG editor

[James Neill]

sounds like a MW WYSWIWIG editor is still a pretty long way off:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WYSIWYG_editor

i am surprised the WM foundation doesn't seem to be pursuing this more aggressively - it seems to me the single code innovation which could have the greatest impact in terms of encouraging grass-roots engagement with the various wikis

[James Neill]

sounds like a MW WYSIWIG editor is still a pretty long way off:

[James Neill]

i tell a lie - try it out
http://mediawiki.fckeditor.net/index.php/Sandbox

is this extension being considered?


if i'm going to try selling WV or WE to my colleagues, i think i'd need WYSIWIG editing



James Neill wrote:

_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikive...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
  

--
Email:     ja...@wilderdom.com
Web:       http://wilderdom.com
Twitter:   http://twitter.com/jtneill
Wiki/blog: http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au/x/fIAeAg
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/jtneill

[Cormac Lawler]

There is work actively being done on wysiwyg (mainly on the wikitech-l mailing list) - and apparently a problem is the "grammar" involved. I've just sent a mail there asking about what that fckeditor doesn't do yet, how much more needs to be done, and how much of a funding bid would need to be put together to see it to completion. I'll report back as and when I get any responses.

Cormac

[Brent]

James...

There are problems with the FCKeditor from my understanding when it comes to things like the more advanced wiki editing, ie. templates, etc. Not sure what it does with images either. I've been using this on Wikipedia for a while though, and while not really WYSIWYG it can give you a bit more control, colour coding of syntax,etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd but it may be a bit much for newbies. I think there are also other (mostly firefox) extensions out there that will assist editing in some way. You can also use the newer Open Office versions which will export as Wiki text.

This is an almost ancient argument by now though .. the WYSIWYG editor vs Wiki Syntax debate deserves its own page on Wikipedia. My general approach is to really look at the syntax involved -- for the most part we're talking about approximately 6 things a new user has to learn to do 90% of the formatting and editing they really ever need to do. I try to sell it as grammar rather than code or anything like that.

The first 6 parts of the WikiEducator Tutorial are great for training: http://www.wikieducator.org/Wikieducator_tutorial and you might also take a look at http://www.wikieducator.org/Learning4Content to see if there are any available courses being run online to get teachers/editors up to speed.

brent.

--
--------------------------------
http://digitalsynapse.co.nz
http://greymatter.co.nz
--------------------------------

[Derek Chirnside]

Point taken Brent.
BUT:
Why not an editor to do something at this level.

1) not break wiki markup
2) give access to all else doing the basic 90% stuff.

I know my audience.
Six things is too much for much of my audience.
It's cognitive overload: for some, if you have to concentrate on markup, you loose the plot for the writing.

[Brent]

hmmm... at some point everyone (well at least most of your audience) learnt how and when to use the following:

commas, semicolons, quotes, exclamation marks, parenthesis, question marks, and full-stops to designate structure to sentences.

I don't buy it. A couple of million editors of another wiki didn't either.

brent.

[David McQuillan]

As a relative newbie to this technology (almost 1 year using it now) and as a manager of staff who are just beginning to step into it I have to say I completely agree with Derek & James on this.

Regards,

David McQuillan
Programme Coordinator, Diploma of Massage Therapy
Chairperson Massage Educator's Group
Lower South Island Representative, Massage New Zealand
ph - ext 8378
DDI - 479-3618

>>> Brent <pumic...@gmail.com> 03/21/08 8:24 AM >>>

brent.

> > approach is to really look at the syntax involved -- for the *most part*we're talking about approximately 6 things a new user has to learn to do 90%

[Brent]

also there is an editor that does this already... the buttons along the top of the editing space do all these things.

brent.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Derek Chirnside <derek.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

[James Neill]

i could get into a purist approach - if that was consistent - the main argument here for me would be that if someone learns plain MW editing, they can edit easily on lots of different projects

however, it seems to me (as a new, outsider) that if WE is going to go with liquidthread type extensions, etc. and change the fundamental nature of the user interface in order to attract and engage new editors, then why not go the whole hog by offering WYSIWIG editing? i realise all the options are beta, but so are other extensions already being implemented

just my thoughts as i look over the options

[Jim Tittsler]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Brent <pumic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> also there is an editor that does this already... the buttons along the top
> of the editing space do all these things.

It may be useful to note that recent versions of OpenOffice export in
MediaWiki format markup. It isn't perfect, but quite usable.

(And there are efforts underway to make MediaWiki export in OpenOffice
format, so someday it could be a round trip process.)

[James Neill]

i've found that the OO Writer MW export works nicely for converting existing documents into markup - but its not much good for live editing, nor is OO it something that your average teacher is familiar with

this is possibly where moodle will win out in situations where a MW install or WV/WE could have been used


Jim Tittsler wrote:

It may be useful to note that recent versions of OpenOffice export in
MediaWiki format markup.  It isn't perfect, but quite usable.

(And there are efforts underway to make MediaWiki export in OpenOffice
format, so someday it could be a round trip process.)



.

  

[Jim Tittsler]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> i've found that the OO Writer MW export works nicely for converting
> existing documents into markup - but its not much good for live editing, nor
> is OO it something that your average teacher is familiar with

Yes, there is a difference between authoring and editing. Once the
round-trip is possible, I think "editing" will be more practical. I
also think that once you have the basic structure, editing a bit here
and there in wiki format is not as off-putting. You've got lots of
examples at hand.

And it can be done without constant connectivity.

(Gee, average teachers don't seem familiar with much in this domain. :-)

> this is possibly where moodle will win out in situations where a MW install
> or WV/WE could have been used

I don't quite follow this. The typical Moodle's htmlArea seems more
frustrating than learning a bit of wiki markup. I guess there are
different frustration thresholds.

And now that there are baby steps in exporting WE content in content
package form, you can gain the benefit of collaborative editing but
still allow deployment in legacy LMSes.

[Leigh Blackall]

The WYSIWYG that is already in all MediaWikis just needs a little tweaking. The icons it uses are way weird! Is there any way we can get in there and change the icons so that they are more in tune with the majority of other WYSIWYG? And then, when we click the WYSIWYG icons, how about the syntax that is placed be just a little more helpful.. such as when making a link, we highlight the text and then click the weird link icon. It adds [] around the word. What it needs is some red text that says: add your link here. in red so we can't miss it. I reckon that would be a good compromise, where drained newbies can avoid pure editing, but by using the icons they gradually come to appreciate and learn straight syntax.

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Brent]

its not a bad idea ... Alexander Hayes and I tried this once though and it was harder than it seemed to locate icons for half of the wiki things that were there, but it would be worth another shot. Perhaps a good graphic designer and a bit of feedback from the community could make a page on the wiki for experimentation. It's pretty easy to swap them in and out if you have access so we could set up a test wiki somewhere and give it a go.

I still just don't get this whole argument and it often makes me just think, well ... if you can't be bothered spending all of about 3 hours to get a grip on the basic basic basic (did I emphasize how basic this is?) syntax, then I guess you just miss half of the revolution -- sorry. You can just be a consumer. You want to be on the bus then take the pill mate, otherwise ... get out of the way.

brent.

[Leigh Blackall]

now now Brent :) you can't be like that. You know there are heaps of people asking for a better WYSIWYG... I share your love of the original and the more simple, but we can't sweep away all those requests from people who could really help out where it matters, building the content and the networks and making it all happen. But I agree that it would be a real shame if we built up a user base who had no appreciation of the wiki syntax. Which is why I think it would be better just to tweak the existing WYSIWYG a bit and see where that gets us.

[James Neill]

brent,

yep, that's exactly what we're dealing with when we leave the computer and walk the corridors - the vast majority of educators who won't ever spend those three hours, in workplaces which are not even remotely close to providing support or encouragement for doing so.

and what about students? i guess i could teach my 5 and 7 year old kids wiki syntax or 100-odd undergrad psych students and maybe will one day. but while we're busy concentrating on literacy and numeracy (or other content area knowledge), a WYSIWIG editing option would open up the interactive world with wiki for a great many more students.

i think only a few make it to wiki syntax land.

j

[James Neill]

Jim Tittsler wrote:

 this is possibly where moodle will win out in situations where a MW install
or WV/WE could have been used
    

I don't quite follow this.  The typical Moodle's htmlArea seems more
frustrating than learning a bit of wiki markup.  I guess there are
different frustration thresholds.
  

hi jim - i didn't mean to imply that the moodle WYSIWIG solution was a good one - but i did mean to suggest that the fact that moodle has WYSIWIG editing functionality means that it is much more likely to be chosen as an electronic learning environment than a MW install

[Leigh Blackall]

James wrote, "much more likely to be chosen as an electronic learning environment"

:) Well James, you know I can be a very argumentative fella, but I'm really a friendly fella also, so I hope you're OK with all this discussion..

When I think about my online learning.. and almost everyone I know... it usually goes like this:

1. Search Google - get a crappy result
2. Search Wikipedia - get a good result
3. Use the links in Wikipedia and sometimes they go to a Wikiversity or Wikieducator course
4. I bookmark the course for later
5. Search Youtube and Google videos for any documentaries
6. Then maybe go to the library for the things mentioned in the videos and Wiki entries
7. Get into an email conversation with someone who knows all about it, who I found in the edit record of the wikies ;)

Not a Moodle to be seen hey :)

Now, if we can get teachers and people [;)] out of their Moodles and into some of the everyday electronic learning above...

[James Neill]

leigh - all good, mate :) - as we both know the natural learning strategy you describe contrasts with modal institution strategy which pretty much consists of:

1. implement an LMS

i might be able to recruit one or two colleagues out of 300 to join me in a wiki-education adventure

if it was a WYSIWIG wiki (like Confluence - our institutional enterprise wiki), i could probably recruit 5 to 10 times more - which makes a team instead of a solo effort. there's  a reason why institutions are rapidly buying into enterprise wikis with WYSIWIG editing - because it offers one less obvious barrier to engagement

it would be nice to be able to help save a few more souls from wasting so much of the well-intentioned professional lives by leaving their educational materials to rot in ivory tower LMS graveyard dumping grounds.\

the potential of MW seems so close for educational use, yet so far in terms of attracting critical mass.

fast forward: 1 year..... 2 years.... 3 years... ? and hopefully this conversation will be history and MW has these features inbuilt into user prefs, and users forget about the technical and get on with content and collaboration.

[Leigh Blackall]

Yes, all in all you're right. There are thousands of educators using Wikispaces and putting up with Google Ads and its lock in.. if we had a WYSIWYG, I'd imagine those thousands would join in the ad free adventure

[Brent]

I recently had an experience trying to "coach" a person who wanted to use Wikispaces for a small wiki ... my thoughts afterwards were that its' not really the formatting part that is really the problem ... i think i could have show her quite comfortably either way that you click this or you put [[this]] ... the real hard part was the hypertext bit, the notion that her content was going to sort of organically evolve by creating links to pages that didn't yet exist and then authoring those pages. she was still pretty much viewing the entire authoring experience as one of creating docs and putting them in heirarchical folders and this was a mental model that was really hard to shift towards a flatter more networked model. So, I'm starting to wonder if its not really the WYSIWYG thing at all, its something more conceptual, something that breaks us out of the "document within folder within folder, etc..." metaphor towards the networked/hypertext model that is required to get people to work well in the wiki space. What is that "aha!" moment that gets you hooked? I think for me, even though I was already a somewhat seasoned web developer by this stage, it was the ease and the power that was enabled (unleashed even) when you could so easily just make a hypertext link. And this is why wikispaces is the same as MW for a newbie, because they don't really get this part. There are extensions all over the place to make MW more this and more that, but if people don't get this hypertext part they're never going to get it.

Its interesting to note that while there are already many other systems that have WYSIWYG and other niceties ...none of them has come close to creating a wikipedia and probably never will. Theres something to be said for the power of KISS.

brent.

[Leigh Blackall]

Excellent and thought provoking observation Brent. It rings true to me as well.. the many many people I have shown seem to take a very very long time for the light to go on.. and even when it does, its not a sudden flaring bright light, its like a broken fluro, flickering and stuttering.. even after 4 years of working networked, I constantly catch myself out - going back to that deeply embedded way of working when I'm uncertain of another way - so my light is still coming on, but its those moments when it stays on long enough for my eyes to focus that I see the potential, that I see all the things in this room... so it must be for most people I am sure. So I think there is certainly truth in what you are pointing at there, however foggy and vague the thing is we are trying to identify.

I used to work in Wikispaces before they went all WYSIWYG.. while at times I use Wikispaces, and do use their WYSIWYG, more often than not I revert back to their wiki syntax to fix something the WYG broke. And all the 10s of thousands of people making all the MediaWikis work says something doesn't it... I've read some research somewhere, sorry no link, testing the hypothesis that the perceived barrier to entry in MediaWiki (the apparent lack of WYSIWYG or any association to common word processor for that matter) actually serves as a type of quality control barrier and/or status symbol for those that know how...

[James Neill]

In summary, IMHO, something like this would significantly enhance the usability of MW projects:


(from Confluence)

[Leigh Blackall]

in summary, I agree :)

[James Neill]

fyi - i noted that open office folk seem to be interested in trialling the fckeditor:

http://website.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=9641


Leigh Blackall wrote:

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent]

FCK seems like its come the furtherest in getting this right ... but i note on the bug tracker and the discussion pages still a lot of things going wrong ... but its promising. I think what these guys need is some mediawiki developers jumping on their project and into their code base as much as they probably have into the MW code base. Its projects like this that could really benefit from a little $ injection via Summer of Code or some other source.

brent.

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:48 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:

fyi - i noted that open office folk seem to be interested in trialling the fckeditor:

http://website.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=9641

Leigh Blackall wrote:

in summary, I agree :)

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:

In summary, IMHO, something like this would significantly enhance the usability of MW projects:


(from Confluence)

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

--
Email:     ja...@wilderdom.com
Web:       http://wilderdom.com
Twitter:   http://twitter.com/jtneill
Wiki/blog: http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au/x/fIAeAg
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/jtneill

[Nadia]

Is this a discussion for all of us? On reading the comment on the 21st
of March by Brent, I thought someone was being rude about an editor. I
looked it up and realised it was a serious discussion but somehow out
of my depth.
I would like to be able to upload something like power point
presentations without having to rewrite everything again on
wikieducator. Is there a way to do that ?
Thanks
Nadia

On Mar 22, 8:29 am, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in summary, I agree :)
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> >  In summary, IMHO, something like this would significantly enhance the
> > usability of MW projects:
>

> > (from Confluence)
>
> --
> --
> Leigh Blackall
> +64(0)21736539
> skype - leigh_blackall
> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com
>

>  moz-screenshot-7.jpg
> 3KViewDownload

[James Neill]

nadia - here's what i've found on this so far:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jtneill#odp_to_mw_txt

After trying a lot of combinations I found these manual steps resulted in a pretty good conversion of a large (100 slide) OO Impress file into MediaWiki syntax (see /Sandbox/odp to txt3):
    * Using OO Impress, save odp as ppt
    * Using MS PPT, ppt save as rtf
    * Using OO Writer, open rtf and save as html
    * Using OO Writer, open html and export as mediawiki syntax
    * Using a text editor, open txt and search and replace:
          o replace <center> with == and </center> with ==
          o replace # with * (if you want bullets rather than numbers)
          o ’ with '
          o ‘ with '
          o ‏ with
          o – with -
          o  with <
          o ïƒ with >
Note that this approach does not include:
    * Images
    * Notes
i.e. it just provides the viewable slide headings and text

Nadia wrote:

.

  

[Randy Fisher]

I've been following this thread with interest, and I wasn't able to articulate exactly what I wanted to say until now.

For my purposes, WikiEd provides a Simple GUI, and I need to be telling the people I work with (and study with) that that is the case....I'm at school, and I suggested my study group use WikiSpaces precisely because it "appears" to be more user-friendly than WikiEd (even though most of my professional activities are on WikiEd). Well, the tradeoffs just weren't worth it. (if you're interested: http://omd.wikispaces.com - Cultural Handbook)

My mates caught on really quickly - we could have gone straight away to WikiEd - and we would have had more flexibility, security and the pleasure of contributing actively to this growing community. I do recognize that there are technical issues, but I also believe it has a lot to do with the "positioning" and setting of expectations.

WikiEd's Simple GUI is easy to learn, and the box where you can do the editing with all the fancy icons at top, is plenty for the average, basic user.

I've learned for next time - luckily I've got a few more semesters to go in my program. (I'll be porting some of the Culture Handbook content over to WikiEd, in any case.)

- Randy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:

i tell a lie - try it out
http://mediawiki.fckeditor.net/index.php/Sandbox

is this extension being considered?


if i'm going to try selling WV or WE to my colleagues, i think i'd need WYSIWIG editing



James Neill wrote:

sounds like a MW WYSIWIG editor is still a pretty long way off:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WYSIWYG_editor

i am surprised the WM foundation doesn't seem to be pursuing this more aggressively - it seems to me the single code innovation which could have the greatest impact in terms of encouraging grass-roots engagement with the various wikis

_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikive...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
  

--
Email:     ja...@wilderdom.com
Web:       http://wilderdom.com
Twitter:   http://twitter.com/jtneill
Wiki/blog: http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au/x/fIAeAg
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/jtneill

--
________________
Randy Fisher aka "Wikirandy for WikiEducator"
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Wikirandy

+ 1 604.684.2275
wiki...@gmail.com
www.hirerandy.com

Skype: wikirandy

[Derek Chirnside]

Wow.
I have three days away from any internet and come back to another swag of posts in this dialogue.
My original comment to brent:
==

Point taken Brent.
BUT:
Why not an editor to do something at this level.

1) not break wiki markup
2) give access to all else doing the basic 90% stuff.

I know my audience.
Six things is too much for much of my audience.
It's cognitive overload: for some, if you have to concentrate on markup, you loose the plot for the writing.

==
Brent's reply:

hmmm... at some point everyone (well at least most of your audience) learnt how and when to use the following:

commas, semicolons, quotes, exclamation marks, parenthesis, question marks, and full-stops to designate structure to sentences.

I don't buy it. A couple of million editors of another wiki didn't either.

==
Point taken Brent (although I will reply to this comment separately), but I think I didn't quite make myself clear.  (A post bashed off as I went out the door on holiday. . .)

Text entry is key - this is where the ideas and the hard work meet.
Formatting is different.  It is a different act.  Especially the tables bit.
What I think could turn the tide for my hypothetical users is a WYSIWYG view where

1. you can edit text.  (90% of the use??)
   
2. And add images.
3. And format headings, bold and italic
4. Upload files

This means you could see a nice view with tables displayed/images placed right/borders, stylng and lines etc etc etc - which is difficult (or at least more difficult) to edit/visualise in classic MW markup - for most people.

You then can just edit/think/type the text bit with no impediment to having to navigate through the MW markup tables stuff.

It would help us see through the clutter to the text and just edit it - - -

This kind of editor - just a text editor, not a tables editor - should be a piece of cake?

-Derek

[Robert Kruhlak]

Hi Derek,

Have you had a look at the SimpleTable extension:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleTable

that is installed on WE?

If should eliminate most of the MW markup for tables in the "entry"
phase you mentioned.

Additionally, there are a couple of templates that can be used for
quickly creating "blank" tables for handouts

Template:AnswerBox

Template:AnswerBoxRows

Some information on templates can be found at:
Wikieducator_tutorial/Pedagogical_Templates/Template_syntax

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Rob

--
Robert Kruhlak
Burnaby, BC
CANADA
(M) +1 778 230 1875
(E) kru...@gmail.com

[Leigh Blackall]

Nadia,

I upload my slide presentations to Slideshare.net (where you can also embed audio). Even though Wikieducator has this functionality, I like to extend my content beyond the networked bounds of Wikied and into other social networks. It is possible to embed SLideshare into Wikieducator, but not very straight forward - so I just link out to the slideshare for now.

[David McQuillan]

Hi Brent,

You say "I still just don't get this whole argument..."

The argument that I and others have made is that it's in the best interest of WikiEducator & all wikis really to reduce and eliminate where possible any barriers to participation. Any barrier will act to reduce participation. Don't we want as many people as possible involved in wiki media development?

I don't think that taking the attitude of "if you can't be bothered spending [the time needed], then I guess you just miss half of the revolution -- sorry" is particularly constructive. Wikis are not the revolution. They're only one of the open-content platforms that are out there. If they don't meet the evolving needs of consumers, then they will fall by the wayside.

D

>>> Brent <pumic...@gmail.com> 03/21/08 8:10 PM >>>

its not a bad idea ... Alexander Hayes and I tried this once though and it
was harder than it seemed to locate icons for half of the wiki things that
were there, but it would be worth another shot. Perhaps a good graphic
designer and a bit of feedback from the community could make a page on the
wiki for experimentation. It's pretty easy to swap them in and out if you
have access so we could set up a test wiki somewhere and give it a go.

I still just don't get this whole argument and it often makes me just think,
well ... if you can't be bothered spending all of about 3 hours to get a
grip on the basic basic basic (did I emphasize how basic this is?) syntax,
then I guess you just miss half of the revolution -- sorry. You can just be
a consumer. You want to be on the bus then take the pill mate, otherwise ...
get out of the way.

brent.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The WYSIWYG that is already in all MediaWikis just needs a little

> tweaking. The icons it uses are way weird! Is there any way we can get in
> there and change the icons so that they are more in tune with the majority
> of other WYSIWYG? And then, when we click the WYSIWYG icons, how about the
> syntax that is placed be just a little more helpful.. such as when making a
> link, we highlight the text and then click the weird link icon. It adds []

> around the word. What it needs is some red text that says: *add your link
> here*. in red so we can't miss it. I reckon that would be a good

> compromise, where drained newbies can avoid pure editing, but by using the
> icons they gradually come to appreciate and learn straight syntax.
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Jim Tittsler <jtit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >

> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com>
> > wrote:
> > > i've found that the OO Writer MW export works nicely for converting
> > > existing documents into markup - but its not much good for live
> > editing, nor
> > > is OO it something that your average teacher is familiar with
> >
> > Yes, there is a difference between authoring and editing. Once the
> > round-trip is possible, I think "editing" will be more practical. I
> > also think that once you have the basic structure, editing a bit here
> > and there in wiki format is not as off-putting. You've got lots of
> > examples at hand.
> >
> > And it can be done without constant connectivity.
> >
> > (Gee, average teachers don't seem familiar with much in this domain. :-)
> >

> > > this is possibly where moodle will win out in situations where a MW
> > install
> > > or WV/WE could have been used
> >
> > I don't quite follow this. The typical Moodle's htmlArea seems more
> > frustrating than learning a bit of wiki markup. I guess there are
> > different frustration thresholds.
> >

> > And now that there are baby steps in exporting WE content in content
> > package form, you can gain the benefit of collaborative editing but
> > still allow deployment in legacy LMSes.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

> --
> --
> Leigh Blackall
> +64(0)21736539
> skype - leigh_blackall
> SL - Leroy Goalpost
> http://learnonline.wordpress.com
>
> >
>

[Leigh Blackall]

Dave said:

Don't we want as many people as possible involved in wiki media development?

Well... do we? Maybe not? And maybe we don't want a Wiki that bears little or no resemblance to other MediaWikis... I think this question is worth considering.. will more chickens in the coup make it better? Or will this initial barrier help ensure the right people like a type of initiation ceremony.. I think about this question when I compare wikis with WYSIWYG with Wikimedia Foundation wikis that apparently lack such a feature.. from where I sit, it appears that the Wikimedia Wikis like Wikipedia, Books, Species etc win hands down.. why is that?

But that question aside, a simple and improved WYSIWYG would still be good to see.. if only to test the idea that having it will improve the Wiki..

[Brent]

There are always going to be barriers to participation .. there always is. I have to get up and go vote, i need to educate myself about the candidates and the issues, i have to register. If I can't be bothered with any of this -- i don't vote, i don't participate. Many people don't participate in the most fundamental participatory processes. They aren't going to for Open content either.

If its not in me to learn the simple syntax, to click the edit button and explore the toolbar, then I'll probably be a consumer. If a person wants to be a producer -- they'll click the button, they'll learn the toolbar and the syntax. Somehow I don't think the barrier is really the toolbar vs the GUI; and in a sense we're doing it a bit of a disservice to focus on this. The existing mediawiki projects would back this up I'd say - there's more open content in the collective wikimedia foundation websites than in any other site on the planet, in fact probably in most of the other open content sites combined ... nobody had a GUI. Does that not resonate somehow?

There's far more "barriers" here than creating a better simpler GUI with buttons that does everything is going to fix. Text is not going to ooze out of our open educational pores as soon as a WYSIWYG toolbar appears. It hasn't yet. Anyone know of a Confluence wiki thats making any waves in this movement? probably not...

The existing toolbar on mediawiki is a teaching tool. Once you learn the syntax the toolbar is pointless. I don't have to think about where the fullstop/period is on my keyboard, i barely think about when to use it -- double brackets aren't that different. I think what i'm getting at is that its misguided to focus on the toolbar, on the WYSIWYG and in fact the fact that there is no GUI, no WYSIWYG might actually have been a big benefit as it has not then been a barrier to people wanting to learn the more complex syntaxes that the software provides. Openness is a tricky value in some ways ... it could be argued that its actually the openness in all facets of this sofware from the code itself to the editing syntax that has given it this momentum but we want to hide it all from the user behind a white box, for the sake of what? getting moderate formatting advantages for the most people!?

brent.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM, David McQuillan <dav...@tekotago.ac.nz> wrote:

[WenChen Hol]

Nowadays, there are various dropCap, quote, toolTip, foot note, 3d text, gradient text designs and style sheet plugins in some richtext editors, more and more cms are implementing these features.

Why should mw not take the step to catch up the trends?

It's not a bad thing to have. If the content in WE can be more vivid than traditional wiki and authors could just easily copy and paste their existing documents into WE,
it should help WE stand out from other open-content providers and maybe speed up content creation.

I don't think it's difficult to have a wyiwyg editor that also accepts wiki syntax.
 
W