Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Site usability: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Site usability (view source)
Revision as of 19:50, 16 June 2010
, 13 years agoFix category link
m (admission of ignorance) |
m (Fix category link) |
||
Line 4:
::: I thought that's what programming was ''supposed'' to be. :) Besides, sets make it calculate which should be brought up. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
: People should be more liberal about adding pages to categories, whether or not those categories are subcategories to the "Solutions by Task" category. As better-defined categories are found, populated, reorganized and repopulated those can replace the current subcategories in the "Solutions by Task" category. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 06:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that it didn't really catch on and that it should catch on. The categories that are in place now are just an ad hoc solution. We need some discussion on what kind of system we want for categorization. I liked the category tree idea, but if we go that route I think it would be better with the category tree MW extension. I'm not sure what other options would be. People who want to get involved in this should review the current category structure of [[:Category:Solutions by Programming Task]] and evaluate it. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I wholly disagree that the categories should be planned in advance. Different patterns and associations are apparent to different people, different people see different tasks, and not all of those with the relevant bits of discussion will even see this bit of discussion, and I've found that things tend to work best if you let people apply their own solutions, and then promote the ones that work best. The first step is to get people to apply their own solutions. I tried to do something like that with the user collections template, didn't have time to go farther, and nobody else tried it. The other side of the problem is considering how many people want to be involved in the planning of the site; just about all planning takes place in the wiki/pump before it goes into effect, but I can count on one hand the number of users who regularly chime in on anything other than syntax highlighting issues. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:::: Planning categories in advance is a nice idea, but rather impractical given the amount of effort it takes to write a task. Moreover, one of the key advantages of a Wiki is that you ''don't'' have to plan everything in advance; you can retrofit things afterwards. There is also one thing wrong with planning categories; that tends to lead to a tree rather than a web. I'd rather see every task being in at least two task-group categorizations so that people who think about the problem in different ways can still find what they're after. (But a plan for what categories you'd like to see, that's fine but don't just plan it, get on and do it. ☺) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
| |||