Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

From DataFlex Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (correction)
(Suggestion for topic)
Line 60: Line 60:
However it would have saved me this effort if I'd had a guideline on what colours etc. to use from the start.  I think we need to evolve some kind of consensus "Style Guide" which would help us all use a nice, clear, consistent style for various things. It would be bound to be an evolving document, as we are unlikely to think of everything on day one and will have to be flexible and inclusive rather than prescriptive, but the sooner we start laying it down, the less time will be wasted later fixing stuff up that doesn't match or looks ugly.  (''I did experiment with using a template - [[Template:Colorise]] - but couldn't get what I wanted to work: the amount of time I can afford to devote to learning the WikiMedia Template [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_programming_language DSL] is strictly limited!'' <g>) [[User:Mikepeat|Mike]] 11:03, 22 November 2007 (CET)
However it would have saved me this effort if I'd had a guideline on what colours etc. to use from the start.  I think we need to evolve some kind of consensus "Style Guide" which would help us all use a nice, clear, consistent style for various things. It would be bound to be an evolving document, as we are unlikely to think of everything on day one and will have to be flexible and inclusive rather than prescriptive, but the sooner we start laying it down, the less time will be wasted later fixing stuff up that doesn't match or looks ugly.  (''I did experiment with using a template - [[Template:Colorise]] - but couldn't get what I wanted to work: the amount of time I can afford to devote to learning the WikiMedia Template [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_programming_language DSL] is strictly limited!'' <g>) [[User:Mikepeat|Mike]] 11:03, 22 November 2007 (CET)
:I should have said ''pr<u>o</u>scriptive'' above - it would indeed be ''pr<u>e</u>scriptive'', by intent! [[User:Mikepeat|Mike]] 14:54, 22 November 2007 (CET)
:I should have said ''pr<u>o</u>scriptive'' above - it would indeed be ''pr<u>e</u>scriptive'', by intent! [[User:Mikepeat|Mike]] 14:54, 22 November 2007 (CET)
== Suggestion for topic ==
Can I suggest that we add a new section or link on the main page for general development tools and articles that sit outside of the existing Web/Windows/WS/Console categories. [[User:Hellboy1975|Hellboy1975]] 00:07, 23 November 2007 (CET)

Revision as of 01:07, 23 November 2007

What would you like to see on this wiki?

Feel free to discuss the purpose of this wiki on this page

using vdfwiki

VdfWiki_guidelines


Questions

Just post questions here or on the newsgroups --Jka 13:44, 2 November 2007 (CET)


Wiki Structure Proposal

I (Mike) have just modifed the sidebar (the panel on the left of every page) to add "sections". (If any Sysop is not happy with this then it can be undone by editing the page MediaWiki:Sidebar, or by just reverting my changes to it.) I have used the sections as currently laid out on the main page, but I would like to propose a significant restructuring of those sections. I will take no action until there has been reasonable discussion of it here and a consensus reached however.

I would propose something like the following overall structure:

  • Main Page (Brief Product Overview)
    • Product Detail
    • Windows
      • CodeJock
      • OLE/COM/ActiveX
      • Reporting
    • Web
      • AJAX
      • JavaScript
    • Character Mode
      • DOS/Console Mode
      • Unix/Linux
    • Web Services
      • SOA
    • Databases
      • Embedded
      • MS SQL Server
      • Oracle
      • IBM DB/2
      • Pervasive
      • MySQL
      • ODBC

(All comments and abuse will be gratefully received! )

--Mike 02:46, 21 November 2007 (CET)

I agree, the current structure on the main page isn't clear enough at the moment. Hellboy1975 05:37, 21 November 2007 (CET)


Should we have cookbooks = no

That structure looks reasonable. My original idea with the "cookbooks" was to put a list of howto-do-stuffs in there. E.g a list of recipes in them - and have the "other" page contain the description. E.g "Windows" contains the description and "Windows cookbook" contains the recipes. I've found that the early contributions have been about "howto do stuff" (e.g something that should go in the cookbook). I can see now , that there should be no distinction between e.g "Windows" and "Windows cookbook" - they should be the same page. --Jka 09:38, 21 November 2007 (CET)
On the "cookbooks" issue... perhaps using "Categories" might be a help. This is not a subject I understand well enough (yet!), but it seems to me that it might add a multi-dimentional element to how articles are arranged and accessed, so that they can be come at from more than one direction (don't know how yet - research needed!). I think the original idea had merit - that some articles will be of a "howto" nature while others will be more descriptive, others discursive and still others umm... complaining (whining? - "why don't DAW do more with the Linux product?" <g>). In a big Wiki like Wikipedia, searching is usually the only way to start, but with our rather less ambitious subject matter, good organisation might lead people quickly to what they need (even if they didn't know they needed it and didn't know it was there). --Mike 11:12, 21 November 2007 (CET)
Yes . The need for having a "cookbook" can be adressed by having a category for all the different recipees. I think we should proceed in this direction . I removed the cookbook links from the frontpage and the navigation. --Jka 20:12, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Style Guide?

At the suggestion of Hellboy1975 (what is that all about anyway, Matt? <g>) - see Talk:Web_Service_Basics - I have been changing the colour I am using to emphasise stuff - in this case (for now anyway) changing blue to midnightblue to avoid confusion with hypertext links (I'm not sure that is enough - I think I've just made that text look like visited links).

However it would have saved me this effort if I'd had a guideline on what colours etc. to use from the start. I think we need to evolve some kind of consensus "Style Guide" which would help us all use a nice, clear, consistent style for various things. It would be bound to be an evolving document, as we are unlikely to think of everything on day one and will have to be flexible and inclusive rather than prescriptive, but the sooner we start laying it down, the less time will be wasted later fixing stuff up that doesn't match or looks ugly. (I did experiment with using a template - Template:Colorise - but couldn't get what I wanted to work: the amount of time I can afford to devote to learning the WikiMedia Template DSL is strictly limited! <g>) Mike 11:03, 22 November 2007 (CET)

I should have said proscriptive above - it would indeed be prescriptive, by intent! Mike 14:54, 22 November 2007 (CET)

Suggestion for topic

Can I suggest that we add a new section or link on the main page for general development tools and articles that sit outside of the existing Web/Windows/WS/Console categories. Hellboy1975 00:07, 23 November 2007 (CET)