Talk:Old Home Page
|This page is for discussion of matters relating to the content, functioning and features of the Audacity Wiki.
Please do not make technical support requests here, or general comments about the Audacity program. If you require technical support with Audacity, or wish to give us your views about it, please visit the page on our main website.
|Home Page Changes|
We're experimenting with the look and feel of the Home Page at the moment to try and get more interest in it, encourage more (non-spam) editing, and encourage more developers to join Audacity so as to push it forward faster. So there may be rapid changes to the Home Page or even reversions back to what appeared a few minutes ago! Please bear with us, but post any comments in "Home Page Feedback" below.
Home Page Feedback
JC: Oh yuck! Too many colours. It looks like a patchwork quilt.
GA: As stated it is an experiment (and many web designers would think the whole thing far too staid even now....). As it was, it looks to me if it's trying to be flashy but does not quite have the courage of its own convictions.... Colours are often used in web design to direct the eye.
We had quite a number of different text colours before for different sections didn't we (when we had white background), but I don't think it worked too well as most of the text is links anyway. I would like to emphasize "Using Audacity" as it is the most important section (I think). I was wondering also about highlighting other sub-sections like MP3 and devices (i.e. get back to the idea of emphasizing problem areas without having a huge "Problems" section). That may well not work. For "Using Audacity" we could use the khaki colour for background that we use in three panels already, but that makes no sense to me from a logical point of view. Unfortunately with a blue/grey background, it's quite hard to find a different colour that shows the links but is sufficiently different.
Another approach might be to alternate two similar backgrounds between each panel, like the multilingual section at the bottom. I don't especially like that, but it looked the best solution to me for that case - with small text size there was far too much light colour.
The colour used for the link to foreign tutorials is of course the one we already use for multinational content.
Any comments about the section structure? I don't really care for "Audacity in the wider world" any more than "Beyond Audacity" but I haven't been able to come up with anything better yet.
JC: Gale, it's not possible to have everything highlighted!
James: Perfectly possible to have key things highlighted, you say you don't like it though and it's a respectable opinion. My preference would have been not to colour in khaki the sections where we now do so, but just to span highlight the relevant text, but you did not like that. I'm fine with that but it increases the patchwork effect you complain of.
JC: You're currently wanting to highlight specific pieces in some sections, and one whole section. To make the using-audacity stand out more it could be taken out of the two column layout and put above it, as a single column, centred, same width as now, i.e. with 'white space' left and right of it.
I think having "Using Audacity" same width as now with 1/4 (presumably light blue) space either side would look would far odder than what we have now. Spreading it across the whole width, (tutorials one side, tips the other) is a possibility. Either disturbs what I was trying to do which was to get the more user-centric issues on the right and more "esoteric" on the left. I don't want to get more hung up about colours than on the structure.
JC: However, look at the page stats. They give the best guide of what people are most interested in.
The stats have two aspects, what are viewed (exist) and what are searched for (may not exist, which suggests "music" is not prominent enough though that word does now appear on the Home Page). Current page views will probably under-emphasise tip-related articles as Tips is now a category linked to on the Home Page and should generate more hits for Tips pages. The stats would suggest to me that MP3/LAME might not be prominent enough on the Home Page, but that was always going to be the price of getting rid of "Problems", and what I was trying to counteract in some way.
JC: I don't think moving the using-audacity section will be that much help to people finding what they want to find quickly.
I tend to agree, mainly as it would disturb the structure too much, but honestly think (e.g. for new users who aren't searching for anything in particular) that the main contents part of this page needs more visual "pointers". You can read the lists of links but there is little "feel" about what belongs where, how sections are differentiated from each other, and where you should look first. I'm not alone, as I know a few professional web designers and they make the same complaint (apart from it being "boring"/"no images" etc.)
Requests for edits to Home Page
Due to a recent very ugly hack attack on the Home Page, we're locking the Home Page so that only those with Sysop privileges can edit it.
Please use this section to request any edits you want to make to the Home Page, for example to add a link to a new page you created onto the Home Page, or to correct a typo you spotted. If you make regular and significant contributions to the Wiki and need to edit the Home Page, we'll consider granting you Sysop status, which you can request here.
Restoring pages after spam
This wiki has suffered spam attacks now and then. If it happens again, you may aid restoring it by following the instructions at the Removing Spam page.
Suf 12:55, 23 June 2007 (PDT) (modified)
PlugIn / plug-in
The front page has instances of both. I don't really care which is deemed canonical, but I was trying to search the page for instances of plugin/plug-in so consistency would be a good thing. Perhaps PlugIn was written in camel case out of habit from other wiki systems, which treat those as WikiWords? But MediaWiki doesn't care, so just pick one and standardize it.
Thanks, Philip 09:43, 13 March 2006 (PST)
Unfortunately as we allow users to freely edit, we'll never get consistency (I'd personally prefer all pages to have spaces between words for the reasons you state). But if any one wants to write a page with suggested standard words and phrases when writing here, go ahead. In the case of plugins, Audacity calls its folder "Plug-ins" (hyphenated) and I suspect that usage is the more correct. - Gale
Is it possible to block regular vandals? It's not good to go two days with porn-spam on the front page. Also, some of the links on the main page don't contain fingerspaces. Should they be added? Tommylommykins 10:11, 9 November 2006 (PST)
Yes sysops can block vandals indefinitely, prevent them creating accounts and automatically block the last IP address used by the vandal, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from. Actually we're gradually getting rid of the pointed finger external links as many do not like them and instead encourage users to use Template:External for external links which makes links italicised with no pointing finger.
There are really a lot of orphaned pages. The only ways to get to these pages is by hitting the "Random page" link in the navigation bar, by hitting "Special pages" then "Orphaned pages" or by seeing them in the "Recent changes" list soon after they've been made. Someone in charge of the wiki might want to check these pages and either delete them or create links where they would be appropriate.
(That really was the long way of saying that people really aren't going to see those pages)
You will also find that users have created pages for themselves which is redundant. We have user pages that are linked when using our signature with 3 or 4 tilde like this ~~~~
A Witt 16:05, 20 January 2007 (PST)
Most of the orphaned pages have now been removed. The few remaining pages are still considered for actions. There is also a new page (Pages suggested for deletion) where anyone can suggest pages to be removed. (23:05, 9 July 2007 (PDT))
Need for a style guide?
Is there a need for a "style guide" for this Wiki? Recently the pages seem to become more and more colorful, and different editors use color slightly differently. Personally I think it would be a benefit to our readers if we kept to "general Wiki style", with only a few specific "Audacity Wiki styles". It would also benefit the editors, as it would limit the amount of html tags to be used.
Things that there could be a guide for are:
- Plainlinks or not for external links. (I prefer classic style, i.e. with the trailing little arrow icon.)
- Use of if you want to ... click here or not. (I prefer writing out a descriptive link name, not just here.)
- Use of colors.
- How to format a page intro, before the first heading.
(Suf 23:30, 9 July 2007 (PDT))
Some colouring is I think useful to the users and lack of colour in my opinion is a serious drawback on technical Wiki pages. I think you agree with this for application menu paths (the principle if not the colours). I have been using green for something that is a HINT or an advisory and #BA55D3 for an imperative type of declaration.
It is not easy to draw rules about "here" or "descriptive names". Sometime the flow of the text makes it easier to say "you can download the XYZ software [here]." Also can you add a mouseover to links giving a description? Some say you should put a plain text link so you can copy and paste it easier for future use, but that seems to be discouraged on Wikis and should only be done in exceptional cases because of the length of many URLs.
How to format a page intro. might be good. E.g. "_TOC__" to force a table of contents when there are less than four categories is little known.
Plainlinks or not are controversial. I hate the classic trailing arrow myself and Wiki and non-Wiki links should display in slightly different colours. Against this Internet Explorer seems to add the space where the trailing arrow would otherwise be anyway, and I have not yet figured a way that makes plainlinks persist across paragraphs in a Wiki so quite a few extra tags are sometimes needed to use them. You can use double breaks within a span as I did here.
I think you can go too far regimenting style on a Wiki. It is a place for creation and within reason there ought to be some latitude if what is being done "differently" is an aid to intelligibility. For example someone might come up with something that looked so good that we might want to use it regularly in our own contributions. - Gale
Sound Tracks from within Wikimedia
Are there plans for a demo section of Audacity created sound files here? We would like to be able to reliably create sound tracks and activate them from within wikimedia software at en.wikiversity.org so if a demon section is planned it would be helpful to us if good notes could be taken. If such were emailed to me I could relay them to our developers and users or the notes could be posted here or at en.wikiversity.org as part of some tutorials in building web presence for user products. Thanks for reading! Mirwin 16:00, 3 November 2006 (PST)
From NT 22:27, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
- Q:Can I ask what anti-spam methods have and have not worked well for you here?
A:We have an Audacity spam blacklist (blocks spam URLs) which sysops can add to, as well as the Wikimedia blacklist.
- FWIW I'm involved in another wiki, and we've found that protecting the odd page or 2 has made matters worse, as the spammers then target assorted other pages, which just makes for more revert work.
Protecting the home page is merely to keep it visible and prevent the hacker posting his tag there (as opposed to link spammers who will almost always target pages well inside the structure anyway).
- We're planning to get captcha up and running to cut back the present spam.
It generally only prevents automated spam, though.
- yes, that seems to be our main problem there.
- Meanwhile we arrange the most targeted page so that added spam doesnt display.
Do you mean by using a filter?
- I didnt set that one up and dont know the details, but i can give you the page addy if you'd like to check it out. It saves us a lot of work. Spammers think they've posted, but it doesnt show to readers.
NT 19:39, 17 October 2007 (PDT)
Hi - by all means post the web address here but at the moment it sounds as if some sort of keyword filtering is used. Does the spam poster see it and no-one else? Does that make him stop if he thinks the page will remain, or does he rejoice at his success and spam a lot more (and maybe some it gets past the protection)?