Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Hellboy1975 (talk | contribs) Main Page |
|||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
I understand that there is a [[Data Access Worldwide|DAW]] community site in the works. please consider this when describing available available [[Open Source]] [[Visual DataFlex]] libraries. --[[User:Jka|Jka]] 00:49, 1 December 2007 (CET) | I understand that there is a [[Data Access Worldwide|DAW]] community site in the works. please consider this when describing available available [[Open Source]] [[Visual DataFlex]] libraries. --[[User:Jka|Jka]] 00:49, 1 December 2007 (CET) | ||
== Main Page == | |||
I'm sure you've all noticed by now I've made a bit of a change to the front page. It's more or less the same as before, just with a bit more information for users who are a bit new to the whole wiki thing. What do you guys think? [[User:Hellboy1975|Hellboy1975]] 05:21, 5 December 2007 (CET) |
Revision as of 05:21, 5 December 2007
What would you like to see on this wiki?
Feel free to discuss the purpose of this wiki on this page. You are also welcome to provide feedback on how you want this site to interact with other resources (e.g the newsgroups and vdf-guidance.com) --Jka 23:35, 25 November 2007 (CET)
Overall goal
I think VdfWiki should be a place assemble knowledge and articles in the long term (in a structured manner).
There are some guidelines for keeping VdfWiki on the right track :VdfWiki_guidelines
The newsgroups are still THE place to ask question and chat about current events.--Jka 08:28, 23 November 2007 (CET)
Wiki Structure Proposal
I (Mike) have just modifed the sidebar (the panel on the left of every page) to add "sections". (If any Sysop is not happy with this then it can be undone by editing the page MediaWiki:Sidebar, or by just reverting my changes to it.) I have used the sections as currently laid out on the main page, but I would like to propose a significant restructuring of those sections. I will take no action until there has been reasonable discussion of it here and a consensus reached however.
Overall structure (from Mike)
I would propose something like the following overall structure:
- Main Page (Brief Product Overview)
- Product Detail
- Windows
- CodeJock
- OLE/COM/ActiveX
- Reporting
- Web
- AJAX
- JavaScript
- Character Mode
- DOS/Console Mode
- Unix/Linux
- Web Services
- SOA
- Databases
- Embedded
- MS SQL Server
- Oracle
- IBM DB/2
- Pervasive
- MySQL
- ODBC
(All comments and abuse will be gratefully received! )
--Mike 02:46, 21 November 2007 (CET)
- I agree, the current structure on the main page isn't clear enough at the moment. Hellboy1975 05:37, 21 November 2007 (CET)
- Marco here... I agree too. I'd like to add some gotcha's about moving from DataFlex tables to DB2, accessed from DF32 on Linux and VDF on Win32.
Data Dictionaries
- I also want to add a topic on batch create/update/delete using DataDictionaries. Where would that live? Would it be a topic referenced from Web and Windows and Webservices, or should this be another section, 'Data Dictionaries'?
- I think a section about 'Data Dictionaries' could be great. I'll just add one (also containing the Databases' links from Mike --Jka 10:16, 25 November 2007 (CET)
Suggestion for topic (Development Tools)
Can I suggest that we add a new section or link on the main page for general development tools and articles that sit outside of the existing Web/Windows/WS/Console categories. Hellboy1975 00:07, 23 November 2007 (CET)
- Sounds perfectly sensible to me... "Other" as a general catch-all, or "Other Tools": a bit more specific, but then we might have issues with things that fell outside that and our existing sections. --Mike 00:14, 23 November 2007 (CET)
- I am OK with a "tools" section. We can still lay down the law in that page :P The trick is to create a separate page for each tool we want to describe - and keep the external links down to a minimum (this should make it easier to keep track of the content on the page). I think the title "Development tools" could work. articles not related to these sections can be attached to a specific user page - we should try not to clutter the frontpage and 1st level navigation too much. --Jka 08:15, 23 November 2007 (CET)
Discussing cookbooks
- That structure looks reasonable. My original idea with the "cookbooks" was to put a list of howto-do-stuffs in there. E.g a list of recipes in them - and have the "other" page contain the description. E.g "Windows" contains the description and "Windows cookbook" contains the recipes. I've found that the early contributions have been about "howto do stuff" (e.g something that should go in the cookbook). I can see now , that there should be no distinction between e.g "Windows" and "Windows cookbook" - they should be the same page. --Jka 09:38, 21 November 2007 (CET)
- On the "cookbooks" issue... perhaps using "Categories" might be a help. This is not a subject I understand well enough (yet!), but it seems to me that it might add a multi-dimentional element to how articles are arranged and accessed, so that they can be come at from more than one direction (don't know how yet - research needed!). I think the original idea had merit - that some articles will be of a "howto" nature while others will be more descriptive, others discursive and still others umm... complaining (whining? - "why don't DAW do more with the Linux product?" <g>). In a big Wiki like Wikipedia, searching is usually the only way to start, but with our rather less ambitious subject matter, good organisation might lead people quickly to what they need (even if they didn't know they needed it and didn't know it was there). --Mike 11:12, 21 November 2007 (CET)
- Yes . The need for having a "cookbook" can be adressed by having a category for all the different recipees. I think we should proceed in this direction . I removed the cookbook links from the frontpage and the navigation. --Jka 20:12, 21 November 2007 (CET)
Style Guide?
At the suggestion of Hellboy1975 (what is that all about anyway, Matt? <g>) - see Talk:Web_Service_Basics - I have been changing the colour I am using to emphasise stuff - in this case (for now anyway) changing blue to midnightblue to avoid confusion with hypertext links (I'm not sure that is enough - I think I've just made that text look like visited links).
However it would have saved me this effort if I'd had a guideline on what colours etc. to use from the start. I think we need to evolve some kind of consensus "Style Guide" which would help us all use a nice, clear, consistent style for various things. It would be bound to be an evolving document, as we are unlikely to think of everything on day one and will have to be flexible and inclusive rather than prescriptive, but the sooner we start laying it down, the less time will be wasted later fixing stuff up that doesn't match or looks ugly. (I did experiment with using a template - Template:Colorise - but couldn't get what I wanted to work: the amount of time I can afford to devote to learning the WikiMedia Template DSL is strictly limited! <g>) Mike 11:03, 22 November 2007 (CET)
- I should have said proscriptive above - it would indeed be prescriptive, by intent! Mike 14:54, 22 November 2007 (CET)
- Something like the Wikipedia Manual of Style is always a good place to start. Another place to look for examples are in some of the programming manuals on Wikibooks. Here's one of the pages in the C++ manual for instance. [1] Hellboy1975 00:20, 23 November 2007 (CET)
Opensource/community libraries
I understand that there is a DAW community site in the works. please consider this when describing available available Open Source Visual DataFlex libraries. --Jka 00:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)
Main Page
I'm sure you've all noticed by now I've made a bit of a change to the front page. It's more or less the same as before, just with a bit more information for users who are a bit new to the whole wiki thing. What do you guys think? Hellboy1975 05:21, 5 December 2007 (CET)