FamilySearch Wiki talk:Technical Meeting

Suggestions for page improvement

 * Add a second box next to the one for upcoming meetings instead of having it below. Would like to keep a short list of the recent meetings in the past two weeks. (Done)
 * Add a box for follow-up action to take based upon discussions during meetings. Don't want to have follow-up items stored in every week's agenda, but rather have a single list on the meetings home page.
 * Move the page to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. -Fran

Although this page is all pretty, I do not believe it matches the coloring of the rest of the Wiki. It also is rather difficult for the average user to edit this page due to all the boxes created in Wikitext. Both of these are major issues in my opinion Thomas_Lerman 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the boxes are any more difficult than tables. In fact, I think they are easier to use, but that's just me. Are we assuming all the colors throughout the Wiki are supposed to blend or be the same coloring throughout the Wiki? I'm unaware of any style guidelines related to this concern. If the guidelines exist, they should be documented in the Manual of Style. --Fran 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To edit a box, one MUST go to Wikitext. As soon as someone needs to do that, I believe we would loose the average user. No guideline exists on coloring, I would like we would want to choose from certain color palettes instead of colors that do not really match or putting up a rainbow. Maybe we should have a discussion on this. Thomas_Lerman 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the compelling reason for forcing wikitext editing?
Is there a compelling reason why this page has been rendered more complicated to edit than a normal page? The reason I ask is that I just tried to edit this page, and it was not a good experience. I strongly dislike being forced to go into wikitext view to edit content because I am unable to discern code from content quickly. Basically, when I'm forced to go into wikitext view to edit, it wastes a lot of my time because I am forced to slog through a bunch of code that I'm not interested in editing to get to the content that I actually want to edit. I honestly think there are two kinds of people -- those who don't mind operating in a screen full of code and those to whom a screen full of code is distracting to the point of agony. I am the latter type. I think there are more people like me than there are of the type who don't mind slogging through code. If most people liked to operate in code-clouded screens, MS Word wouldn't have blown away WordPerfect by offering the first PC-based WYSIWYG word processor, and Microsoft wouldn't have bothered to follow Apple into the world of the Graphical User Interface. I feel the same way about this page's overcomplication of editing that I felt about Edit and Contribute when it, too, forced users to go into code view to edit it. What am I failing to understand? Why is it necessary to render this page harder to edit? Why is it necessary to force users to enter wikitext mode to edit? RitcheyMT 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The many colors are confusing to those seeking meaning
P.S. I also find the several colors distracting. I mean, we could make every word on a wiki page a different color, but what's the point? Some people who are visual learners are distracted by too many colors, so when a designer asks himself whether some page element should be a different color, a good question to ask is "What am I trying to achieve by setting this off in a different color?" If everything is highlighted, nothing is highlighted. If everything is colorful, nothing stands out. If every heading has a different color, it can confuse the reader who tries to figure out what's important (and therefore which color is most important). RitcheyMT 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Archives
The following content on this discussion page needs clean-up. Some needs to be move to archive. Others still need follow-through.

Old Instructions

Attend our community meeting remotely! To attend, you will need to connect to both the audio and video portions:


 * VIDEO: Click here to access the meeting. If you find that you are "waiting for the meeting to start" and it is close to starting or should have started, try hitting refresh on your browser.
 * AUDIO: To attend the audio portion, you may connect in one of two methods. Both methods will be recorded with the video portion. The first method is recommended and preferable. Using either method, you may mute at any time by pressing *6.
 * The best method is to first connect to the video portion. The video portion will display a window to allow you to put in your telephone number. If you do such, the system will call you. To enter after being called, you will be prompted to press 1 to enter the meeting. This allows the video portion to see who is speaking.
 * The alternative method allows you to call in to connect with our telephone bridge: Call 1-866-274-9016. At the prompt, provide the participant code 336769 followed by #. This method is less desirable as it displays you as an "Unknown dial in" attendee in addition to your video attendee. You may participate with the audio bridge without seeing the video, but people may not know who you are. Some systems may not allow you to press telephone keys after the connection has been made.

Please TRANSCRIBE

How can I and any other deaf/hard of hearing be expected to hear the recordings? Dsammy 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to apologize

Hi everyone, I really really really apologize for our lack of proper communication and for appearing to drop off the face of the earth. Most of the team has been asked to participate in a very high visibility high level task force. We were pulled onto this task force team with little notice and with the expectation originally that it would take a certain small amount of time. Of course, that didn't happen and the time frame kept expanding--a day or two at a time. Because of that we completely intended to hold the community meetings and only canceled them after our task force kept running right over the time of the meeting. I am not at liberty to tell you any more at this time about what we are working on because it is still not firm, but it will all become clear to you once we can talk about it. This is a short term distraction and I can assure you is no reflection at all on our own or the organization's feeling toward the Wiki project. In fact, just the opposite. It is the success of the wiki that has pulled all of us in to this task force. So please continue on. If you need to run the meeting without us we will help figure out how to do that.

Jimgreene 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

'''Would anyone be opposed to moving this meeting to Thursdays from 1:30-2:30 PM (mountain time)? '''

I personally would like to see if stay on Wednesdays. It works well for my schedule. Why the preposed change, Kip? Thomas Lerman 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would necessitate my moving another meeting, but I can do that. Either time is all right with me. Jbparker 16:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Some have expressed an interest in having the product owner (Jim Greene) present. He has mentoned that he is unable to make it at the current time on Wednesdays. Kip 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed User Group Agenda items.

1. Show us how you make an enlargeable image like the one you have on the main page. In fact, teach us how to to add images just exactly like you did on the main page. Do all our images need an Intellectual Reserve copyright, or may we make them public domain if we like?

Diltsgd 13:15, 8 February 2008 (MST)

2. I'd like to have someone explain more about the editor, and how the Wikitext works. More specifically why does it behave so strangely around bold, italic and underline and add unintended stuff when you save?

Diltsgd 12:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)

3. Please teach us how to use the editor anchor. For example, I would like to link to the Phonetic Substitutes Table which is below the Commonly Misread Letters Table in the article on Spelling Substitution Tables for the United States and Canada. I would like to go straight to the second part of the article. I suspect I could do this if I knew how anchors worked. Could I link directly to the Phonetic Substitute Table from another article such as the Guessing a Name Variation article #17. Please show us the mechanics of how to do this.

Diltsgd 21:55, 10 February 2008 (MST)

Given what David has asked, I'm thinking that what we need to do is know how to break up a longer article into sections, each with it's own edit button, and an outline at the top (much like the user group agenda page looks like. It's easy to do when creating new pages, but is there a way then to break down an existing article into segments without going through all kinds of hoops? JamesAnderson 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Why do so many "how-to" so called articles have a wierd note saying we should use the discussion tab rather than reading an article explaining how to accomplish some task. That ubiquitous use the discussion tab note is driving me nuts. I don't click on an article because I want a discussion of the topic, I click on the article because I want to read how to do it. Diltsgd 22:35, 10 February 2008 (MST)

5. Why does the editor sometimes turn a URL link into a footnote number? Diltsgd 01:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)


 * You probably should poke around with the MediaWiki markup help. The editor turns some external URLs into footnotes when it thinks they are a citation. MediaWiki help is available at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing The Earl 08:48, 5 March 2008 (MST)