Personal tools
 
Views

Debatepedia:Community forum (technical)

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 15:57, 24 October 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Debate software proposals and modifications, ongoing list:)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 00:44, 8 November 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 3: Line 3:
==Debate software proposals and modifications, ongoing list:== ==Debate software proposals and modifications, ongoing list:==
-'''Immediate problems:'''+'''Priorities:'''
-*'''Eliminate all software cross-over to regular pages.''' Regular pages should look and function exactly like regular Wikipedia pages with regular tables of contents. We don't need the pencil icon either on regular pages. In fact, it fouls-up the "contents" listings of subsections.+#Radio functionality.
-*'''Isolate software functionality on debate pages to ONLY the pro/con sections.''' Right now, the functionality extends to wherever there are "=== ===", whether this is in the background section, or the references section. This is clearly faulty. Users should be able to put in the background boxes or the references section any subsection type = = == == or === === without the software imposing itself in these areas erroneously.+#Taking steps to ensure that people are less likely to screw up tables:
-*'''Fix the discussion page:''' Can't save on them now.+##Spacing at bottom of content box between content and subsequent table code (four spaces)
-*'''Bring back "add argument" icon functionality:''' This was the icon placed next to the pencil icon in pro/con boxes that allowed users to add an argument threat to the top of the box quickly, without seeing any other content nor code in the editing window. +##Table code cues.
 +#Citation templates.
 +#New debate functionality should be made more clear in relation to regular debate creation function.
 +#Using debate subquestion background box differently; as a place for user comments related to the subquestion?
 +'''Projects:'''
 +#Voting options. - One of the purposes of the site is to determine where users stand, or to get them to take a stand. One way of pressing this point would be to have them not just vote, but actually give the main rationales for their vote (this could be a window that pops down right under the vote circle/box); almost a test or check that individuals are actually thinking. This could then go into a new page, where all of the user’s positions/votes and rationales are presented in the respective pro/con format.
-*New debate functionality should be made more clear in relation to regular debate creation function.  
-*Automatic generation of new user pamplet? 
-*Automatic signage for registered editors? 
-*Vote rationales and recording page. - One of the purposes of the site is to determine where users stand, or to get them to take a stand. One way of pressing this point would be to have them not just vote, but actually give the main rationales for their vote (this could be a window that pops down right under the vote circle/box); almost a test or check that individuals are actually thinking. This could then go into a new page, where all of the user’s positions/votes and rationales are presented in the respective pro/con format.  
-*Using debate subquestion background box differently; as a place for user comments related to the subquestion? 
==See Also== ==See Also==
*[[Debatepedia:Community forum]] *[[Debatepedia:Community forum]]
*[[Debatepedia:Community portal]] *[[Debatepedia:Community portal]]

Revision as of 00:44, 8 November 2007

The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Debatepedia.

Debate software proposals and modifications, ongoing list:

Priorities:

  1. Radio functionality.
  2. Taking steps to ensure that people are less likely to screw up tables:
    1. Spacing at bottom of content box between content and subsequent table code (four spaces)
    2. Table code cues.
  3. Citation templates.
  4. New debate functionality should be made more clear in relation to regular debate creation function.
  5. Using debate subquestion background box differently; as a place for user comments related to the subquestion?

Projects:

  1. Voting options. - One of the purposes of the site is to determine where users stand, or to get them to take a stand. One way of pressing this point would be to have them not just vote, but actually give the main rationales for their vote (this could be a window that pops down right under the vote circle/box); almost a test or check that individuals are actually thinking. This could then go into a new page, where all of the user’s positions/votes and rationales are presented in the respective pro/con format.

See Also

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.