UWEB:Status

[[UniversalWikiEditButton|

This page includes the current status for how close to "done" we are on the UniversalWikiEditButton ConsensusPoll.


Below content is from UWEB:Status.


Status: Not Yet

Participants

To participate, enter your name as would like it to appear (after the slash).

type=create width=30 break=no preload=Template:UniversalWikiEditButtonParticipantPreload buttonlabel=Participate in this Consensus Poll bgcolor=#FFFFFF editintro=AboutUsLogoParticipantInstructions default=UWEB:Status/YourNameHere

NotYet ---------- NotYet

  1. Waldir (Wikipedia)
    NotYet So sorry to come in this late. But I really prefer a pencil. Ward's version is cool. So I thought maybe an outlined version... I made a quick version in MSPaint. What do you think? Wiki edit pencil.png Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit
  2. Aaron Fulkerson (MindTouch)
    NotYet Sorry, this "chalk" looks like an unmentionable product. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  3. chienting (Your affiliation here)
    NotYet Your comment here. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  4. Sj (Your affiliation here)
    NotYet Good idea, needs cleaner image. Variants for different use cases would also be nice. Agreed that text is not a very good idea. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  5. Choicefresh (wikiHow, AboutUs)
    NotYet I think the icon could be made bigger and more recognizable. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  6. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Wikipedia)
    NotYet The regular size icon looks like an adze more than a chalk to me. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  7. Angela Beesley (Wikia, Wikipedia)
    NotYet . I'd prefer some sort of wikitext if there's anything wiki-engine-independent. This would be more relevant than pens, chalk, pencils, etc since a wiki is about more than writing. Color and text need to remain optional. The only time I'd be happy about using text is if the only word used was "wiki" which is rarely localized.
    Wikitext example but this one is not wiki-engine-independentTextBrackets UEB.png Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  8. Cacahuate (Wikitravel ... )
    NotYet to the logo, but I love the concept. I like green, but it's just not quite extraordinary enough yet. Sorry I can't help with the actual design, but I'll know something great when I see it! Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  9. Catherine (Wikia ... )
    NotYet I don't care whether it's green or not, but I think color is more important than symbol -- the identifiable orange of the RSS button tells me much more about what kind of content page I'm on (even without me directly looking at it) than the symbol does. But like everyone else, I think the idea of a UniversalWikiEditButton itself is a brilliant and important one. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  10. Danny Horn (Wikia)
    NotYet It just doesn't look like chalk to me. I like the basic idea very much, but the proposed image doesn't say anything to me. I've never collaborated or written extensively in chalk. Also, the purpose of chalk is that sooner or later it'll be erased -- nobody uses chalk to create a long-term document. A pencil would work better for me. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  11. User:Datagrok (AboutUs ...)
    NotYet I think we need to better define how this "button" might be used. Please see my comments on on UniversalWikiEditButton/Discussion... Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  12. DonaldNoyes (WardsWiki ...)
    NotYet The idea has merit in indicating participation in a unified way of doing things, and might more appropriately be applied to InterWiki involvement and compatability with an InterWikiMarkupLanguage making edits mean the same thing among wikis participating. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  13. Evan Prodromou (Wikitravel ... )
    NotYet I think this is a great idea, and I think it's great to use the consensus polling method to try to work out a plan. A couple of process points: groups with "wiki" in the name already have a leg up; people have at least a vague understanding that "wiki" implies "editable". I like the idea but I'm not excited about any of the icons yet. I'd probably put my weight behind something with a pencil in it, however anachronistic and Eurocentric that may be. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  14. Flickety (WikiHow ... )
    NotYet love the concept of finding ways of drawing us together. But I'm not sure this is the right way to go about this & is dependent on how we see perceive "branding" & what we think our users are searching for/comprehending. For wikiHow at the moment, the proposed green icon design does not fit with our site re-design. Green was discussed as part of general input into the site re-design & was considered unsuitable for design & visual reasons. And as for our users, I'm yet to be convinced that at this stage many of them are going to get the wiki aspect from this button. I like the idea of us being brought together more but I don't yet get the feeling that the proposed design at this stage is going to work for us. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  15. Freunde (wikiHow, Wikia, Wikipedia, AboutUs)
    NotYet I just don't really care for the looks of this edit button. Frankly, I don't even see a problem with different wikis having different edit buttons. I don't really know that a universal edit button is needed yet. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  16. Gil (Wikia ... )
    NotYet We need a more neutral color - and I agree on language-independent. Nice idea though, I appreciate you kicking off the thought process Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  17. Jamie (MarvelDatabase.com, Wikia)
    NotYet While I don't mind the colour options (green or orange), but I don't think the symbol is clear enough. The little picture is too ambiguous. I don't immediately recognize it as chalk, what's worse I don't associate it with Wikis, nor editing. We are on the right track, but we need to try again. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  18. JavaWoman JavaWoman (Wikka Wiki)
    NotYet Voting "No"!
    I was considering adding my vote and then ran into this: there's no way to even vote 'No'? That would be my vote, so I'll attach it here.
    All this seems a noble exercise, but it can't have been dreamt up by anyone even remotely familiar with principles of graphical design: An icon should fit in with the general icon graphical syntax of a site. Just picking a "standard" icon for one or a few of the icons used on the site breaks that, and thus breaks the graphical syntax and consistency of icons within a site - and consequently also the usability of the site.
    Which leaves us to consider the "concepts" in the proposed icons:
      • "chalk" is unknown as an icon and thus not good enough: it doesn't convey anything, really (just like the "radio" icon doesn't really convey anything to anyone not familiar with the history of RSS)
      • "pencil" is already used widely, not just in wikis, but in all sorts of websites and application programs with the meaning "edit" so this is a known, and thus usable icon concept
      • "WIKI" doesn't convey anything at all except "yes, that's where I am"; besides, as an icon it would be an "image of text" which is a bad idea in general.
    That leaves us with the "pencil" as a concept but it still needs to be designed within the graphical context of all of a site's icons.
    So, my vote is "No, no way!".
    Edit: Also, don't miss my critique of the polling process here, which was removed(!); you can now read about it on "my" talk page.
    -- JavaWoman Wikka Wiki's Standards Compliance Officer. :)
    Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  19. John Stanton (WikiIndex, AboutUs ...)
    NotYet Not enthused about the current option Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  20. Jyhem (TikiWiki)
    NotYet

    I think the reason why it does not look like a chalk writing on a blackboard to me is, the dynamics of the chalk writing a line on the board is wrong, thus non-intuitive. It looks like it's drawing a line from right to left, holding the chalk down. Who uses a real chalk like that ?

    My feeling is, I would have had a greater chance of recognising it for what it is, if the line was drawn from left to right, on top (ie turn it around 180°). Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  21. Liz Henry (Socialtext ...)
    NotYet I like the idea, but would like to know which icon we're voting on. I love the bright green, okay with the orange, hate the dull yellowish green, which would clash with the rss button. The "quick sketch" squiggles are nice, or anything that seems dynamic and graceful and pretty. Let's stick to something iconographic, not textual -- "wiki" or "edit" don't translate as well as a picture. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  22. NJR_ZA (Wikitravel ...)
    NotYet Very good concept, but I don't think the icons are unique or descriptive enough yet. Clicking on a wiki edit button is not just about editing a page; it is also about us, the people of the world, doing things for ourself rather than depending on a government or multinational company to do it for us. I think the icons should reflect that. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  23. Scott Keeler (AboutUs ...)
    NotYet I just realized that the premise of the current icon is incorrect. The edit button on a wiki isn't about writing, like a pen or chalk would suggest. The edit button on a wiki is about building, and the universal wiki edit button should reflect that. edit



  24. TakKendrick (AboutUs ...)
    NotYet I love the idea. But agree with TedErnst the icons are hard to discern. The problem is what is the icon suppose to say? Should it be a "easy edit" like a pencil? Or does it even matter if the image is readily recognizable. At some point, the RSS icon symbolizes sound/radio waves or something, but it doesn't matter because we've acclimated ourselves to recognize what it means without actually "seeing" what the image is composed of. Mmmmmm... I love/hate branding. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  25. TVerBeek (Wikitravel ...)
    NotYet I'm OK with the idea, but a bit unclear on the goal, and totally unclear on (and therefore uncomfortable with) the "process" this page is apparently supposed to embody. I'm certainly not about to vote "yes" on something where the logo being voted on changes without warning after I've voted, and includes examples that I don't think work at all. (If I wanted that, I'd move to Florida.) Since I don't know how/where I'm supposed to comment on the proposed icons, I'll do it here: The "two way web" is an esoteric buzzphrase that means nothing to most people, so an icon based on it would be equally meaningless. Delta as a symbol of change is only meaningful to math/science geeks, and the shape has connotations of danger in other contexts. The "stylized pencil" is the only one that I think conveys the concept of "edit". Most of the others are just arbitrary graphics.
    Update: The "chalk" icon doesn't particularly look like chalk. Besides: who uses chalk to "edit"? Has anyone in the post-industrial world actually seen chalk in a classroom in the past decade? At least a pencil is a symbol that people might actually recognize and understand... and perhaps even have experience using. Stop trying to be so "original"; an icon should be obvious, not clever. This a weak idea (chalk), weakly implemented (doesn't look like chalk). Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  26. Vinh Nguyen (AboutUs ...)
    NotYet While I like the direction this is heading, I think we need more clarification on the goals of creating a Universal Wiki Edit Button. In short: What does it signify? Who will use it? and Why do we need it? Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  27. NilsLindenberg NilsLindenberg (Wikka Wiki)
    NotYet The division between a button and an icon is not understood. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  28. WillyP (WillyP)
    NotYet Chalk is inappropriate, as chalkboards are generally erased at the end of the day. And it dosen't look like chalk anyway. I would suggest having a text link instead. The button examples would not be recognized as meaning edit, other than by the location on the page here. But not all wikis have section editing. None of them match stylistically with anything on my wiki sites or here. The orange RSS icon has become recognized after having long been in text, but it did in fact start with text, as the concept of rss is rather complicated to convey in a simple icon. Edit could be conveyed simply by using a pencil, but why?Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit

YES ---------- YES

  1. Saad Saeed (AboutUs)
    YES I agree with Phil Boswell of Wikipedia. Love the idea of it but beleive it should follow a similar path that the RSS icon went through by first having actual "RSS" text in the icon and then move on to the familiar orange. I also like the suggestion by Angela Beesley of Wikia that the UWEB should use fammiliar wiki formatting of having brackets with word EDIT or WIKI written in them e.e [ [ E D I T ] ] Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit
  2. Elocina Nicole Willson (WikiHow ...)
    YES Love the concept and appreciate all the initiative taken to do this. Button looks much better than it did back in May. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  3. Janne Jalkanen (JSPWiki)
    YES I don't care. Just pick one. Slightly prefer imagery over text (easier to manage on small displays). Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  4. Janet Johnson (O'Johnson Partners)
    YES Green means Go! in many languages, and I think the chalk is fine, especially in context with the orange RSS button. I agree we should implement something and then let folks suggest something better. But (at the risk of being trite) this initial design absolutely has my green light. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  5. Zez (Your affiliation here)
    YES Great Idea! Let's get it started and then fix it. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  6. AndreasGohr (WikiEngineDeveloper ...)
    YES Edit-chalk-7g.png It's not easily recognizable as chalk and thus not saying "EDIT ME!" right away. But the RSS symbol doesn't say "SUBSCRIBE", too but still works. What is a must for me is the green color (blue would be fine, too) as "standard color" to avoid any confusion with the RSS icon. Both icons (RSS and Wiki) are not easily recognizable by the graphics alone, so color is an important way to add distinguishability. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  7. BlakeHinckley (AboutUs)
    YES After seeing the new chalk icon in use, I am a convert. I still think some of the versions resemble a band-aid, and that there is still room for improvement, but the mission of branding and beginning the path towards a universal icon must start somewhere and the chalk is good enough for version 1.0. Great job everyone!Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  8. Brandon CS Sanders (AboutUs, WardsWiki, CommunityWiki, Meatball, Wikipedia, WikiEngineDeveloper (Topsoil vaporware))
    YES I'm agreeing to use whatever we come up with ... Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  9. ChristopheDucamp (CommunityWiki CraoWiki)
    YES Nice effort. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  10. Dave Crosby (wikiHow)
    YES Fully behind the concept. Icon is good for me. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  11. Diana Demarest (PagePartners.com)
    YES I like the chalk. Either color works for me. It also does well as a really small icon. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  12. Drew (AboutUs)
    YES I'm intrigued by the concept Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  13. Earle Martin (WardsWiki, MeatballWiki, Wikipedia, OpenGuides)
    YES I think there's a definite need to drive visual recognition of the wiki idea. I liked some of the variations on the "pen" icon; the "chalk" is even better, I think, from the connotation of write-then-wipe and so on, like a blackboard. (Interestingly: a moment before I started typing this, I came across this page - note the big green pencil icon encouraging people to edit.) I definitely prefer the green version over the orange; green is encouraging - green for Go! - and also it gives it a sort of mental distinction from the orange feed icon. For me, that orange implies "read this"; the orange pencil made me feel like it was suggesting a passive interaction with the site. Also, the little blue version for paragraphs is cute as all get out. -- Earle Martin 14:08, 3 July 2007 (PDT) Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  14. FridemarPache (MeatballWiki, AboutUs, CommunityWiki, WardsWiki,)
    YES Better now than never. Main thing is, we have a unifying brand. We can adapt the icon incrementally later, like CocaCola (TM) did it ;-). It's kind of the Newton's approximation method: start with an initial value and improve the style quality with each iteration step. To me it is a typical case of WorseIsBetter.

    Meanwhile the chalk (and talk) icon looks fine to me, because

    • it focusses the community aspect
    • it looks like a microphone too, which supports the audio web (together with an audio-icon, it integrates all language communities and especially our blind sisters and brothers)

    Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  15. User:Helge.at (Wikipedia)
    YES I deem basically any of the listed icons good enough for version 0.1.
    I think it (or whatever icon) should be brought into the wiki context using words. See this badge and this explanation. --Helge.at 11:06, 12 June 2007 (PDT) Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  16. LionKimbro YES CommunityWiki
    Well, it's certainly the right color. I'm not super-excited about this, but hey, I'm here, and dressed for the ball. Why not? Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  17. MarkDilley (MeatballWiki, CommunityWiki, WikiIndex, AboutUs)
    YES I like the idea and wonder if a CommunityMark or an auto discovery function would be a good step in the direction, considering a "head" like image as Fridemar suggests, I rather agree with Angela Beesley and Phil Boswell and we should have Wiki-text-icon.png - this also seems in step with the evolution of the RSS button.Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  18. Mattis Manzel (CommunityWiki)
    YES Excellent idea. I'm not sure about green and not overwhelmed by the current examples. My eyes ain't better than Ted's, I can't see the pencil either. If it doesn't take us three months Sunir's idea is good. Asking just many people instead of many, many might already lead to a good result.
    • Color: Soldiers are dressed in green not to be shot at. The guys who take away the garbage are dressed in orange not to be run over in the street. Our brain is a fruiteater-brain up in the trees. Green is the most normal thing for it. Orange is interesting (as probably edible). The rss-icon even works 12 x 12. So should the "edit this page" icon. Keep it simple, please.
    • Text: When the rss-icon came up did they write rss-feed aside of it? I don't know but I guess so. Putting edit this page aside of it is necessary for the beginning but shouldn't be anymore already after few months (if many wikis join in). Evaluating the icons without any text is appropriate. Yes! Study of orange chalk icon ch4o is cool! It writes from the right to the left though (thus adequate for Arabian and Hebrew). Mirrored it. Checking how they look together PicsForWikis.164.png 430222378_389358f9fc_o.png Another classical symbol for writing is the feather btw. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  19. Nathan (AboutUs, WikiIndex)
    YES Fantastic, Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  20. Obed Suhail (AboutUs)
    YES I love the idea. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  21. PeterThoeny (TWiki.org...)
    YES based on the poll: The chalk icon gets the highest votes.
    I feel like a yes, Yes, YES for Edit-chalk-10o.png (for normal edit button) and Edit-chalk-10m12.png (for sectional edit button). I am OK with green version Edit-chalk-10g.png, but it does not "stick into the face" as much. Design considerations:
    1. Chalk conveys classroom, e.g. collaboration.
    2. Orange sticks out (the edit button is the most important element on a wiki page).
    3. There is a concern that the chalk could be mistaken for a band-aid or a stapler. The icon is tweaked to make it more clear. In the initial phase, the icon can be combined with text "edit" (as done in this template).
    4. Looks good side by side with the RSS icon: Edit-chalk-10g.png 430222378_389358f9fc_o.png
    Side-note 1: I find the current layout of this page not very usable/readable on a 1024 laptop screen. I do not know enough of MediaWiki syntax to put the "Not yet" and "Yes" into the main page text.
    Side-note 2: IMHO the current decision making process does not work. I suggest a voting process: Every person gives a -3 (no way) ... 0 (neutral) ... 3 (yes, that's it!) to each proposed icon, then we have an informed discussion and make a decision.


  22. Phil Boswell (Wikipedia)
    YES I'm not convinced that it is necessary to settle upon a particular icon, so much as it would be a good idea to get people accustomed to having one in the first place. I kind of like the idea of echoing the evolution of the RSS icon, using Wiki-text-icon.png as an indicator that a page is editable (maybe a struck-through version on protected pages?) and some version of Edit-chalk-7g.png to mark where the user can click, either for the whole page or for an individual section. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  23. RadomirDopieralski (CommunityWiki)
    YES Good idea. The shape will be probably adapted to match the site's specific style, so we need a recognizable symbol. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  24. Ray King (AboutUs, WikiIndex ...)
    YES I'm satisfied that that symbol and the context in which it will be used will clearly indicate the concepts of "wiki" and "edit". Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  25. ReiniUrban (WikiEngineDeveloper)
    YES Good Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  26. Sam Rose (CommunityWiki ...)
    YES I agree with the feedback that the green is good. I also agree withthe feedback that a symbol is better than text for a "universal" button. I can see the reasoning for wanting "Wiki", because it is so recognizeable. But, it is limiting in terms of language. I also agree with the feedback that the current chalk icon does not really look like chalk. I think chalk, or a writing tool of some sort, is a good direction to move in. Ultimately, I believe that whatever is decided upon and widely adopted will likely become recognizeable because it's widely adopted. So, I'll give a YES to the current icon. I'd also propose that people could create an alternative version of the current icon that includes both the image and the word "wiki", if they prefer to utilize text.Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  27. Sunir Shah (MeatballWiki ...)
    YES I think we are at the stage where we should user test a few good options, and I am now happy the pencil nib option has survived into 0.1 as one option. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  28. Sven Dowideit (TWiki.org ...)
    YES I prefer the green color to differentiate better, but the sideways cigarette isn't bad :) Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  29. TedErnst (AboutUs WikiIndex CommunityWiki Meatball Wikipedia)
    YES I don't actually have a preference about which icon is used. I do think coming together as a wiki community to decide something is way cool. I look forward to us approving v0.1 and then, if desired, working on an upgrade. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  30. Ward Cunningham (WardsWiki, AboutUs, Wikipedia)
    YES I've deployed one as c2.com/wiki.png and will update this when a final choice is made by the community. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  31. Asma Khan (AboutUs)
    YES The green color of the chalk_icon will put a soft impact on any user and it also captures attention so that any one can click to edit.Its a common sense that the 'chalk' symbolizes to write obviously.Great Effort! Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  32. Chuck Smith (WikiCreole, Esperanto-Wikipedia)
    YES Cool idea! We have also made the WikiCreole logo Creole favicon.jpg look similar to the Universal Wiki Edit Button. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit


  33. HaroldRyan (wikiHow)
    YES I think this is a great thing to do that will expand the wiki concept beyond just a few sites. People will know and understand better what a wiki is when they see this button. Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit