Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Future projects

History page table idea

Here's an example from my table idea. (I'll put it here beause it's very rough since I have no clue about real coding):

Ver	Ver	Version	Editor	Edit Summary
(cur)	(last)	21:20 6 October 2005	Username	(→Trivia - encyclopedia articles are not trivia)

Missing are the circles to select two edits to compare, and, as mentioned on the page, the cur/last stuff needs to be rewored more clearly. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I really hate to harp on you guys, but it seems rather ironic that you talk about "usability" - and then do nothing but remove particularly useful features. Please do not remove the circles - or expect a battle if you try without facing the community first. Ambi 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify, it wasn't my intention to remove the circles, it's just that I have no idea how to code to make them appear, the previous example is just an idea that needs someone with some knowledge to apply, circles and all. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. What is the difference then? Ambi 06:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, the tabular arrangement would change the way edit summaries wrap to the next line. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a good thing. Ambi 01:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It will also clarify what everything means instead of that legend. Or at least they will be clear if someone can come up with something beter than "cur" and "lat". - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Diff" might be a better term than "last." That seems to be the word people actually use. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Compare to … revision		Select:			Revision	Editor	Edit Summary
	preceding		O		21:20 6 October 2005	Username	→Trivia - encyclopedia articles are not trivia
current	preceding	O	O		20:20 6 October 2005	User	revert

...

How about that? I think that omitting the full words for the sake of 55 pixels (rent+eding) in width is silly. I made "select" small, and so that it complies with the button. For consistency, I made smaller, and expanded "compare to..." to "compare to ? revision". –M^T 09:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. How is something like this implemented? Is it a Mediwikispace page to edit or does a developer have to deal with it? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that a developer would have to do it, but it should be a rather simple change (replacing ul with table+th*6, and the spans/li with td). And the data belongs in a table regardless, not an unordered list. "minor change" could be marked as it is now, or the shade of the link could be paler, not bold, or italic. (Added bold and changed ? to ... in the example.) The recent changes page should take up the same format (it may be that it would have to). Entries marked deletion log should merge (span) the two first columns and should have [] brackets around them. The third and fourth columns may not be displayed at all. We should get some community input and then see what happens. –M^T 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, this is good; maybe replace "preceding" with "prior"? Ideally those columns will be as short as possible; the more space for the edit summary the better, since some edit summaries will likely occupy 2/3/4 lines. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this?:

[Compare selected versions]

Compare with:		Select:			Revision (click to view)	Editor	Edit Summary ("m" means "minor edit")
	prior		O		21:20, 6 October 2005	Username	→Trivia - encyclopedia articles are not trivia
current	prior	O	O		20:20, 6 October 2005	User	revert

[Compare selected versions]

I don't think that we should worry about how much space it takes up. Even if we do take up more space even once every 10 edits (most edits, unfortunately, don't even use summaries), then it's only a loss of the height of a line. I think clarity is more important. And after shortening it just now, it takes up only about | this | much more space. The "(Latest | Earliest) View (pre..." section needs to be made a bit more clear as well. –M^T 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it, although I don't know where to go with it from here, other than throwing it out to the mailing list and seeing who picks it up. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)