In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
theme(?).
Take for example the distances of ToC to Sec (some screenshots in GRASS-Wiki's
Sandbox). The absence of this distance is, indeed, something minor. Yet, why
not have it? Whenever I add an empty line to create some breathing room, it
doesn't look nice.
Then there is, as usual, the color question! Shouldn't the GRASS-wiki be
wearing its own colors? It surely deserves so.
Question(s): are there any objections to slowly and slightly alter the current
layout for
- default distances between ToC and Secs, eventually alter some of the
distances between (sub-)Secs
- to match the GRASS-wiki color scheme to GRASS' native colors (i.e. the GRASS
web-page colors?)
I think these are some good ideas. Could it be that the MediaWiki version we’re using on the GRASS wiki is just plain old? MediaWiki’s made a lot of progress over the past few years, and I see that the GRASS Wiki’s About page hasn’t been updatd since February 2007. Back then MediaWiki was at version 1.9, now 1.9 isn’t supported any more and the latest version was 1.20, with 1.19 as LTS. I’m not sure if that means our Wiki is still that version, but if it is, an update would be a good idea.
Unfortunately, I’m not really about to help out any with any efforts in that direction at the moment… I just think that it’s a good idea
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Nikos Alexandris
<nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
GRASSers,
In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
theme(?).
Well, I would distinguish between content and layout...: the Mediawiki
version is
one thing, page maintenance another.
> GRASSers,
> In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
> only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
> theme(?).
Markus:
Well, I would distinguish between content and layout...: the Mediawiki
version is one thing, page maintenance another.
True. Content is the essence. A clean look shouldn't be forgotten as well --
it might invite a reader/visitor to step in.
I think these are some good ideas. Could it be that the MediaWiki version
we're using on the GRASS wiki is just plain old? MediaWiki's made a lot of
progress over the past few years, and I see that the GRASS Wiki's About page
hasn't been updatd since February 2007. Back then MediaWiki was at version
1.9, now 1.9 isn't supported any more and the latest version was 1.20, with
1.19 as LTS. I'm not sure if that means our Wiki is still that version, but
if it is, an update would be a good idea.
huh, we are running 1.18.1 (last version from SVN) [1] (released
2012-01-11). Not really old... Anyway I am planning to switch to 1.20
(running from git) in January. With LTS you are referring probably to
Ubuntu world. OSGeo servers run on Debian
> I think these are some good ideas. Could it be that the MediaWiki version
> we're using on the GRASS wiki is just plain old? MediaWiki's made a lot of
> progress over the past few years, and I see that the GRASS Wiki's About
> page hasn't been updatd since February 2007. Back then MediaWiki was at
> version 1.9, now 1.9 isn't supported any more and the latest version was
> 1.20, with 1.19 as LTS. I'm not sure if that means our Wiki is still that
> version, but if it is, an update would be a good idea.
Martin Landa:
huh, we are running 1.18.1 (last version from SVN) [1] (released
2012-01-11). Not really old...
That's good to know
Anyway I am planning to switch to 1.20
(running from git) in January. With LTS you are referring probably to
Ubuntu world. OSGeo servers run on Debian
On Sunday 30 of December 2012 10:43:56 Martin Landa wrote:
Hi,
2012/12/30 Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net>:
>> Anyway I am planning to switch to 1.20
>> (running from git) in January. With LTS you are referring probably to
>> Ubuntu world. OSGeo servers run on Debian
>>
>> [1] http://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Special:Version
>
> @Martin: are there any objections if I retouch some of the Templates?
of course not, do you have a plan?
Sure
Specifically, my above question concerns some of the "Move to", "To be moved",
etc. boxes. I want to change their appearance, rephrase etc.
Generally speaking though:
1. The Special Pages is really a guide in order to clean-up the Wiki.
Initially, not much of a groundbreaking ideas required here.
2. I'd like to engage in the aesthetics of the GRASS-Wiki. I think the GRASS-
Wiki, being a holder of high-quality material, deserves to look good.
In any case, I don't intent to do major changes without the community's
consent. I will prepare in time some practical examples. If they fit the
picture, I'd like them to see alive.
BTW, where are the official GRASS-color combinations?
2012/12/29 Daniel Lee <lee@isi-solutions.org>:
> I think these are some good ideas. Could it be that the MediaWiki version
> we're using on the GRASS wiki is just plain old?
..
Martin:
huh, we are running 1.18.1 (last version from SVN) [1] (released
2012-01-11). Not really old... Anyway I am planning to switch to 1.20
(running from git) in January.
@Martin & whoever is interested,
I am discussing about GRASS-Wiki's styling with an expert friend.
Some questions:
- which version of MediaWiki's CSS is in use, I mean in GRASS-Wiki? (-->
monobook?)
- can I have (later, after presenting some new appearance customisations)
access to GRASS-Wiki's css stylesheet(s)?
> 2012/12/29 Daniel Lee <lee@isi-solutions.org>:
> > I think these are some good ideas. Could it be that the MediaWiki
> > version we're using on the GRASS wiki is just plain old?
..
Martin:
> huh, we are running 1.18.1 (last version from SVN) [1] (released
> 2012-01-11). Not really old... Anyway I am planning to switch to 1.20
> (running from git) in January.
@Martin & whoever is interested,
I am discussing about GRASS-Wiki's styling with an expert friend.
Some questions:
- which version of MediaWiki's CSS is in use, I mean in GRASS-Wiki? (-->
monobook?)
- can I have (later, after presenting some new appearance customisations)
access to GRASS-Wiki's css stylesheet(s)?
On Saturday 29 of December 2012 17:15:33 Nikos Alexandris wrote:
GRASSers,
In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
theme(?).
I've been behind and very slow in maintaining pages. It takes always time...
you know :-).
However, some impressions of a beautiful custom css designed by
<archi.tect.gr> after in-depth discussions we had...
firstly, I like screenshots on your user page. Moreover, I'm always
confused by == == and === === sections in default wikimedia style
(former is big but later is bold). Your style [1] does not have this
problem, nice.
On 16 January 2013 02:19, Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
On Saturday 29 of December 2012 17:15:33 Nikos Alexandris wrote:
GRASSers,
In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
theme(?).
I've been behind and very slow in maintaining pages. It takes always time...
you know :-).
However, some impressions of a beautiful custom css designed by
<archi.tect.gr> after in-depth discussions we had...
On Saturday 29 of December 2012 17:15:33 Nikos Alexandris wrote:
GRASSers,
In my humble opinion, GRASS-wiki pages can become quite in-attractive. Not
only due to lengthy and out-dated pages. It is so, I guess, due to the
theme(?).
I’ve been behind and very slow in maintaining pages. It takes always time…
you know :-).
However, some impressions of a beautiful custom css designed by
<archi.tect.gr> after in-depth discussions we had…
Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstance be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
New GRASS-GIS-Wiki logo: What about "GRASS Wiki" instead of "Wiki"? We
call these pages GRASS Wiki, do we? So, why not make it clear for
novices and visitors? Moreover, there is no GRASS (GIS) text in pages
now, except for the title.
