12 ms·

Tangent: Why does Wikipedia use a sound plug-in that doesn't tell you how long the sound clip is, nor allow you to drag a slider to move through the sound clip?

Tangent: Why does Wikipedia use a sound plug-in that doesn't tell you how long the sound clip is, nor allow you to drag a slider to move through the sound clip? This sort of decrepit UI (and the community's willingness to deal with it in perpetuity) gives open-source software a bad name. And just look at the hideous stuff that pops up when you click "menu". It's an embarrassment.

baddox 7y ago
There's really no such thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it." You're dealing with it, because you're not fixing it. I'm dealing with it, because I'm not fixing it. And that is true of every other individual, until one individual fixes it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jessriedel 7y ago
  I do think there is such a thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it", and that rather than my statement being meaningless/confused, your objection is really a normative claim about who should be able to complain. But if it helps you understand, you can reinterpret my comment as: (1) All the effort people put into collecting copyright-free sound files is drastically undermined by the lack of nice plug-ins; and (2) The Wikimedia foundation, which collects huge amounts of money from unsophisticated donors, is negligent in spending that money on ridiculous projects that help only a small number of particular types of nerds while leaving things like this that could actually help the typical donor broken. In other words, when I donate money to the Wikimedia foundation and they don't fix easy stuff like this, I am justified in complaining.
  - svnpenn 7y ago
    No, you certainly are not. You're donating money, not employing them. They get to choose what to do with the money, not you. If you don't like it, stop donating. Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I agree with your original point, but you lost me with this second post.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      Non-profits absolutely have duties to their donors when they accept money. They don't get to spend it on whatever they want. And those duties are especially strong when they take money for a technical job from non-technically-sophisticated donors. Finally, those duties are even stronger when the non-profit is the steward of a non-replaceable community commons; there is no way to donate to a Wikimedia Foundation competitor to improve Wikipedia. > If you don't like it, stop donating Think about what you're saying. People can't complain unless they donate, but if they don't like what's happening they should not donate. That sort of reasoning is how you get non-accountable dysfunctional non-profits. > Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place.
      - svnpenn 7y ago
        > I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place. It sounds like you arent really interested in seeing this fixed. Sometimes, when you want something fixed, merely complaining or commenting to the right person will get it resolved. Sometimes more effort is required. You are right, an email might not get you the result you want. But have you tried? If you havent even tried an email I dont think you have the right to complain. You havent made even the smallest effort to constructively advocate or try to resolve the issue. Once youve done that, you have a better case.
        jessriedel 7y ago
        I don't know why my technical inability to submit patches for audio plugins is evidence I don't really want to see this fixed. I am not a software developer. There is zero chance that they are unaware of this issue. So the question is, first, what is the best way to communicate dissatisfaction? And I don't think emails directly to the Wikimedia foundation are effective (and I don't think you think that either). More importantly, I'm claiming that the Wikimedia foundation, and the Wikipedia community, are negligent regardless of what I personally do. It's beyond obvious to anyone who has thought a wink about UX that this stuff is crap. "We haven't gotten enough emails about it to divert resources from Wiki-con-for-Slovokian-teenagers" is not a plausible defense.
  - Ohn0 7y ago
    Good point on the budget. But even if you submitted a "fix" to the foundation, somehow I imagine that it wouldn't be adopted, for reasons.
- goldenkey 7y ago
  Open-source changes from outside the core contributors are notoriously hard to get approved. There is usually politics in play. For instance, why is there not an easy way to copy a link to subsections? The easy workaround is just to create a WebExtension. If enough people use it, then maybe the core team will take the hint.. https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/01/20/a-simple-webextension-for-every-browser-wikipedia-section-links/ https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/01/20/a-simple-webexte...
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Making any kind of change in wikipedia is near impossible. There are so many entrenched people with huge egos that, effectively, no change is possible by an outsider. If you try to make the media player more friendly, you will be given 1000 reasons why it shouldn't be done, such as "It looks fine to me", "People are used to this media player and won't like it to change", "Just go to this page and follow instructions to customize it, anyone can do that", etc.
bourgoin 7y ago
Funnily enough, the Macbook Pro touch bar displays a slider and allows you to seek. But anyway, I agree. It's a shame. Thousands (or millions) of people have probably had the thought "Why does this player work so badly? Oh, it's some weird open source thing. Why don't they just use a normal player like other sites?"
- capableweb 7y ago
  > Why don't they just use a normal player like other sites?" Makes me think that it's really really hard to come up with a example of a website that is not in general audio focused, and has embedded a audio player for some parts, and the whole thing is well executed and the audio player does not have any problem. There is always something.
jimmaswell 7y ago
You can get all of that going to the page for the file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASchutz_Heu_mihi%2C_Domine_from_Cantiones_Sacrae_01.wav https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASchut...
gwbas1c 7y ago
It's also no longer needed: The audio, source tags provide a perfectly adequate player with a download link.
tobyjsullivan 7y ago
There's information about how to configure the audio players, including displaying sliders, on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sound_file_markup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sound_file_markup It appears the sliders display if the widget is wider than some minimum. It's not clear if the behaviour changes between browsers, etc. Perhaps there's an opportunity to change the default display style system-wide. However, I suspect sliders are one of those things that are context-dependent. Luckily, the pages are editable by anyone and the slider can be displayed on pages where it makes sense.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out!
kebman 7y ago
It's Wikipedia. You're free to improve it. <3
Enginerrrd 7y ago
That's funny, Wikipedias sound plug-in has always been in the "just works" category for me without the enormous amounts overhead of other options layered deep in JavaScript.
- jachee 7y ago
  Agreed. It's even fully functional on my 3-versions-out-of-date old iPad.
jmiskovic 7y ago
Social dynamics of open source were already discussed, maybe few more words on technical side. Most (all?) examples on that article are in MIDI format, which is not a trivial sound clip. The MIDI file doesn't contain any actual sound, just 'meta' information on which insturment is used, which notes are being played, dynamics of each note and so on. The rendering of this data into actual sound is left to MIDI player. Usually the player will have support for 'soundfont', which is the other ingredient needed. It is a bundle of few hundered of instrument samples. To produce music, those samples need to be pitch-shifted, amplified and reverbed using the information from MIDI, and mixed together. The collection of instrument samples requires much work to make it sound well in various contexts. There are precious few open ones and others are burdened with copyright. The action of 'seeking' through MIDI file is non-trivial because music state/context is collected from events (just as OpenGL is sometimes called a state machine). So to play the last bar of music you always have to fast-forward from start. MIDI as a standard is considered a bit obsolete, but doesn't yet have the replacement that covers all its different uses (synchronizing and controlling musical equipment, reprograming equipment's presets, capturing musical notation, reproducing music file or from input stream). In 90s the MIDI on web reached its peak because of small file sizes and hardware-accelerated support on sound cards. Since then it is in decline and its future is uncertain. Being able to just click and hear these music samples on wikipedia, without installing browser plug-ins or hunting for players/soundfonts? Don't take it for granted.

baddox 7y ago

There's really no such thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it." You're dealing with it, because you're not fixing it. I'm dealing with it, because I'm not fixing it. And that is true of every other individual, until one individual fixes it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 7y ago
I do think there is such a thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it", and that rather than my statement being meaningless/confused, your objection is really a normative claim about who should be able to complain. But if it helps you understand, you can reinterpret my comment as: (1) All the effort people put into collecting copyright-free sound files is drastically undermined by the lack of nice plug-ins; and (2) The Wikimedia foundation, which collects huge amounts of money from unsophisticated donors, is negligent in spending that money on ridiculous projects that help only a small number of particular types of nerds while leaving things like this that could actually help the typical donor broken. In other words, when I donate money to the Wikimedia foundation and they don't fix easy stuff like this, I am justified in complaining.
- svnpenn 7y ago
  No, you certainly are not. You're donating money, not employing them. They get to choose what to do with the money, not you. If you don't like it, stop donating. Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I agree with your original point, but you lost me with this second post.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    Non-profits absolutely have duties to their donors when they accept money. They don't get to spend it on whatever they want. And those duties are especially strong when they take money for a technical job from non-technically-sophisticated donors. Finally, those duties are even stronger when the non-profit is the steward of a non-replaceable community commons; there is no way to donate to a Wikimedia Foundation competitor to improve Wikipedia. > If you don't like it, stop donating Think about what you're saying. People can't complain unless they donate, but if they don't like what's happening they should not donate. That sort of reasoning is how you get non-accountable dysfunctional non-profits. > Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place.
    - svnpenn 7y ago
      > I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place. It sounds like you arent really interested in seeing this fixed. Sometimes, when you want something fixed, merely complaining or commenting to the right person will get it resolved. Sometimes more effort is required. You are right, an email might not get you the result you want. But have you tried? If you havent even tried an email I dont think you have the right to complain. You havent made even the smallest effort to constructively advocate or try to resolve the issue. Once youve done that, you have a better case.
      - jessriedel 7y ago
        I don't know why my technical inability to submit patches for audio plugins is evidence I don't really want to see this fixed. I am not a software developer. There is zero chance that they are unaware of this issue. So the question is, first, what is the best way to communicate dissatisfaction? And I don't think emails directly to the Wikimedia foundation are effective (and I don't think you think that either). More importantly, I'm claiming that the Wikimedia foundation, and the Wikipedia community, are negligent regardless of what I personally do. It's beyond obvious to anyone who has thought a wink about UX that this stuff is crap. "We haven't gotten enough emails about it to divert resources from Wiki-con-for-Slovokian-teenagers" is not a plausible defense.
- Ohn0 7y ago
  Good point on the budget. But even if you submitted a "fix" to the foundation, somehow I imagine that it wouldn't be adopted, for reasons.
goldenkey 7y ago
Open-source changes from outside the core contributors are notoriously hard to get approved. There is usually politics in play. For instance, why is there not an easy way to copy a link to subsections? The easy workaround is just to create a WebExtension. If enough people use it, then maybe the core team will take the hint.. https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/01/20/a-simple-webextension-for-every-browser-wikipedia-section-links/ https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/01/20/a-simple-webexte...
oh_sigh 7y ago
Making any kind of change in wikipedia is near impossible. There are so many entrenched people with huge egos that, effectively, no change is possible by an outsider. If you try to make the media player more friendly, you will be given 1000 reasons why it shouldn't be done, such as "It looks fine to me", "People are used to this media player and won't like it to change", "Just go to this page and follow instructions to customize it, anyone can do that", etc.

bourgoin 7y ago

Funnily enough, the Macbook Pro touch bar displays a slider and allows you to seek. But anyway, I agree. It's a shame. Thousands (or millions) of people have probably had the thought "Why does this player work so badly? Oh, it's some weird open source thing. Why don't they just use a normal player like other sites?"

capableweb 7y ago
> Why don't they just use a normal player like other sites?" Makes me think that it's really really hard to come up with a example of a website that is not in general audio focused, and has embedded a audio player for some parts, and the whole thing is well executed and the audio player does not have any problem. There is always something.

jimmaswell 7y ago

You can get all of that going to the page for the file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASchutz_Heu_mihi%2C_Domine_from_Cantiones_Sacrae_01.wav https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASchut...

gwbas1c 7y ago

It's also no longer needed: The audio, source tags provide a perfectly adequate player with a download link.

tobyjsullivan 7y ago

There's information about how to configure the audio players, including displaying sliders, on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sound_file_markup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sound_file_markup It appears the sliders display if the widget is wider than some minimum. It's not clear if the behaviour changes between browsers, etc. Perhaps there's an opportunity to change the default display style system-wide. However, I suspect sliders are one of those things that are context-dependent. Luckily, the pages are editable by anyone and the slider can be displayed on pages where it makes sense.

jessriedel 7y ago
Thanks for pointing this out!

kebman 7y ago

It's Wikipedia. You're free to improve it. <3

Enginerrrd 7y ago

That's funny, Wikipedias sound plug-in has always been in the "just works" category for me without the enormous amounts overhead of other options layered deep in JavaScript.

jachee 7y ago
Agreed. It's even fully functional on my 3-versions-out-of-date old iPad.

jmiskovic 7y ago

Social dynamics of open source were already discussed, maybe few more words on technical side. Most (all?) examples on that article are in MIDI format, which is not a trivial sound clip. The MIDI file doesn't contain any actual sound, just 'meta' information on which insturment is used, which notes are being played, dynamics of each note and so on. The rendering of this data into actual sound is left to MIDI player. Usually the player will have support for 'soundfont', which is the other ingredient needed. It is a bundle of few hundered of instrument samples. To produce music, those samples need to be pitch-shifted, amplified and reverbed using the information from MIDI, and mixed together. The collection of instrument samples requires much work to make it sound well in various contexts. There are precious few open ones and others are burdened with copyright. The action of 'seeking' through MIDI file is non-trivial because music state/context is collected from events (just as OpenGL is sometimes called a state machine). So to play the last bar of music you always have to fast-forward from start. MIDI as a standard is considered a bit obsolete, but doesn't yet have the replacement that covers all its different uses (synchronizing and controlling musical equipment, reprograming equipment's presets, capturing musical notation, reproducing music file or from input stream). In 90s the MIDI on web reached its peak because of small file sizes and hardware-accelerated support on sound cards. Since then it is in decline and its future is uncertain. Being able to just click and hear these music samples on wikipedia, without installing browser plug-ins or hunting for players/soundfonts? Don't take it for granted.