[dokuwiki] Idea about managing Plugins on dokuwiki.org
- From: Andreas Haerter <dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:03:36 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I just want to discuss a small idea about how to make it easier for
(new) users to find good, *maintained* plugins (a topic we talked about
@ FrOSCamp on Saturday).
IMHO, a plugin search + the final decision to use it is mainly based on:
1) The plugin name
If the name of the plugin fits the task description exactly, it is
a massive plus.
Example1: If the user wants to create ToDo lists, the plugin named
"ToDo" will definitely win in the first place, no matter
if there are better alternatives or the plugin is
orphaned and maybe breaks something in current DokuWiki
releases.
DISCLAIMER: this is a fictive example - I don't use the
todo-Plugin or something similar and
therefore I don't know anything about its
quality or if there are any (better/worse)
alternatives.
Example2: If you want to use DokuWiki as blog, you'll find the
blog-Plugin. You may never ever think about the BlogTNG
plugin, even if this may fit better for /some/ users.
Additionally, the best names for specific task (like todo and
blog) are already in use and not available if you want to publish
an alternative.
2) The popularity
Sometimes you are browsing the web without a real target. I think
it is the same regarding plugins when you start using DokuWiki.
Some users are propably starting by sorting the list after
popularity[1] in order to find interesting plugins.
By this way, you'll find "note", but not "wrap" which may fit the
needs of many users in a better way.
The problem: the older a plugin, the higher its popularity (in
general). Because of this, even some generally obsolete plugins
like "displaywikipage" have got a relatively high ranking. But the
fact that something was useful once does not imply that it is
still useful today.
Because of 1) and 2), the age of a plugin is influencing the search
process much more than the real plugin quality (IMHO).
Therefore: what about an additional plugin guide on the top of the
plugins-page, based on tasks and common needs? Something like the form
e.g. AMD provides for choosing a driver? [2]
1st col: What do you want to do?
2nd col: The plugins fitting the selected task
3rd col: Qick desc (1-3 sentences) of the selected plugin
If the plugins recommended this way are handpicked by a team (criteria:
working well/tested with the current stable, maintained, documented,
basic XSS/security testing), this would also help to make is easier for
new users to prevent the usage of crappy/orphaned plugins. And if
someone wants to see his plugin on the list, he contacts the team and
let them evaluate if it is "good enough" to get listed.
Bad idea?
[1]<http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugins?pluginsort=c>
[2]<http://support.amd.com/de/gpudownload/Pages/index.aspx>
- --
Andreas <http://blog.andreas-haerter.com>
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkyXvhgACgkQkQNYqObGxVD07QCdGJkY8KKJSG09Mc809YV4V7wA
RHAAn3ufCqrmE9gsac35YvoGUrSxsd97
=X7sB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://www.dokuwiki.org/mailinglist
Other related posts:
