GuiCommand model Wiki page

[hmk]

6.
applying these templates throughout can make the text harder to read. See f.e. Std_LinkMake.

I agree that it makes the page look busy, but in this case I would argue that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Generally, I think it is a good combination to have both an icon and text, because some people better associate with graphics, some better with text. If I see an icon in the Wiki, it's easier for me to match that to the GUI.

How about we have a "rule" that icon+text is used only ONCE (on the first occurrence or at the most suitable place)?

And/or, maybe we could have an extra markup, say {{ButtonRef}}, for references/links to other pages? This ButtonRef should be less prominent (thin border, no bold face). But, of course, this is yet another formatting rule that editors would have to follow...

[hmk]

5.
'Switch to the XYZ workbench'

Implicitly, this is already answered by the current GuiCommand_model. No need to revisit this decision from my side...

[hmk]

3.
Move the 'main' image below the Usage paragraph.

Hmm, I guess it would be good to have more input from smartphone users. I guess, these users are used to scrolling and resizing a lot -- ans this can be done pretty effectively via gestures. I personally, find it more annoying that when I scroll down the text column shifts left and right and I have to realign it.

How about making the image collapsible/expandable? If the caption is descriptive, the user can decide if s/he thinks it's worth it for them to open up the image. Here is a quick mock-up: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/Sandbox:Images

Perhaps we should have a closer look at how Wikipedia handles this?

[david69]

hmk, i'm not sure the cell phone user spend a lot on the wiki in particular as a 3D modeler.
i would tend to think on the opposite: the typical user is somebody using one or two large screens.

expandable: as a reader, i like to have everything in one glance in particular images. it helps to make the page breathe. I know some pages can be very long and in these cases, i understand the use of expandable.
that option should be seldomly used for many reasons.

[Roy_043]

smartphone users

In the discussion I referred to, an editor mentioned that he consults the wiki on a tablet. That is what I meant when I said low-res device.

[hmk]

In the discussion I referred to, an editor mentioned that he consults the wiki on a tablet. That is what I meant when I said low-res device.

It would be good if we could see a screenshot, also since tablets can be used in portrait or landscape.

[Roy_043]

I have removed 6 rarely used templates from the Simple templates table:

• Template:Optional
• Template:Choice
• Template:Variable
• Template:PropertyTasks
• Template:TasksTag
• Template:TitleTasks

[Roy_043]

There seems to be some disagreement/confusion about using the workbench prefix when describing buttons. See the image. As I understand it we include the WB prefix here (option 1.). But on many pages I have recently worked on this workbench prefix has been removed (option 2.). So my question is: What is the standard here?

[david69]

about the button, yes i've seen this as I was translating FEM and Mesh wiki pages and i modifed them. IMO, when we talk about the button of the tool itself on the page describing the tool, we don't need to put the workbench prefix. Here, we are describing how to launch the tool.

if the page is talking about another tool of an other workbench, it can be interesting to add this prefixe. The reader will be informed that he needs to switch to an other workbench if it is not clearly said before.

what do you think?

[hmk]

IMO, when we talk about the button of the tool itself on the page describing the tool, we don't need to put the workbench prefix.

if the page is talking about another tool of an other workbench, it can be interesting to add this prefixe.

I fully agree. In the first case having the WB prefix is distracting "clutter" IMHO. In the second case, it can be an important indicator.