Wikidforum - New forum software with wiki and CMS support

[mahesh2k]

I found this forum while browsing fluxxbb related discussion. It can be integrated with wordpress to use the same usernames for author and forum users.

http://www.wikidforum.com/

[mouser]

now that sounds interesting.

[housetier]

Cool!

[JavaJones]

*Very* interesting. I shall investigate!

- Oshyan

[daddydave]

This reminded me of what the Personal Video Database forum has done recently. On their forum, they have created a Help board that uses a custom template that makes that board look like an online wiki. The intention is to make that board into the online help for the PVD program, I think with the idea that people might be too shy to edit the wiki directly but more likely to comment the article, then their comments can be incorporated into the main article. Like this forum, they are using the Simple Machines forum software.

[JavaJones]

I have some experience using a wiki-like theme for SMF and honestly it's a far cry from a real wiki. A good wiki will have comment functionality as well so that, even if normal people don't want to edit the wiki articles directly, they can comment, and then - as you said - their feedback can be incorporated. But that's obviously not the ideal scenario. Teaching people to actually use a proper wiki is certainly advantageous where possible.

One of the *major* differences with SMF (or any forum) from a wiki is version control/history, which can be very important for informational articles and where you have lots of possible editors. Interlinking/structure and categorization some other important differences where a wiki has unique value. Bottom line I think a wiki is a lot better for certain purposes than a forum, and the combination of the two - if done well - could be very good. I haven't had a chance to test Wikid yet but I'm definitely intrigued. Unfortunately their own forum is not (yet?) very active and has few examples, but still promising.

- Oshyan

[superboyac]

What I hate about all things wiki is the syntax.  What do people have against buttons and nice, simple interfaces?

[JavaJones]

I'm not a huge fan of wiki syntax either, but I believe it makes it easier to handle history and difference checking, among other things. Once I started using Redmine I liked the other parts of the system enough that I actually learned basic wiki syntax and it's really not too bad, though I once had the same reaction as you (hate it!). Systems that at least have formatting toolbars and format references (like Redmine) are definitely preferable to me still though.

- Oshyan

[superboyac]

I'm not really saying it's bad.  I just am tired of having to learn syntaxes for every little program or thing that I do on the computer.  More often than not, it's because programmers don't want to put in the work to make a nice interface.  I get that, it's a lot of work.  But at this point in my life, I'm just tired of learning syntaxes.

But if I could have any influence on developers, it would be to create more buttons and nice interfaces.  People keep writing and throwing out tons of programs, but a lot of the time, they ignore really polishing up the interfaces.  The video community is a prime example.  There's a little bit of an elitist attitude there, also.  I've noticed it, I feel it myself sometimes.  There's a certain "glamour" to getting on a computer and typing a lot to get something done.  Just look at the movies: whenever there's a scene involving a computer, what usually happens?  Someone (the "geek") gets on the computer and starts typing hundreds of words a minute and saying all sorts of geeky things really fast.  I always roll my eyes during those scenes.  It's so beyond cliche now.  Each keystroke also makes a "beep" sound of course.  And whenever a screen zooms in or a window pops out, there's lots of little bleep sounds.  No computer does that!  But I don't really have a complaint about the noises, because they have to do something to get across the fact that something is happening.

Anyway, my real point is that there's nothing glamorous about typing a lot FOR MOST PEOPLE.  It's a headache.  Give me a button, please.  I beg you.  A button is universal language.

[40hz]

SB is so infuriating when he's right.

Seriously, what's the BFD about having to master syntax elements when they could just be programed into an editor app. We have text expanders, spellcheckers, template tools, code generators, autoformatters, grammar checkers, voice recognition, and just about everything else built into word processors thes days. And that's just to deal with composing everyday language. What's so special about wiki that it doesn't feel the need to offer user amenities. Is it simple geekiness? Elitism? Or are they just trying to deter some of the riff-raff?

Back when I first learned to code, one of the first things they taught us was:

"For data entry, if specific characters or control sequences always need to be entered in order to do something, then they should never need to be entered at all. Don't be a lazy programmer and make the user do it. Let the system put them in instead. Boring, arbitrary, repetitious tasks are what computers are designed and built for."
 

[JavaJones]

There are some wikis that do natively support WYSIWYG. But MediaWiki being one of the most popular and not supporting it (natively) does mean that most of the wikis one comes across do not have full or even partial WYSIWYG support. There are plugins for MW that handle it, but as far as I know none of the actual wiki syntax based ones are complete yet, they're all still in some stage of development and not necessarily recommended for production use. The HTML-based ones like TinyMCE and the like do work, but they don't maintain the compatibility and portability of wiki syntax (considering compatibility/portability with other wiki systems at least). I don't know if there are issues with differencing, etc. when using the WYSIWYG editors.

Anyway I agree, ideally speaking wiki should not be synonymous with hard to use or obscure formatting.

- Oshyan

[superboyac]

SB is so infuriating when he's right.

Seriously, what's the BFD about having to master syntax elements when they could just be programed into an editor app. We have text expanders, spellcheckers, template tools, code generators, autoformatters, grammar checkers, voice recognition, and just about everything else built into word processors thes days. And that's just to deal with composing everyday language. What's so special about wiki that it doesn't feel the need to offer user amenities. Is it simple geekiness? Elitism? Or are they just trying to deter some of the riff-raff?

Back when I first learned to code, one of the first things they taught us was:

"For data entry, if specific characters or control sequences always need to be entered in order to do something, then they should never need to be entered at all. Don't be a lazy programmer and make the user do it. Let the system put them in instead. Boring, arbitrary, repetitious tasks are what computers are designed and built for."
 

-40hz (January 19, 2011, 01:09 PM)

Haha, thanks.  Well, if I were to really explain this, it would be like this:
I don't actually think the crux of the issue is the elitist attitude, although that's a part of it.  But the primary reason, at least the one that makes the most sense based on my perceptions is that the programmers just stop the development once it gets to the point where it's pretty functional.  So once the program is able to do the goal that the programmer set out to accomplish, then the motivation to go the extra step and really polish things up is gone.  Especially freeware stuff like the video tools.  For example, let's say the goal is to convert a dvd to an avi file.  First the program will probably be some command line thing.  Why?  Because it's easy.  It's pure code.  You just write a couple of lines to do the job, and you're done.  But then, as a few people start using it repetitively, the demand for a gui comes in.  So, a gui is made, but it's bare minimum.  There's no real motivation or demand to do more (other than "difficult" people like myself).  So some gui is created, you know the type...there's some fields and dialogs and boxes, but when you click "start" or "run" a command line window pops up and does the work.  basically, it's just a fancy form for putting in command line parameters.  Again, the bare minimum.  Not many people are going to go the extra step of removing the command line dialog popup, like integrating it into a window-looking dialog.  Most of the people using the program are computer geeks, so a little command line doesn't bother them that much.  Anyway, that's the idea.  It's almost waaaaaaay more work to polish up the interface vs. just writing a simple code to do the job.  There's simply no motivation for it from a practical standpoint.  If I were to say something, the response in most developer's head would be "Dude, just type in "/n run echo pstart-c-t-w" and it will do it.  It's going to take me a week to program a button for that.  You can type it in in 2 seconds.  Why bother."  That, in my opinion, is why a lot of the good programs out there have terrible UI's.  Unfortunately, the bad programs will tend to have better UI's...for the same reason.  A good UI masks the poor program engine.  So it fools non-computer people.

[wraith808]

You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax!  It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.

[superboyac]

You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax!  It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.

-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 04:18 PM)

I don't think that's a true statement.  You are more COMFORTABLE typing inline, or you PREFER to type like that.  But it's not easier by any means for you, him, or any other person.  There's no argument you can make to convince me that it's easier to type a word with brackets or whatever vs. clicking a single button.

At the risk of sounding rude, I've heard from programmers that they use all this text editing stuff because it's easier for them.  This is not true.  you can't say that because the alternative (buttons) doesn't even exist!  You can't say one way is easier or better when the other way is not even available!  So, in my opinion, the programmers sort of lie to themselves by saying it's better this way, but it's not.  What they are really saying is that it's not worth the trouble to create a button, which is true in a lot of ways.  It is easier to write code (if you know it) than it is to create a button, which is essentially writing a LOT of code and going through the whole troubleshooting of it, etc.  So yes, text-editing is easier compared to writing the code for a button.

But text-editing is definitely NOT easier than clicking a button.  Two different things.

[Renegade]

You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax!  It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.

-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 04:18 PM)

I don't think that's a true statement.  You are more COMFORTABLE typing inline, or you PREFER to type like that.  But it's not easier by any means for you, him, or any other person.  There's no argument you can make to convince me that it's easier to type a word with brackets or whatever vs. clicking a single button.

At the risk of sounding rude, I've heard from programmers that they use all this text editing stuff because it's easier for them.  This is not true.  you can't say that because the alternative (buttons) doesn't even exist!  You can't say one way is easier or better when the other way is not even available!  So, in my opinion, the programmers sort of lie to themselves by saying it's better this way, but it's not.  What they are really saying is that it's not worth the trouble to create a button, which is true in a lot of ways.  It is easier to write code (if you know it) than it is to create a button, which is essentially writing a LOT of code and going through the whole troubleshooting of it, etc.  So yes, text-editing is easier compared to writing the code for a button.

But text-editing is definitely NOT easier than clicking a button.  Two different things.

-superboyac (January 19, 2011, 04:25 PM)

OOOOOOOO~! A challenge~!

Ok... let's convince you...

Ever see someone that's a whiz with vi? Well, in addition to being socially inept and sexually frustrated, they're also blistering fast. There isn't a hope in hell that you could possibly hope to accomplish the same tasks with a mouse.

Now, if I'm going to post an image here, it's FAR easier for me to type the [ img ] tag and paste a URL than it is to click a button, fart around with some interface and whatever else I need to do. In both cases I'll end up pasting the image URL, so those make no difference to the procedure. So... Consider:

THE GUI WAY:
1) Move hand from keyboard to mouse.
2) Figure out WTF the cursor is on the screen
3) Locate "image" button on toolbar
4) Move mouse cursor to toolbar image button
5) Click image button
6) Wait for some window to pop up
7) Locate URL field in popup for image URL
Move mouse to URL field
9) Click URL field to give it focus
10) *** Paste image into URL field
10.1) Since typing is hard, make things further painful, but avoid pain of moving hand between keyboard and mouse
10.2) Right-click in URL field
10.3) Click "Paste" option in context menu
11) Click OK button in popup

THE KEYBOARD WAY
1) Type img open tag
2) CTRL + V to paste image URL
3) Type img close tag

Clicking buttons is often more difficult because you have to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse, find the cursor, look around, and by that time your ADHD has kicked in and you're thinking about lunch or going out for a cigarette!

***  cig =========:::~  ***

Back...

Now where was I?

Oh yeah...

Try this experiment... Tweet 5 times however you normally do, then try tweeting 5 times with my little Twiddle Twittle Tweeter for Twitter:

Twiddle Twittle Tweeter for Twitter

When you tweet with it, use the keyboard shortcuts:

In your browser (Firefox) -- use F6 to focus on the address bar then CTRL + C to copy it all.

From anywhere at all, like your browser, you can use T4 like this:

CTRL + ALT + S ==> Show/focus
Type whatever.
CTRL + ALT + B ==> Paste a shortened URL
CTRL + ALT + T ==> Tweet

Tell me which is faster then. (Don't include time to download, installation, or starting the program. )

Here's the help info:

http://renegademinds...19/Default.aspx#help

You simply can't move your hand between the keyboard and your mouse fast enough. It's just not possible for simple things.

If you know what you want to do, the keyboard is MUCH faster, and hence, easier. If you're waffling on what you're doing, it makes no difference, and likely then the mouse is easier.

Q.E.D. ???

I use both the keyboard and mouse, but it really all depends on what you want to do. Very often the keyboard *IS* much faster and easier.

ED: Typos

[Deozaan]

Proof by contradiction:

You had to spend all that time typing up that long response. It took you so long that you even went for a cigarette break. All I had to do was click "Mark -> Ignore Topic."

Q.E.D.

[JavaJones]

Sorry Renegade, you fail. : DAny time someone paints the GUI approach with retarded hyperbolic and imaginary difficulties ("Figure out WTF the cursor is on the screen", seriously?), I know they're trying to make the commandline look better than it is. Don't get me wrong, I *am* a believer in the commandline, and it works great for some things, even many things, but you're not doing your argument any favors by making such a biased "comparison". GUIs also work well, and an experienced person working with a well designed GUI vs. an experienced person with a commandline might be a wash as far as speed goes. Perhaps you've just never seen a GUI wiz which, like a commandline wiz, is pretty amazing to watch. Sometimes I even get into a "zone" where I can just whiz around an app like lightning (like say when I'm very familiar with it and know exactly what I want to accomplish).

The real secret, and the reason all the input wars are retarded, is that the fastest is a combination of both!

- Oshyan

[wraith808]

You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax!  It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.

-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 04:18 PM)

I don't think that's a true statement.  You are more COMFORTABLE typing inline, or you PREFER to type like that.  But it's not easier by any means for you, him, or any other person.  There's no argument you can make to convince me that it's easier to type a word with brackets or whatever vs. clicking a single button.

At the risk of sounding rude, I've heard from programmers that they use all this text editing stuff because it's easier for them.  This is not true.  you can't say that because the alternative (buttons) doesn't even exist!  You can't say one way is easier or better when the other way is not even available!  So, in my opinion, the programmers sort of lie to themselves by saying it's better this way, but it's not.  What they are really saying is that it's not worth the trouble to create a button, which is true in a lot of ways.  It is easier to write code (if you know it) than it is to create a button, which is essentially writing a LOT of code and going through the whole troubleshooting of it, etc.  So yes, text-editing is easier compared to writing the code for a button.

But text-editing is definitely NOT easier than clicking a button.  Two different things.

-superboyac (January 19, 2011, 04:25 PM)

*You* can say what's easier for *you*.  If I'm in a text box typing, it's much easier for me to put the tags inline than to go to the bar.  I say easier, and I mean easier.  When I code, it's easier for me to click a - sign on my number pad than to highlight the line and press a button to cut the line.  And I do say easier, because what is easier?  Clicking one key?  Or moving my hands from the keyboard, highlighting a line, then pressing a button in a totally different place.  You might say that you have to learn the syntax.  True.  But once learned, which way will be easier for you?  I'm not sure, but for me, it's the keyboard.

[skwire]

I'm not sure, but for me, it's the keyboard.

-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 11:00 PM)

Agreed.  When I'm coding, I very rarely touch the mouse for anything.  All highlighting, cutting, pasting, line(s) duplication, line(s) deletion and line(s) up/down moving is handled by the keyboard alone.  When you use a capable editor, this stuff is trivial.

[40hz]

@Renegade - I'm mostly a text command type person. But I'm also blessed with a good memory for detail. So remembering tags and key sequences comes pretty easy to me. Most people I know aren't so lucky.
 
I think focusing on the number of keystrokes or mouse moves misses the primary point of why there are GUIs. It's not to save hand motion. It's to remove the need to memorize sequences.

I look at a GUI as more of an on-screen command reference than anything else. It allows you to find something more easily than would be the case if you had to check a reference card or manual to do something.

Just my 2 ALT+0162s 

(Although it could also be ALT+155 if you're using UTF-8 )

[superboyac]

Yeah, i didn't mean to start a debate or anything, and I think my point was not stated very well.  Ok...back to work!

[KynloStephen66515]

I found this forum while browsing fluxxbb related discussion. It can be integrated with wordpress to use the same usernames for author and forum users.

http://www.wikidforum.com/

-mahesh2k (January 17, 2011, 10:50 AM)

Just finished playing with a fresh install of this, and I must say, the idea if definatly there, they just have not figured out how to implement it.  The whole thing feels nasty and unbearable, I spent 20 minutes having to figure out for myself how the hell to even post anything on it.

If your looking for a good test project, then this is something you should look into, but in my opinion, its not ready to host a forum even close to 1/12th of the size of DC.

[wraith808]

I think the term used is incorrect- easy is a function of the user, IMO.  Accessibility is where good UI's shine.  It's more accessible to look at a glyph and click a key.  Easier is a matter of the person.  If I can remember key combinations easily, and remember tags easily, then why would it be easier to click a button?  But if I can't, then I can see why that would be easier.

[f0dder]

+1 for Wraith, and +1 for most of Renegade.

I don't see why one wouldn't put in buttons to help the mac brigade, but I'd be infuriated if I didn't have my tags - it's much faster for me, since I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard.

[mahesh2k]

@Stephen66515, thanks for the review. I also wasn't sure if it's ready for production level sites.