3 ms·
My point is that mediawiki based sites look like web1.0 (https://blog.hallowelt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Metrolook-Skin.png https://blog.hallowelt.com/wp-
by throwaway13000 7y ago
My point is that mediawiki based sites look like web1.0 (https://blog.hallowelt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Metrolook-Skin.png https://blog.hallowelt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Metrol...) vs lets say, confluence pages(https://marketplace-cdn.atlassian.com/files/images/0e313fe9-985d-476c-ac41-bd3f3992ef08.png https://marketplace-cdn.atlassian.com/files/images/0e313fe9-...) or (http://www.play-sql.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Specification-Detail-2.png http://www.play-sql.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Specifica...)
Confluence for example looks like it is a web2.0 software(more space, better fonts, markdown support etc)
- Sohcahtoa82 7y agoAs someone else said, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. A wiki doesn't need to be Web 2.0. The content is nearly completely static once it gets rendered server-side.
- wolco 7y agoMore space = wasted spaced. Better fonts = bigger fonts wasted space, markdown support = no one asked for it In web 2.0 or 3.5.. We hide information from the user and fill up the page with space for full screens while designing for mobile. Wikis want to expose information / link ideas.. encourage browsing pages. Most sites want you to scroll down aimlessly.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- MH15 7y agoAll three of the designs you referenced have a lower information density and poorer design qualities than mediawiki. While mediawiki is not the "best" design it could be, you are going in the wrong direction.