[bct] Re: Wikki?

  • From: Tim Cross <tcross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:43:08 +1100

While I understand your concerns, all I can stress is that a wiki does
not have to be like that. If it is the consensus of the group not to
have lots of links in the text, then we just don't put them in there. 

A wikki is just another tool, its up to us how we use it. In the end,
a wikki just generates normal HTML, so there is no difference between
a wikki generated page and a normal HTML page - its all HTML from the
browser perspective. Its not the wikki which is the problem, its users
creating badly structured pages and you can do just as badly with
HTML, wikki markup or any other hypertext formalism. 

Having said this, I don't want to come across as the wikki
evangelist. I through the wikki idea into the ring because I've seen
it used very successfully in a number of different projects and with a
number of different groups. If the group decides some other format is
better, then I have no problem with that. However, I cannot think of
another tool which costs nothing and which involves as low maintenance
for somebody. Therefore, I'm addressing Dan's concern on the 'too many
links' issue simply because while it is a valid observation, its not
the wikki which is at fault, but rather bad page design and it would
be a shame to discount an option for the wrong reasons.


The Scarlet Wombat writes:
 > The problem with this form of information dissemination is that most often, 
 > the text is interspersed with many links.  The upside of this is that you 
 > can click on those and learn more about particular words or concepts.  The 
 > downside is that the various screen readers handle links differently from 
 > regular text, so you hear the word link with each link, or a sound, or a 
 > different voice.  Regardless, for some of us, it is so disruptive so as to 
 > make the wiki format not worth the trouble.  For a good example of how 
 > ridiculous this can get, look up the word brane, spelled b r a n e, on 
 > wikipedia.com, and see that the text is riddled with about fifty imbedded 
 > links.  By the way, it is a physics term relating to n-dimensional 
 > hyperspace, but just a brief listen will serve to illustrate the point.
 > I would recommend we not go this direction for a type of FAQ, it could get 
 > frustrating and many would not get the maximal use from it.
 > Dan 

Other related posts: