User talk:David Levy

Welcome
Hi David, welcome to Wikiversity. Hope you stick around :-). What's your interest(s) you'd like to pursue here? Cormaggio 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm particularly interested in media studies (my academic concentration at the college that I currently attend).
 * Thanks for the kind welcome (and for injecting some much-needed sanity into the "rounded corners" debate). &mdash;David Levy 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Media studies, eh? Me too! I'm particularly interested in Media literacy - there's already a lecturer that wants to get involved there, and there's also another user (User:Michael) who I've come across (so far) who's interested in similar issues. I'm dead busy writing up my dissertation for the next month, but will be gung ho on Wikiversity by the end of September. See you 'round! Cormaggio 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Selfish
"As far as I can tell, your position is based upon what looks good to you. No offense, but that's rather selfish."


 * Actually, as far as you could tell based on what I have told you, my positition is based on my own opinion and that of the people who got this place started. We've talked about this at length on IRC. It's your choice to decide whether you believe that or not but it doesn't change the facts. -- sebmol ? 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do believe that this was discussed on IRC, but I have no means of knowing what was said (or by whom). Therefore, it's impossible for me to address these comments (unless and until they're posted in a venue where they're accessible by me).
 * Regardless, the fact that the rounded corners looked okay to the IRC respondents doesn't change the fact that they didn't display this way for everyone (as evidenced in the screenshot that I provided). You acknowledged that the corners appeared jagged, and then you explained that it didn't really matter because their appearance isn't very important anyway.  (In other words, it's not a big deal if the site looks bad on other people's computers.)


 * Also, I'd like to point out that no personal attacks applies to Wikiversity as well. Please consider that next time you consider an ad hominem argument. -- sebmol ? 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't attack you; I criticized your rationale. Quoth WP:NPA: "There is a difference between 'You are a troll' and 'You are acting like a troll'."  Similarly, there's a difference between referring to someone as "a selfish person" (which I haven't done, and am not doing now) and commenting that he or she is behaving selfishly.  I even prefaced my remark with the phrase "no offense" to ensure that it would not be misinterpreted as a personal attack.
 * 2. I didn't come close to making an ad hominem argument, as my criticism was based entirely upon your actions (not a condemnation of your character). &mdash;David Levy 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Heyyy, again - please, everybody calm down. Especially to Seb: I think that David has come here in good faith - if something is not quite right and he's proven it, I think we should listen and act. (Constructive) criticism is good. Cormaggio 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hereby call a truce. Truce? Shake hands? :-) Cormaggio 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I sincerely hope so. I never intended to wage an "attack," and I'm confident that Sebmol didn't either.  My criticism pertained entirely to Sebmol's actions (not to anything on a personal level), and I hope that Sebmol now realizes this and no longer feels offended.  &mdash;David Levy 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign
David, It seems you were correct, for several reasons, about waiting a few days to let the new main page design settle. The ability to edit the template needs to be there. And, the extra usability issues need to be checked. I moved the longish discussion we had today (which was very worth the while once I understood where you were coming from) and I created a link to this: Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design. I thought the amount of text in the string might discourage further comments on the new design -- but people can readily access it if they want. Thanks again for you input, Reswik 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for taking my concerns seriously. I'm about to upload a revised version of the page.  Please let me know what you think.  &mdash;David Levy 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Regarding the edits you made to the new design: I agree with a few and disagree with others. I did figure out how to use some of the templates. But, I could not recapture some of the elements you took out, so I reverted your edits. Elements that I think are useful or nice in this design are:  The center menu; The white background for all text blocks (key); The blue background in header; The brown background in titles.   Your version was too compact and not enough whitespace.  I'm not sure I like that direction. There must be something in between or perhaps another direction. I wonder about creating more space for a banner.  This is going to take work. Reswik 05:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. I moved your version with a few of my edits to this alternate here: Main Page/Design 2. It is a distinct enough version that I think it is a fork. Reswik 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for preserving my version. I spent hours working on it (based upon the comments expressed thus far), and I would like to solicit feedback from the community.


 * I moved the menu to an obvious location that otherwise is completely empty. The background isn't white because the page isn't in the article namespace, but I believe that this can be corrected via simple CSS code (which I can't add because I'm not a sysop here).  I retained exactly the same shades of blue and brown; only the specific locations differ.  I actually attempted to include more whitespace than that, but I ran into some minor coding difficulty.  (There was either too much or too little.)


 * I await a response from the JAWS user, but I know for a fact that the headings need to contain  elements to be properly recognized. (This was what we failed to realize during the English Wikipedia main page redesign process.)  I managed to successfully integrate these into some of the design, and I was working on the rest when you reverted.  &mdash;David Levy 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See the message I wrote at the top of Design (1)--in the page. I prefer the original arrangemetn of blue and brown. But, main point: The abscence of a sapce for a graphic is a flaw in this design. We need to save that right top space for that, I think. I think this is a fairly big issue for several reasons to discuss later. What do you think? Thanks for update and reply to more later. Time for bed for me. Reswik 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the space below the header (where you wish to place the menu) would be a much better image location. Otherwise, the height would be extremely limited (because it would look bad to stretch the header very much).


 * Regarding the original arrangement of blue and brown, my version started out that way, but this resulted in an overwhelming amount of brown (because I eliminated the bi-color headings, which more than one user disliked). The logic behind my configuration is that readers tend to notice solid elements of the same color that they're already looking at.  If the left side of the page is predominantly blue and the right side is predominantly brown, they'll be more likely to concentrate on one and ignore the other.  By placing blue section headings below a brown header (and vice-versa), the users' eyes will naturally be drawn to both sides of the page.


 * I forgot to mention that I also increased some font sizes to 100%. For the sake of usability, I think that it's important for this to be the minimum.


 * As for the templates, I actually needed to create copies of my own (because I didn't want to edit the existing ones). This setup is far from ideal, and most of the code really should be integrated into the page proper (which I was unable to do).  Also, the editorial content needs to be transferred to templates (so that it can be edited without disturbing the main page).  This, of course, won't be important until a design is adopted.


 * I sincerely hope that we can wait enough time for my version to receive feedback from the community, as I did work very hard on it. &mdash;David Levy 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking there would be a reconciliation of your version and some of elements to keep from old version. But, try as I could I couldn't make a reconciliation of your version and some old design aspects in an hour or so. This synthesis can happen now or once it goes up or over time. Doesn't matter to me. Hopefully, someone else won't take the whole thing in another direction before this goes up. Plenty time for lots of directions to be explored. Anyway, I hoped for any remaining voting to be on the "old" new design version (which is more attractive at moment imho) and so I made the judgement call to put that back up top. I understand about time: I put in many hours on the current front page design and am sorry to see it supplanted so soon. About photo position -- I think the current one could work (that is on top of Design option 1 now) -- I replaced a note I had put there with a photo as place holder. Anyway, I just woke up to jot something and saw your note. Half awake - back to sleep soon.  Reply to more of your points tomorrow. Reswik 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I prefer my version. ;)
 * In my opinion, placing the image in that position causes to header to become far too large. I'm tinkering with adding the photo to my version.
 * You saw the response from Graham87, who confirmed the existence of the  issue. He also cited a different problem that I forgot to mention: the presence of "hiddenStructure" markup!  I don't know how this CSS class managed to migrate over to Wikiversity, as lead developer Brion Vibber long ago determined that it's a very ugly (and unacceptable) hack that breaks things for many people (including users of some screen readers).  I don't remember which of the templates contains this code (and I can't seem to track it down now), but I removed it when I was compiling my version.  &mdash;David Levy 06:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really gld you asked Graham to review. Thank goodness and he needs big thankyou. Good about the CSS catch too. I was going to ask you if you could fit the photo in your version. However, I kind of like a lot of white space... Perhaps I will go and stare at white space for a bit--It's too late to be up. Btw, I put in a joke title and subtitle. Please revert if you think the effort at a few laughs is inappropriate. Reswik 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, your joke is funny! If we can't have a little bit of fun with a sample page, we're taking ourselves way too seriously.  :)  &mdash;David Levy 07:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As you might have noticed, Graham has confirmed that my version is more compatible with JAWS. (As far as I know, the last remaining technical step is to incorporate and tags into the right-hand column.)  &mdash;David Levy 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your new new design is on par with the other redesign. Both are better then the current one. Maybe you sould post it on the mainpage talk?--Rayc 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your feedback. Indeed, I did post a comment request at Wikiversity talk:Main Page.  &mdash;David Levy 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey David, I think we should go with posting Design 2 when all usability issues are resolved on that. It is too much work to verify 2 designs. Then, we can revise Design 2 for aesthetic issues over time. I think that is very much within the scope of what people were indicating: Revise Design 1 (which you did per advice points) and post that. Ongoing polishing for aesthetic issues can be delt with still while the design is active. So, please post a message on the main talk page when you think all usability issues are resolved. Since I've been involved as well in developing the alt design, I think I will post a message tomorrow on the Request custodian action page to request a sysop verify our reasoning and post the new design when they see your ok about usability issues being resolved (and if no strong oppositional criticisms come up). Do you agree with the points in this comment? Reswik 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. I'm aware of two remaining bugs: the lack of and tags in the right-hand column (required for proper navigation within JAWS) and a slight image display glitch in IE.  I'll try to recruit a coding expert (most likely from Wikipedia) to address these issues.  I'll also move the editorial content over to templates.
 * You may have noticed that the English Wikipedia's main page lacks a standard header in most skins. This is accomplished via MediaWiki:Monobook.js, and I suggest that we arrange for a sysop to implement the necessary code here.  &mdash;David Levy 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mediawiki link. I posted a note (here: Request custodian action) requesting a sysop to check the new design discussion and post Design 2 if they agree (once the usability issues are resolved, noting that you will make a post about that). Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I posted a request for editing assistance at the English Wikipedia's village pump. Hopefully, someone there will know how to fix the remaining bugs.  &mdash;David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Design 2 is growing on me. My number one wish is for more white space at the top in the title (and the photo to be resized). My preference is for the top title box to be 2xs as tall but 1.95xs as tall would be fine too. ;) Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the current appearance, but I didn't mind your change from three menu items per line to two as much as Rayc evidently did. Whichever variation the community prefers is fine by me.  :)  &mdash;David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, Is design 2 read yet to post? If not, how long do you think we should wait to resolve the remaining usability issues before posting? Reswik 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no one at Wikipedia has responded to my requests for editing assistance. I'm going to seek help elsewhere and continue experimenting with the code to the best of my limited ability.
 * I can't specify a time frame, as we absolutely need to fix these problems before posting the new design. (Otherwise, we'll break part of the page in IE and JAWS, with the latter bug reducing accessibility for visually impaired users.)  &mdash;David Levy 05:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I agree that these issues need to be fixed. Could it help to mention to the Wikipedia people a second time that the posting of our new front page design is *still* waiting on resolving these issues?  Reswik 13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It actually will be the third time (as I've already tried posting such an update), but I'll give it a shot. :)  &mdash;David Levy 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. If nothing comes of this soon, I wonder if there is place to ask for help. Meta? A mediawiki project page (if this is what the issue is)? And, do you think it would help to post a call for help in the colloquium and the main talk page? Reswik 23:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it appears that an anonymous editor responded to my third post. I still have a bit of testing to perform, but the two major bugs seem to have been fixed.  One of the changes introduced a very minor display bug (tiny border gaps in Firefox), but this is barely worth worrying about (and certainly not cause for further delay).  After I've verified that the code is sound, I'll update the design with the missing content and move the appropriate sections over to templates.  At that point, we should be ready to roll.  :)  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Great news. I just edited the browse and "What is Wikipedia" text blocks on Design 2 -- had a few ideas recently about how to integrate the new text at top of main page there. Please post a note on the Request custodian action page when Design 2 is ready to go up. (Oh, unless I'm in a design mood, I'm not going to start in right away with revisions on new design page(s) for the masthead/top page design. It will be good to wait a bit and see if people post any nostes of reaction to the new design.) Thanks again very much for all your work on this, Reswik 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Reswik! :)  &mdash;David Levy 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) Reswik 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just posted a note on the Request custodian action page that you said the design 2 usability issues were fixed. I interpret this to mean that design 2 is ready to go up. Please confirm. Thanks, Reswik 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you finished looking over Design 2? Reswik 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize for failing to get back to you. I got tied up with a bunch of stuff at Wikipedia and in the real world, and I totally forgot that you were waiting for my go-ahead.  I'm glad to see that the new main page design made has made its debut.  Sorry again.  &mdash;David Levy 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's ok. :) Do you have any remaining questions about usability of the new design? --Reswik 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You want an answer?
It seems you have much time to loose arguing about details and acting like a capricious child. Good for you. I haven't. Thus, I have chosen to ignore your messages. To my mind you haven't done anything constructive on this project, all you have done and go on doing is wasting everybody's time. Come back to me when you are open-minded, mature and (last but not least) humble. guillom 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New extention
Hi, me and a couple of other people are working on getting an new extention installed that creates tests, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it to see if the extention is W3C compliant. I don't know enough about programing to fully evaluate the code.--Rayc 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounded corners
Hi David, I've reverted the rounded corners because I felt it was the right thing to do - I've explained (some of) my reasons on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. I think it's been an unnecessarily long and hotly contested debate - I hope things might calm down now. That's all I'll say for now, but I'll be in touch no doubt. Thanks. :-) Cormaggio beep 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
There are, as you undoubtedly know, more than one process to making decisions. Consensus-building is but one of them and, while heavily used on English Wikipedia, not universal among Wikimedia projects. The way custodians are selected in this project is testament to the idea that a meritocratic approach fits better into the project. Custodians self-nominate and have to go through a four week mentorship period. At the end of the period their mentor publishes an evaluation on the candidate's abilities to conduct the duties and responsibilities of a custodian. The evaluation carries with it a recommendation on whether the candidate should be made a permanent custodian. If the recommentation is negative, the candidate won't become a custodian. If the recommendation is positive, the community may comment on the nomination for about a week after which a bureaucrat makes the final decision based on the evaluation, community comments and the actual performance of the candidate. It's not consensus-driven and it's not intended to be. sebmol ? 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How is the above remotely relevant to matters of aesthetics? Do you believe that custodians possess special talent or expertise that renders them uniquely qualified to decide what looks good and what doesn't?  &mdash;David Levy 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply was in response to your repeated comments that the decision wasn't based on consenus and therefore should not hold. Furthermore, it's time you pick a reason why you're really opposing the corners. The argument about browser incompatibility may actually have some merit, arguing the aesthetical advantages of rounded corners doesn't. sebmol ? 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. My comments regarding "consensus" (which mirrored those of Cormac, with whom you don't appear to be arguing) pertained specifically to matters of community decision-making. I never claimed that all decisions (such as the irrelevant example of assigning the "custodian" role) were made by the community, but this type of decision is.
 * 2. There are many reasons to not implement the rounded corners hack at the site level. Browser incompatibility is one.  Aesthetic preference is another (not my aesthetic preference or your aesthetic preference, but that of the community as a whole).  If no clear preference can be established, the default (non-hacked) state (which no one has complained about) prevails.  Supposed aesthetic advantage is the only justification for the hack, so it's absurd to claim that opinions to the contrary have no merit.
 * 3. You are the one who needs to pick a reason and stick to it. Originally, you claimed that complaints about the rounded corners should be dismissed because they didn't come from members of the community.  Then when several community members complained, you claimed that this decision wasn't the community's to make.  &mdash;David Levy 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to have this conversation here? Sebmol, if you're unhappy with the decision-making process on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css, it's a community discussion - and should either be there, or continued on a page like Consensus. Perhaps "being bold" and consensus are slightly in tension with each other - but I think we'd need to specify clear reasons for and contexts of deviations from consensus first - before we can claim that it's not relevant in a particular case. Cormaggio beep 01:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not "unhappy with the decision-making process on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css". I made my original comment here because I've noticed several times how David assumed English Wikipedia approaches would automatically be valid here. I'm not trying to argue either, merely explaining my position on the subject. I specifically chose this place because, if at all, this discussion is really just a documentation of personal differences between David and I. sebmol ? 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When did I incorrectly assume that English Wikipedia approaches would automatically be valid here? Please cite specific instances.  Thank you.  &mdash;David Levy 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)