31 Jul
2013
31 Jul
'13
11:15 a.m.
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Problem:
Drop the concept of workspace and use wiki
Short version:
* 'wiki' is a confusing term generally associated with 'Wikipedia',
representing the ability to write mostly documentation and not
'all-powerful collection of applications and pages that can do anything we
want it to'
* 'workspace' is be a better name for normal users, since it's more
descriptive and easy to digest (more familiar for non technical users)
* 'workspace' having just this term could lead to another confusion related
to the hierarchy 'Workspace' - 'Space' - 'Page' : "Why a
'work'space can
contain multiple spaces?"
* 'XWiki is all about the notion of wiki ... even in its name'
* 'workspaces' was implemented as a subwiki because of technical
limitations having space in space concept
My conclusions:
* I didn't liked the fact that workspace is a long term (very hard to make
it fit in the UI), but this is irrelevant
* I do prefer simpler terms like 'wiki', 'space', 'page', but we
should use
them consistent [another problem we have is the usage between document and
page (again technical vs. users perspective)]
* I also think is confusing having both terms 'wiki' and 'workspace' in
the
same UI because is very hard to explain what is the difference between them
(because they seem to be on the same level of hierarchy, while conceptual
they are not). Every time we try to describe them we just enumerate the
technical differences:
** 'workspace' = subwiki + global users + ability to create other
workspaces for normal users + ability to join a workspace + slim isolation
(just grouping of applications and users)
** 'wiki' = subwiki + can have global or local users + they can be created
only by admins + they can be completely isolated
* IMO Workgroup term is better than Workspace (it doesn't have the
containing 'space' word in it, which could lead to confusions and is also
descriptive). The Workgroup allows the user to group application and users
and let them work on their project. A Workgroup can have multiple content
spaces, that contain multiple pages. A Workgroup contains applications
dedicated to a group of people.
I agree that "workgroup" or "group" for short is better than
workspace. I'm still unsure if it's better than "(sub)wiki" though.
* The workgroup/workspace could be a specialization of
a subwiki or a
space/subspace, but the main idea is that it is a specialization of a core
XWiki concept
For me we need just one concept, call it "wiki" or
"group"/"workgroup". A
"wiki"/"group"/"workgroup" can be configured though (allow
local users, permissions to create them).
* So IMO we should just decide on the core concepts,
define them and use
them accordingly.
If you try to find out what are the core concepts of XWiki I can find just
http://enterprise.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/GettingStarted/XWikiEnterpriseBa…
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/Spaces
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/AdminGuide/Virtualization
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/DataModel
but we don't clearly state what is the hierarchy
* Core concepts:
wiki, space, page
main wiki, wiki, space, page
wiki, subwiki, space, page
main wiki, subwiki, space, page
main wiki, subwiki, space, nested space, page
wiki, subwiki, space, subspace, page
:) we really need to decide how are we gonna call them and make a
convention that describe consistent the hierarchy.
This is important indeed. In the new model for example we have ATM: Document, Space, Wiki,
System.
Because right now we didn't have the sub/nested
concept, in my mockups, I
decide to use just the main/simple/basic concepts:
home (main wiki) > wiki (subwiki) > space > page
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/HomeMenu
Another variant would have been to use 'Subwiki' instead of 'Wiki' in
the
'Add' menu (would have been more hierarchy correct).
* Regarding marketing and user terms: ideally there should be just one term
that is self descriptive from a technical point of view and for users. The
problem is that this is kind of hard to find.
I agree we need only 1 term and not two.
I would never agree to put a name like
'System' to describe the 'Main
Wiki'. The other proposals were 'Portal', 'Farm', 'Home'.
I've chosen
'Home' because it makes sense.
I think you missed the point. System is NOT the main wiki. The main wiki is … a wiki.
System is above Wiki in the hierarchy. It represents the whole system (the whole farm).
ATM there's no such notion and the system concepts are implemented in the main wiki
which explains the confusion. Anyway, I agree that System/Farm (the concept of the whole
system) is a bit too early ATM for XWiki 5.x.
So yes I agree that for some terms we could have 2
terms: one used from a
technical perspective and the other for the users.
If we would settle to a 'wiki > subwiki > space > subspace > page'
hierarchy, than instead of 'Home' it would have been 'wiki'.
I don't have any problem with the 'wiki' naming. I consider it to be an
idiom (a notion that the user learns and get used to it) and if we used it
consistent it should not create any problems for the user.
I agree
Regarding XWiki vs. MediaWiki discussion etc. IMO we
are 'X'Wiki from
'eXtensible'Wiki, so we already stating that we are more than a wiki.
But I don't think this mail should discuss the rename of Workspaces vs.
Wiki. IMO they are 2 separate concepts, one is a specialization and the
other is a core concept. The problem is the current implementation/model
and we need to compromise on that.
I see them as the same thing, with just a configuration setting: the ability to have local
users. The rest is similar.
Workspace is a specialization of the Wiki (right now,
but can be changed
later to nested spaces).
Indeed this is what I mentioned in reply to Edy: we don't need to make workspaces
something different. This is very important for the future.
Now:
* If users want to work zones they'll create a workgroup/wiki/subwiki
Future:
* If users want to work zones they can create a workgroup/wiki/subwiki
* Or they can create a subspace
It'll be their choice. I still think that a subwiki should offer more isolation power
(dedicated admin, skin, rights, etc) in order to differentiate it from a nested space but
that's another discussion ;)
Having it in the Add menu means we promote this
feature (not necessarily is a core concept). From a marketing point of view
is better to have it separate and identified.
Wiki can be created just by Admins, so normal users will not be able to
create them, thus not see them in the Add menu, but in the Administration.
Why that? Why make the difference? What's so different?
This is Option A
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CreateWikiImprovem…
If we change the implementation (from wiki to nested spaces) the Add menu
will not change.
Option B is more generic and extensible, and of course is logical and
simpler to choose it from a technical perspective
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CreateWikiImprovem…
The Workspace term is not dropped, but presented as a subtype.
It should be dropped in option B and made as a simple checkbox: "Allow local
users".
If we change the implementation (from wiki to nested
spaces) instead of
having it as an option in the wiki creation step, it would appear in the
space creation step.
So choosing between OptionA and OptionB IMO is like choosing between
Marketing and Tech.
Thanks for summarizing! :)
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Sergiu,
On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Yes I've been looking at those trends for a long time now and I'm watching
them every few months too.
"Confluence" is cheating because it's an English word so you get a lot of
garbage with it… Try "atlassian confluence" and you'll see a different
picture…
I prefer this one though:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+mediawiki%2C+confluence#q=w…
And yes I've also noticed that the "wiki" trend has been going down since
july 2011. I don't have an explanation but we need to be careful with
google trends and the way it works.
Another problem is that they're all going down on google trends… I'm not
sure which concepts are increasing. It would be interesting to find out.
Anyway I think you're diverging from the initial topic of integrating the
ability to create subwikis/workspace in the default distribution. I don't
think our goal for XWiki 5.2 is to question the core existence of the XWiki
project and to rename everything and obliterate the "wiki" name.
I also would like to rename "XWiki" to something that doesn't contain the
word "wiki" in it because I also think we've reached a stage where the
"wiki" name might hamper us because "XWiki" is a lot more than a
traditional wiki and being alone to push the concept of "application wiki"
is hard (too bad google dropped jotspot). However I don't agree that this
change should be done by being incoherent. We currently are a wiki at heart
with code and concepts of a wiki. For XWiki 5.2 I'm convinced we need to
keep this consistency. And having "page/document", "space" and
"shelf" is
not a good idea. In the wiki world the concepts are "page", "space",
"wiki", "attachments", etc.
marketing/usability
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On 07/30/2013 05:32 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi Sergiu,
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.org> wrote:
>
>> Vincent, stop thinking so technical! You're describing the technical
>> implementation of the current "workspace" feature, not the user
friendly
>> name that users can understand.
>
> <joking>
> ok let's stop the xwiki project then! Because it contains the word
"wiki" which our users don't understand…. I don't even understand how
we
get users since obviously they can't understand what xwiki is about… ;)
Let's call it "stuff" which is a word that everyone understands surely…
</joking>
Are you sure you want to go this way?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+mediawiki%2C+confluence
XWiki is almost unknown. XWiki doesn't get the volume of users that a
mature and popular project usually gets. We've been struggling to market
it as an application wiki, yet few users use it that way. How many high
quality third party applications do we have in our repository?
I've seen more questions about migrating from Mediawiki than from
Confluence, which is our direct competitor. And Confluence is only
getting more popular.
The peak of Mediawiki popularity was also the peak of interest in
plaintext wikis (Gartner's peak of inflated expectations). And
unfortunately the decrease in popularity in Mediawiki is also reflected
in the decrease in popularity in XWiki:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki (and twiki, dokuwiki,
moinmoin, pmwiki, jspwiki).
Confluence seems to be the winner on the Gartner Hype Cycle.
We haven't even been able to overcome our precursor, TWiki, and I've
considered TWiki almost dead for several years:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+twiki
So don't wonder how we even get users, because we almost don't.
That's why I'd like to set up my "active installs" extension to really
know and measure that. I don't trust google trends at face value.
And I didn't say that users don't
understand what "wiki" means, just
that they misunderstand what XWiki is and what a wiki is in XWiki,
because they already know what a wiki is in the traditional way. It's
like calling a teleportation device a TCar because it gets you from one
place to another, just like a car, but then users will expect all the
things they have in a car. There's a reason why different products get
different names, instead of just extending the base name: reusing the
old name with a prefix causes confusion.
So +1 for choosing something better than "XWiki" as the name of the
product, this one hasn't been lucky so far.
>> No matter how much more accurate the term "wiki" is to what's
happening
>> inside, it means less than nothing to our target users. Less, because
>> it's misleading instead of helpful.
>>
>> So yes, on the inside we have __entities__ named documents, spaces and
>> wikis, and this isn't about changing those. It's about adding names
that
>> end users can understand to the
__concepts__ that those entities
>> represent.
>
> <joking>
> Yeah, let's rename "document" by "book page",
"space" by "book" and
"wiki" by "shelf".
I"m sure users will understand better!
</joking>
Did I even mention "renaming"? I explicitly said that this isn't about
changing our entity names, but about labeling for users. It's a
marketing strategy.
But yes, even "document" and "space" have been occasionally
misleading.
> It is a wiki, but it lets users collaborate.
Our users do
> their jobs in such a wiki, and for __our users__ that means much more
> than what "wiki" means to them.
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Awiki
You just proved that the wiki word is exactly the right word… :)
What exactly do you see? I see:
"A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing
any user to add and edit content"
So if this is indeed the correct term, adding a new subwiki, is...
"creating a new website"? Do you even know what a "website" means
for
the average user? Or "content"?
>> Remember the XWiki (SAS) mottos: work better together, the best way to
>> organize information, free your knowledge... Users do their work
>> collaboratively, they don't just write pages in a wiki. They write in a
>> forum, write review, write press releases, vote, plan, review job
>> candidates, take meeting notes, draw UML diagrams, etc. This is why
>> "wiki" is WRONG for __end users__.
>>
>> I think that this is not a technical decision, but a >> one, so it would be better to see what
someone from marketing thinks.
>
> I definitely don't agree, sorry… We're building a collaborative
solution based on a wiki and as such I definitely don't agree to rename the
base concepts of a wiki: pages, spaces, wiki, etc.
Again, when did I ever said that we should rename them? I just said that
it would be more intuitive for users to label a virtual wiki as a
workspace.
Ok if all you're asking is for the user to be able to customize its UI and
rename "page" to "A", "space" to "B" and
"wiki" to "C" then we can think
about how to achieve that but the core distribution that we deliver should
contain the notion of page, space, wiki.
> Remember that we're talking here about
the base platform. Then there
are flavors and customizations done by our users
which can be anything
specific for their project if they want to hide the wiki concepts…
>
> I think you're confusing applications based on xwiki concepts with core
concepts. A subwiki is a core concept in the same manner as a document or a
space. What we're doing now is making the notion of subwiki part of the
core concepts as it should have been a long time ago (this is why btw it's
also in the new model). Again, on top of these core concepts you could
create apps for specific uses cases. You could have a workspace app if you
want although with the core concepts it's not required ATM since it doesn't
add any additional feature...
Rerepeating myself, this isn't about the workspace feature. This isn't
about the workspace feature. This is about the XWiki vision, and the
XWiki marketing strategy. Is XWiki just a wiki? Or is it much more than
that, with collaborative applications as the focus instead of just plain
text.
I'm sorry but you weren't clear. The topic of your mail was :"How to call
a workspace?"…
I think you should have sent a mail entitled "The future of wikis and how
XWiki can grow more". This is a very interesting topic indeed which I'd
like to discuss too but I don't think it should affect our XWiki 5.2
discussion, it's something much larger.
<side note>
We're in a hurry for 5.2 because it's already started, GuillaumeD is
responsible to implement this and is going on holiday in 3 days and will
have little time when he's back, so I was hoping we could have a quick
common agreement for 5.2 to make progress.
</side note>
What is XWiki trying to be? How do we present it
to our potential users?
As a wiki? Or as a platform empowering collaboration? An intranet
environment, where employees can do their work better.
Compared to first generation wikis, XWiki is like an atomic bomb next to
a hand grenade. Let's not market XWiki as a Bigger Grenade.
And please, read more carefully what I'm actually saying.
I'm trying hard, believe me...
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> PS: BTW you haven't proposed a good name so far IMO…. At least not one
that is better for all use cases. Some might be better for a specific usage
of xwiki but not generally speaking.
>
>> On 07/30/2013 12:15 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just my point of view on this point, since I keep seeing similar
topics
>>>> popping up once in a while...
>>>>
>>>> For me, the "wiki" is the entire environment (main wiki + all
its
>>>> subwikis), as a whole, by definition. Since they are all connected,
it is
>>>> wrong to say that we are creating
new wikis (subwikis) when, in
fact, we
>>>> are just creating new
"spaces"/"workspaces" (spaces where the user
>>>> does/groups/catalogues his work). Also, this view is enforced by our
new
>>>> direction towards virtual by
default and of making subwikis part of
XWiki's
>>>> data model (including the new
model).
>>>
>>> In the future you'll be able to either:
>>> - create wikis, they are real wikis.
>>> - create nested spaces
>>>
>>> So you'll be able to choose the way you want to organize yourself by
either creating a (sub)wiki or a (nested)space.
>>>
>>> The notion of "workspace" is not needed in either case:
>>> - for (sub)wikis, it matches with the notion of a wiki and flavors
>>> - for (nested)space, it matches with the notion of a space + space
template (which I guess could also be implemented as a flavor in the future)
>>>
>>>> Since we are currently lacking the hierarchy feature of the the new
model,
>>>> and we are faking it technically
(and maybe this is where the
confusion
>>>> comes from) by using new
wikis(subwikis) in new databases, the term
>>>> "workspace" would, IMO, remain the best candidate.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. The "workspace" feature was done ad-hoc outside
of the
platform and as a consequence was thought as an add-on. Now, what we are
doing and preparing for the future is to have the notion of subwiki at the
core of XWiki. And this concept of workspace is no longer needed as
something adhoc. It can be integrated in the platform.
>>>
>>> What is a workspace:
>>> * it's a set of pages/applications
>>> * using existing users
>>>
>>> Those 2 items can be done without the need for any new name/concept.
A
set of pages/applications is what we call a flavor. And the notion of
users already exists (what we need to work on, is to have a config feature
so that a subwiki can have or not have local users).
>>>
>>>> If we consider the fact
>>>> that we want to make workspaces the default (as proven in practice),
we
>>>> find that the "corner"
cases are actually the term "wiki" (actually
>>>> "subwiki"), which occur only in farm deployments where, indeed,
a
subwiki
>>>> is a fully fledged and generally
isolated "wiki" from the point of
view of
>>>> the owner and its users.
>>>>
>>>> Also, in an enterprise environment, try explaining each time to the
>>>> Accounting, Marketing, etc. departments that:
>>>> - a "wiki" is "a set of pages that can be edited/modified
by users
with
>>>> links between pages, using some
syntax, etc."...
>>>> - a "workspace" is "a/the space where you (do *your*)
work/collaborate"
>>>
>>> I don't understand. Why have the 2 concepts? The idea of option B is
to have only 1 concept: that of (sub)wikis.
>>>
>>>> +1 for "workspace" as first-class term being promoted to users
>>>> +1 for "wiki" as technical term being mentioned in
documentation to
admins
>>>> (specifically for farm
deployments)
>>>>
>>>> Also, being an enterprise wiki, I`m not sure we want to be labelled
as the
>>>> company's "wiki"
instead of the company's "collaboration tool" (or
"tool
>>>> used to get our work
done").
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Eduard
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: As a technical/background note, just not to be misunderstood,
indeed,
>>>> a workspace is implemented as
just a wiki right now with additional
>>>> restrictions to satisfy its usecase. However, this is only due to our
>>>> platform's limitations. Normally, a workspace should just be a space
where
>>>> a user can install apps, create
other sub-spaces, and collaborate
with
>>>> others. The initial proposal (for
the "Wiki 3.0" XWiki SAS research
>>>> project) was to actually use spaces to implement workspaces, but
since we
>>>> could not install apps (among
other things), we chose to use subwikis
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> We still need the ability to "Add a new Wiki" in 5.2 so this
doesn't
change anything.
>>>
>>> And if in the future we support nested spaces then users will also be
able to use them + space templates with flavors.
>>>
>>> So for me that makes it even more important to not introduce the
notion of "workspaces" in 5.2 and to only have the notion of adding a
(sub)wiki :)
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>> Definitely +1 for B. I really think we need to drop the
concept of
>>>>> workspaces and come back to the concept of wiki/subwiki. It's
much
simpler
>>>>> for the user. What we call
"workspace" can be seen as a
configuration for a
>>>>> wiki, i.e. the usage of
global users only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree. For us XWiki veterans it's obvious that an XWiki
wiki
is an
>>>>>> all-powerful collection
of applications and pages that can do
anything
>>>>>> we want it to. But for
users, a wiki is Wikipedia, where you can
find
>>>>>> documentation written by
amateurs that's hasn't been proof-read by
a
>>>>>> real professional. It
takes months or years of using a wiki to
shift
>>>>>> from the external viewer
bad opinion to the internal collaborator
good
>>>>>> opinion of the term
"wiki".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So "wiki" is a bad name for users. I think
"workspace" is a much
better
>>>>>> name than
"wiki", although it's far from perfect. First of all
because
>>>>>> it creates confusion
between a "space" and a "workspace (wiki)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what better word describes a "collaboration space"
than
"workspace"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some random ideas, most of them bad:
>>>>>> - node
>>>>>> - workgroup
>>>>>> - community
>>>>>> - rename space to directory and we can use space or workspace for
the
>>>>>> current "wiki"
>>>>>> - virtual server
>>>>>> - environment
>>>>>> - sandbox
>>>>>> - appspace
>>>>>> - office
>>>>>> - location
>>>>>> - rack
>>>>>> - stack
>>>>>> - instance
>>>>>> - room
>>>>>> - workroom
>>>>>> - desk
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure this is needed. XWiki is all about the notion of
wiki…
even
>>>>> in its name. The generic name
"wiki" seems a much better name to me
than
>>>>> anything else:
>>>>> * it's a set of pages that can be edited/modified by users with
links
>>>>> between pages, using some
syntax, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we need to change that. Any other name would be
awkward IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not forget that some of the instances are customized so
much
that
>>>>>> users don't even know
they're using a wiki, so just seeing the word
>>>>>> "wiki" might cause confusion: "Wiki? What wiki?
I'm using our
company's
>>>>>> internal Foobars
application!". So it would be a good idea to make
this
>>>>>> term configurable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the instance is customized so much that it doesn't look like a
wiki,
>>>>> then whoever did this
customization can easily also customize the
>>>>> translation resources to pick whatever suit their needs! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, if the wiki is used as a projects wiki and they want
to have
>>>>> one project = one wiki, they
could rename "Wiki" to "Projects".
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never be able to use a specialized name by default so we
might as
>>>>> well stick with
"wiki" which is the best name for what it is… a
wiki ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent