Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

c2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#21

Post by edwintorok »

xiaq wrote: post #5

Best wishes on the switch, but I'm afraid that the leap being taken is too big. Suddenly we go from bare HTML served by cgi to a single-page, style-rich and interaction-rich JavaScript application. That said, I actually like the new website, except for the bottom bar. When i scroll quickly on iPad it doesn't always stay at the bottom, and it is especially ugly when there is one page being viewed. I'm sure there will…

Is the switch complete yet though? The new wiki seems to have almost no content...

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#22

Post by 314 »

blueskin_ wrote: post #12

Wow, that's some bad usability there. Talk about chasing the shiny over form and function. Javascript pages are the 'Flash site' of the 2010s and I can't wait until it's similarly consigned to its rightful place in the dustbin of history. All they do is waste my CPU time and memory, force me to enable a scripting language that is riddled with vulnerabilities just to see some content, and run more slowly than real pag…

Why is the usability bad? Pages are pleasant to read in that aspect ratio and it seems to provide a good solution to what to do with the bits around the edges. I like the stack of places that I've been before as context and think that it encourages exploration and clicking around more than the original site.

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#23

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #16
notthemessiah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a single-page app? Wiki has always been a living document, best that the implementation formalize and facilitate a nature. If you really miss the classic format or need time to adapt, nothing stops you from using a Federated Wiki client that generates a page from the JSON.

The canonical form of a wiki page should be a page; it really is a document and so should be in a document format (in contrast, for something like a bank statement the data is primary (in some sort of structured format with e.g. numeric fields) and the page is merely a representation of it).

[deleted]

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#24

Post by detaro »

314 wrote: post #22
blueskin_ wrote: post #12

Wow, that's some bad usability there. Talk about chasing the shiny over form and function. Javascript pages are the 'Flash site' of the 2010s and I can't wait until it's similarly consigned to its rightful place in the dustbin of history. All they do is waste my CPU time and memory, force me to enable a scripting language that is riddled with vulnerabilities just to see some content, and run more slowly than real pag…

Why is the usability bad? Pages are pleasant to read in that aspect ratio and it seems to provide a good solution to what to do with the bits around the edges. I like the stack of places that I've been before as context and think that it encourages exploration and clicking around more than the original site.

I'd actually prefer the panes to be a bit wider, but that's not that important.

What I find weird is that I can go 2 layers back on the same page, but then I suddenly have to use the browser's back button to go further up. I have to use the back button to close the right-most pane. And sometimes the back button does not work, or I have to use it multiple times to get "one step" back. Loading times feel worse, because you stare at a blank rectangle and wonder "is this article empty" and then it suddenly pops in.

I accidentally dragged a paragraph around and had to go back to the front page and follow a link there to remove the local copy I created. I also don't know how I would publish that copy if it were an intentional edit.

I'm sure it makes sense once you've understood it, but discoverability seems bad. Despite all its flaws TiddlyWiki seems to get the basic SPA wiki UI "more right" to me.

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#25

Post by notthemessiah »

lmm wrote: post #16
notthemessiah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a single-page app? Wiki has always been a living document, best that the implementation formalize and facilitate a nature. If you really miss the classic format or need time to adapt, nothing stops you from using a Federated Wiki client that generates a page from the JSON.

The canonical form of a wiki page should be a page; it really is a document and so should be in a document format (in contrast, for something like a bank statement the data is primary (in some sort of structured format with e.g. numeric fields) and the page is merely a representation of it).

You speak prescriptively of a canonical form, but I do not know what canon do you refer to. What do you define as a "page"? Are you possibly arbitrarily drawing a line at a HTTP GET request between the article and the edit button? If that's the case, Google Docs and Etherpad would fail to meet your definition of a page/document. Right now we see a declining rate of collaboration on Wikipedia, so it's natural that the evolution of the wiki would do more to encourage editing/forking: http://mashable.com/2013/01/08/wikipedia-losing-editors/

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#26

Post by [deleted] »

edwintorok wrote: post #21
xiaq wrote: post #5

Best wishes on the switch, but I'm afraid that the leap being taken is too big. Suddenly we go from bare HTML served by cgi to a single-page, style-rich and interaction-rich JavaScript application. That said, I actually like the new website, except for the bottom bar. When i scroll quickly on iPad it doesn't always stay at the bottom, and it is especially ugly when there is one page being viewed. I'm sure there will…

Is the switch complete yet though? The new wiki seems to have almost no content...

[deleted]

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#27

Post by HelloNurse »

314 wrote: post #22
blueskin_ wrote: post #12

Wow, that's some bad usability there. Talk about chasing the shiny over form and function. Javascript pages are the 'Flash site' of the 2010s and I can't wait until it's similarly consigned to its rightful place in the dustbin of history. All they do is waste my CPU time and memory, force me to enable a scripting language that is riddled with vulnerabilities just to see some content, and run more slowly than real pag…

Why is the usability bad? Pages are pleasant to read in that aspect ratio and it seems to provide a good solution to what to do with the bits around the edges. I like the stack of places that I've been before as context and think that it encourages exploration and clicking around more than the original site.

Delayed display of text is terribly bad. Consider the following scenario: 1) I click a link to "Decorator Pattern". 2) A new panel with the title and no text appears. 3) I assume a major malfunction. 4) The text of the page deigns to appear.

Then I tried clicking on "Category: Pattern" and page text took about a minute, not a few seconds.

Regarding the "stack" of previously read pages, it offers a typical stack behaviour: it can be blown away easily and efficiently. You can forget large pieces of history by the apparently harmless interaction of clicking on links in a previous pane.

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#28

Post by emsy »

notthemessiah wrote: post #25
lmm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The canonical form of a wiki page should be a page; it really is a document and so should be in a document format (in contrast, for something like a bank statement the data is primary (in some sort of structured format with e.g. numeric fields) and the page is merely a representation of it).

You speak prescriptively of a canonical form, but I do not know what canon do you refer to. What do you define as a "page"? Are you possibly arbitrarily drawing a line at a HTTP GET request between the article and the edit button? If that's the case, Google Docs and Etherpad would fail to meet your definition of a page/document. Right now we see a declining rate of collaboration on Wikipedia, so it's natural that the…

Speaking for me, it has nothing to do with philosophical principles like "keeping the web as a web of hyperlinked documents" or to use html and http as intended. Rather, it's using the right tool for the problem. Google Docs and Etherpad are word processors first and then document collections. A wiki is a document collection with the ability to edit. For a document collection, it's important that you can simply download, copy and crawl the documents. Of course this is possible with a SPA, but now your solving problems for your tool instead of the other way round.

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#29

Post by notthemessiah »

edwintorok wrote: post #21
xiaq wrote: post #5

Best wishes on the switch, but I'm afraid that the leap being taken is too big. Suddenly we go from bare HTML served by cgi to a single-page, style-rich and interaction-rich JavaScript application. That said, I actually like the new website, except for the bottom bar. When i scroll quickly on iPad it doesn't always stay at the bottom, and it is especially ugly when there is one page being viewed. I'm sure there will…

Is the switch complete yet though? The new wiki seems to have almost no content...

http://c2.fed.wiki.org/migrating-wiki.html

You might have forgotton how to use a wiki: you create pages that haven't been written yet.

Re: A complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application

#30

Post by andybak »

lsh wrote: post #15
andybak wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're commenting on a topic that the majority of people here have probably debated and thought about at great length. I can't help you think that calls for a slightly more nuanced argument than the one above.

no argument is being made, stop being po-faced. I agree with his sentiments and wish the internet were otherwise. I don't care how thoroughly brow beaten everyone is about this, I want it recorded that this is dumb and unnecessary.

> I want it recorded that this is dumb and unnecessary.

But it's not that simple. Some uses of javascript genuinely add value - even to content sites. The real discussion is about cost vs benefit not "All interactivity is bad".

Shades of grey, dear sir. Shades of grey...

Post reply on HN