Analyzing the status quo

We need to change the out of the box experience

Assessment of the current surface of TWiki 4.2.3

This project does not yet follow the guidelines as laid out in UserExperienceTaskTeamProjects. Please help improve this page.

Assessment from Martin Seibert

Public document For new wiki-projects in a large German media company, designers and frontend-developers have to make a lot of changes, because they are convinced that TWiki is too ugly for a standard customer. MartinSeibert decided to document these changes now and share this knowledge with you.

Design-Changes on the Surface, that are needed

TWiki ist in der Standardversion häßlich und mit einer schlechten Usability ausgestattet. Deshalb muss es bei jeder neuen Installation angepasst werden, um die gröbsten Usability-Schnitzer zu entfernen. Hier wird anhand einer aktuellen Implementierung aufgezeigt, welche Änderungen im Vergleich zum Standard erforderlich sind. Die Anweisungen sind in englisch gehalten, damit Sie direkt auch an die Community.Foswiki-Community zur Verbesserung kommuniziert werden können: ("TWiki is ugly in the standard version and is equipped with bad usability. Therefore it have to be adopted at each new installation for removal of the worst usability-blunders. Here the necessary changes are demonstrated on the basis of an actual installation. The directions are in english for communication to the Community.Foswiki-Community for enhancement:")

May I change this content

Feel free to add explanations and details. Add new changes, that are needed. But if you disagree with an action (e.g. you want to keep the two search prompts) say so in the UsabilityChangesTalkPage? .

Also see UserInterfaceWishList where you can add your wishes for new release skin.

Would it be possible to provide English translations?

DONE Some pictures referenced on this topic require to login into an external site. Please, remove the login need or the references. wink

My Assessment goes here...

Web Naming issues

(I have allowed myself to mash up MichaelDaum's constructive ideas and my inputs on the problem of web names. I threw out my rather philosophical discussion about the word "webs" for the sake of continuing the discussion and keeping it readable. I hope that's ok with you, Michael. Feel free to change smile )

A lot of people agree that "Main" and "Twiki" web names for standard installation are confusing names - the content stored in each is of different categories.

YogiParish proposes re-naming of standard webs into "Community/Users", "Admin(?)" and "Documentation".

MichaelDaum raises the question: Where would "Admin documentation" be? It obviously belongs to both webs: "Admin" and "Docu".

YogiParish's latest unedited blarb: About the example Admin Docu: If you look at this from the various different LevelOfExperience? personas (a proposal I am working on for taking level of experience as different possible user personas) it becomes easier. Admin Docu will be searched for in the Documentation web, but at the same time it is expected to be linked from an "Admin" web into the Documentation web at the right places.

That's because people that need the admin documentation are usually rather fresh users of foswiki. The have moved from "normal" users to "admin" users, ie they are already familiar with the Documentation web and will find things much faster.

I think that Michael is right that it is hard to tell where to put content just based on the name. I would like to agree on a process that is clear to everybody why something is put in a certain web. (even when that decision might be wrong and needs to be changed later).

But I'm wandering off again: The main question remains - are there better names for the "standard" webs? Should we discuss this further in the project site structure?

-- YogiParish - 04 Dec 2008 - 07:52

About TWiki web: I think it simply does not work out to reorganize the TWiki web (been already renamed to System in Foswiki) by splitting it up. Instead, the content should be restructured within the web by leveraging the concept of categories. Thus a topic can be in one or more categories at the same time and thus work around any artificial physical constraint by separating Foswiki's default content into two webs/directories. There is already a category system shipped with Foswiki, which frankly needs a redesign/overhaul in its own. Anyway: going with categories and less instead of more webs for this content is the right way to go, IMHO.

About Sandbox: this is a quite useful thing that new users really like. However, it should not be visible by default as its purpose interferes with what the user wants to create.

About Main: should be called Users - a namespace for user profiles/homepages.

Which leads to the real problem: whatever Foswiki's webs will be named - their naming will interfer with the webs the user wants to create. In the end the user wants to see his own webs and categories, not the default ones. This means that the best we can do is to hide as much as possible the Users, System and Sandbox webs.

What really would help users is a clearly explained guideline when to create a new web, when to create subwebs, and why to do so. Even offering different scenarios. Unfortunately, Foswiki has got no first-steps-wizard that would set up the initial empty web where the user can start putting his concent right away, without mixing it up with user homepages (as is the case with Main) or Sandbox (like Rod did) or even altering the System web content thus complicating upgrades.

What most users do is to create one extra empty web, called like the company or just Home. We could do the same with just one simple message: put your content here.

-- MichaelDaum - 04 Dec 2008 - 12:57

I agree 100% with MichaelDaum. I think the administrative namespaces should be completely separate from the user-generated namespace(s). I also think that "Special pages", as MediaWiki? calls them, shouldn't be named pages at all, just queries. For example, http://myserver.org/foswiki/MyTopic?statistics not http://myserver.org/foswiki/MyTopic/WebStatistics. It's silly to have pages that say "Don't edit this page!".

-- BobBagwill - 05 Dec 2008 - 16:17

So summing up so far:

I agree with both of you on these points.

The longer I think about the documentation though, the more I think it should be in its own web. I see several reasons for this:

I do not say, that every bit of documentation should be stored in a documentation web, but having a well defined documentation especially for foswiki beginners would be nice. Even now, I am still terrified when I have to look up something on Twiki.org, knowing that I will spend endless hours in various web's tag clouds, search windows, and articles that date back to the stone age smile

-- YogiParish - 05 Dec 2008 - 23:18

Hmm... if the system web shouldn't be allowed to change, what is it there for? Documentation and ... what?

I think these are the webs a user should see after a fairly normal standard installation on his left bar (and in the following order)

If there is a system web, I think it should be hidden from the non-admin, it's just way too confusing.

If there are no objections, I will move this into a more appropriate topic - it is in infinitesimal change, I think wink

-- YogiParish - 10 Dec 2008 - 17:30

-- JoachimSchmidt - 27 Dec 2008 - 12:28

You'd like to tell us what you think current TWiki could do better?

Go for it!
The copyright of the content on this website is held by the contributing authors, except where stated elsewhere. see CopyrightStatement. Creative Commons LicenseGet Foswiki at sourceforge.net. Fast, secure and Free Open Source software downloads