Is there any existing wiki support direct drawing function?
Perhaps it is not a good idea for a well formatted wiki, how about a personal one?
People nowadays using finger(tablet) or pens much often than keyboard,
a quick sketching is sometimes much easier to describing concept.
(import picture sounds not a lazy solution)
Thanks!
Twiki has a TWikiDraw Plugin, which is also supported under PmWiki. There's also an experimental extension for Mediawiki called AnyWikiDraw. I suspect there are more, but those should get you started.
Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware has integrated the awesome SVG-edit as a built-in feature, with integrated permissions and versioning. (so it's not just for a personal wiki)
http://doc.tiki.org/Draw
http://code.google.com/p/svg-edit/
MediaWiki, DokuWiki, XWiki, MoinMoin, TiddlyWiki (and likely others) have it available as a plugin/extension.
M ;-)
Related
I am at present building a medium-sized educational website containing text, academic articles, blog, audio book excerpts, mathematical demos, etc., using custom CSS styles. I am leaning toward two ready-made solutions:
django-cms; and
textpattern.
I have ruled out WordPress because customization is not so easy. Joomla is overkill for this website and the table based design it uses is against my philosophy.
Because I have a number of years of experience in django, django-cms seems to be the natural way to go, but textpattern has more out-of-the-box features and is well supported.
What are the pros and cons between django-cms and textpattern based on prior experience of the people on this list?
Many thanks.
For a comparison of CMSes the best site I have found so far is:
http://cmsmatrix.org/matrix
Over 1200 CMSes are listed and you can compare CMSes by clicking on the checkboxes provided this helped me make my decision and ended up turning back to one of the popular CMSes namely WordPress.
Because I have a number of years of experience in django, django-cms seems to be the natural way to go, but textpattern has more out-of-the-box features and is well supported.
django-cms also has a lot of features from plugins and are well supported too.
django-cms is a fine software which even has it's own hosting site. If as you seem to suggest, the only reason you are looking at textpattern is because it has many out-of-the-box features, then you should really go the natural way with django-cms.
I'm a fan of Textpattern and have been using it for years now. It's benefits are its simplicity and light-weight making it perform well. However, these might be an issue for you if you are wanting to build different content types. Textpattern's interface treats all article content as the same (unless you start install a load of plugins to tweak this). This is fine if your site is primarily for articles, but from what you've said in your question I suspect not.
It is really simple to download and install; so I'd recommend giving it a quick look to see what it can do for you.
A project I am working on makes extensive use of CFCHART. We have run into quite a few usage and performance issues with CFCHART, so I have been tasked to look at some third-party solutions to try out and recommend. Anybody have some reviews and recommendations they'd care to share?
Consider outputting the raw data and using JavaScript / Canvas to generate the charts on the fly. The load is the given to the client.
This makes it easier for screenreaders and people who like to save the data to access it as well.
Some JS charting libraries:
http://code.google.com/apis/chart/
http://omnipotent.net/jquery.sparkline/
http://code.google.com/p/flot/
http://codecanyon.net/item/graphup-jquery-plugin/108025?redirect_back=true&ref=1stwebdesigner&clickthrough_id=23945276
http://www.highcharts.com/
Not dependent on your server side technology (e.g. irrelevant to the fact that you're using CF), I have recently started playing around with HighCharts (http://www.highcharts.com/), and have been very impressed.
Bear in mind, it's not free for commercial use, but you didn't specify as to any such restrictions. Although their pricing seems pretty fair (see http://www.highcharts.com/license)
The Wijmo jQuery library has some nice charting widgets. http://wijmo.com/
We use FusionCharts. They have a comprehensive set of chart and widget types (eg sparklines) and have a very slick, professional finish.
ChartDirector is reasonable and is very advanced. It generates image-based graphs and we don't have to worry about whether or not different browsers support various advanced HTML features or Flash. You can download it, install and run it unlicensed and it will only add a little copyright in the bottom-right 20 pixels of the graph. (Licensing is inexpensive.) It comes with 239+ ColdFusion scripts so that you have plenty of sample code. Their support forums is very active and helpful.
http://www.advsofteng.com/cdcoldfusion.html
Check out the gallery. It has some very impressive samples. You can create just about anything.
http://www.advsofteng.com/gallery.html
You can try jqChart as well.
Thank you to everyone for these suggestions! This gives me a good list of applications to work with. Since there is no one "right" answer for a question like this I made sure to note each answer as useful.
We have used Infragistics controls in our applications for years. However, we have always had a hard time getting started using controls, because of the samples and documentation. For those of you that use Infragistics controls, what is the best way you have found to use the samples and documentation? For those of you that do not, what other control packages have you found that have good documentation and are easy to use?
I have to be honest say that we gave up on the Infragistics stuff a few years back.
We flirted with ComponentArt then settled on the TeleRik controls, mainly because of ease of use, flexibility and the documentation is pretty good.
Been working with Infragistics stuff for awhile now. Usually I check out the samples to see what the controls can do, then when I need something specific, if I can't easily find it perusing with the object browser, then I simply ask their support. They are quick to respond and know their stuff like expected.
You can also search their forums but I find it lacks content; maybe because most of their users prefer asking the support staff.
Not sure, if you are still using Infragistics, but the link to their online documentation is here
I've used ComponentArt and they have pretty decent api docs
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
We're thinking of moving from our existing installation of MediaWiki to something more feature-rich. I'm trying to find all the pains people have with MediaWiki today (mainly it's poor handling of external documents and less-than-perfect editing capabilities - compared to Word).
We are using a wiki for design, spec, process guidelines. We have several external documents (docs, powerpoints) that we are currently putting on a shared folder and linking to from the wiki (because uploading files is not very convenient in MediaWiki).
We are trying to make the friction minimum, so that nobody will have an excuse or reason for not using it.
Some options we're considering are Confluence, Trac & Sharepoint. Money is not a big concern, only ease of use (and maintenance) and feature-fullness. What would you use?
I would plug the details of my specific feature needs into the excellent WikiMatrix choice wizard and let it make recommendations.
I would advise either
Foswiki ( http://foswiki.org ), (forked by the whole developer community of TWiki to avoid trademark threats), for a feature-rich and fully open programmer's wiki. Drop on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net to chat with the community.
Mindtouch's Deki Wiki ( http://www.mindtouch.com/ ) clearly the most user-friendly advanced and innovative wiki out there, a modern commercial + open source offering. Great integration with Office docs.
I would avoid Confluence. Confluence made a design choice (forbidding mixing html in pages with Wiki syntax) that proves deadly to any attempt at wysiwyg, as it uses a standard HTML editor for WYSIWYG, and this converts it on save in a very limited subset of it, yielding frustrating surprises for the users (foswiki for instance keeps as html the parts the wiki syntax do not handle like bullet lists in table cells). Confluence have many great sides, notably its integration with atlassian great tools as their JIRA bugtracker, (we use it at work for this with good results) but do not plan to customize it.
There are many good choices on hosted wikis too (Google sites, based on the awesome jotspot engine is one).
Never use Sharepoint of course. Its wiki capabilities are a IE-only joke, and Sharepoint whole architecture is braindead (storing all data - even huge docs - in a non-distributed database goes against Microsoft own recommendations). If you want a DMS with good Office integration, have a look at KT (Knowledge Tree) instead. http://www.knowledgetree.com/ . For political reasons we were forced to use Sharepoint at work but we limited it to basic document managing (never use the MOSS higher layer, as it breaks compatibility between versions) and integrated a foswiki frontend to it (dumped document list & metadata in xml and provided navigation in foswiki, and search with a google box)
But my real advice would be to ... wait for Google wave, that promises to revolutionize the wiki concepts.
Disclaimer: I am part of the foswiki community.
Before you move away from Mediawiki I would urge you to consider the many extensions available. IMO there arent many wikis that offer more features that MW, especially when you consider the number of extensions. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions
For example, for editing there are browser based editors similar to Word. And there even macros for Word that allow you to export from MS Word to your Wiki, from within Word.
Also, check out the Semantic Mediawiki extensions. These give enormousness benefits in the area of Knowledge Management.
I would personally recommend against moving from Wiki to SharePoint. The huge problem there is SP's dreadful handling of images.
First of all I would stay away from Sharepoint. Period.
I would not consider switching to Trac either, since Trac has special focus on issue tracking, and poor support for external documents.
I would consider switching to Confluence, since:
Money is not an issue (as you said)
You want to minimise maintanance work (as you said)
You want to use wiki to handle external documents (as you said)
I'm typically a strong advocate of open source technology, but with the requirements you gave, I just don't think they would make you happy. For instance if you had personnel available for maintaining and providing customisations to your system, I would definitely suggest trying out Foswiki, which also would otherwise fit your needs very nicely. However, if you really want to stay away from any extra maintance work, Foswiki is not a good option.
I work on Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware and I'll share a few links. This question comes up quite a bit so we have a dedicated page: http://tiki.org/Tiki+vs+MediaWiki
We're thinking of moving from our existing installation of MediaWiki
Tiki & MediaWiki are both PHP/MySQL so you can use the same server.
Tiki has a built-in importer: http://doc.tiki.org/MediaWiki+importer
to something more feature-rich.
Tiki is the http://tiki.org/FOSS+Web+Application+with+the+most+built-in+features
We are using a wiki for design, spec, process guidelines. We have several external documents (docs, powerpoints) that we are currently putting on a shared folder and linking to from the wiki (because uploading files is not very convenient in MediaWiki). We are trying to make the friction minimum, so that nobody will have an excuse or reason for not using it.
http://doc.tiki.org/WYSIWYG
http://doc.tiki.org/File+Gallery (instead of your shared folder)
http://doc.tiki.org/Docs (web-based ODFs)
http://doc.tiki.org/Spreadsheet (web-based)
http://doc.tiki.org/Slideshow (web-based)
http://doc.tiki.org/Draw (web-based)
Some options we're considering are Confluence, Trac & Sharepoint. Money is not a big concern, only ease of use (and maintenance) and feature-fullness. What would you use?
Tiki is Free/Open Source. But if you have money burning your pockets :-)
http://tiki.org/Donation
You can also hire a consultant to provide training/support and to accelerate the implementation and/or sponsor feature development
http://info.tiki.org/Consultants
Have you considered sharing your Word documents with Google Docs? It has revision control and collaboration features like a wiki, as well as a rich text editor that can import and export plenty of formats.
It sounds like TWiki would be a great option for you as well. I haven't used it myself, but it also has a rich text editor, as well as tons of enterprisey project management features in it.
A lot of people seem to like Confluence. I personally don't know it. If you are not already at it and you want something feature-rich than xwiki could be something for you.
I'd add FCK Editor for WYSIWYG, get a decent document management system to run alongside the wiki and carry on with MediaWiki!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
What features should "Tomorrow's" wikis include? How might they incorporate Web 2.0 features like AJAX? What other features are they currently missing? What do you want to see from the next release of your favorite Wiki?
Edit: How might a Wiki be integrated into other products? What "neat uses" could wikis have?
Preview-as-you-type works very nicely indeed here on Stack Overflow. Many wikis don't do that.
Make it really easy to link between pages, eg. that, as you type, the wiki finds likely pages you may be referring to. That way you can make links without having to know the exact title of a target page, and bouncing on the shift key to WriteInCamelCase, or throwing in square brackets. Make it very easy to link to other websites outside the wiki, too (and by "easy" I do not mean like wikisisters, which, if I remember correctly, is like foowiki:ALinkLikeThis).
Similarly, if you can generate links within text automatically, you could, for example, have a mail system that wikifies your email. You create a wiki page, say, for Joel Spolsky, and references to Joel emails in your inbox become links to that page, which you can find by clicking "what links here". (This probably needs something along the lines of Bayesian filtering to prune the stray references to other Joels... your Bayesian Classifier learns that if the context is smart and getting things done, it's Spolsky. If it's flying Viking kittens, it's morely likely Joel Veich).
A variety of RSS feeds for tracking changes would nice, too. (Diffs, full text, changes on pages I've edited, ...)
Wikipedia has grown a fairly colossal categorisation system ("Fictional Cats", anyone?); laying a taxonomy over a wiki's flat namespace could provide another way for users to find their way around. Wikipedia's doing this a little, but in fairly limited ways so far: there are links to the relevant category lists, but you can't, for example, look for a composer called "Smith".
Similarly, wikis give you this big graph of interconnected nodes, of how closely your community sees the relevant concepts as being. Is that interesting? Is that useful? Does anyone who isn't google want to think about this stuff?
PS. If you believe Paul Graham's definition of Web 2.0 as "Democracy, Don't Maltreat Users, and Javascript works now", wikis are two thirds Web 2.0 already.
I am personally already tired of wikis. Wiki as a software is outdated, now it is about wiki as a feature (like my favorite new website, stack overflow).
The main advantage of community wiki — more editing — came into existence when we introduced "Suggested Edits".
With "Suggested Edits", anyone, even an anonymous user, can edit anything — so long as another experienced user reviews and approves their edit.
I'm in the process of choosing a wiki tool, and have looked at numerous packages over the past week. I'm sure there are dozens I haven't even heard of yet, probably good ones. But in general, here's my "beginner's mind" take on the problem.
Wiki markup should be abandoned. A wiki that is limited to wiki markup will only be useful to 'nix hacks and others who get excited about doing things the hard way and insisting that everybody else is stupid. I mean, Morse code is fine with me personally; I don't get what was wrong with a nice, clean dash-dot-dash. Or smoke signals, they were nice, except for the carbon footprint. But times change, and we have to change with them.
Real users (business users, customers, clients) want rich text editing. Period. And when a wiki tries to support both rich text and wiki markup, the results are not pretty. The model is confusing and (apparently) difficult to implement. The fckeditor extension at wikiwiki is a nightmare, for example. It's just not worth it.
Wikis need better access control. The idea that all content should be open to everyone is fine for an open, public, non-profit wiki like this one. But in the business world, that's not how it works. Restricting access is not evil, it's reality. Wiki tools need to do a much better job of providing access control: access to pages and groups of pages based on role or group membership, where groups can be formed by anyone on an ad hoc basis and users can belong to multiple groups and pages can be accessible to multiple groups, at the whim of the page's creator.
Those are the two things that I want, above all else, and I haven't found it in open source, at least not out of the box. Which, of course, is why open source is open source.
There's been some interesting work using wikis for testing and software development. EG, movement towards literate programming -- allowing pages to exist as both code and documentation that is compiled down into one or the other (or, I suppose, both simultaneously).
They have a regular session about this at the annual WikiSym conference.
I think one direction of Wikis is going from open ended collections of documents to an "everyone can edit but with more structure" applications like SO.
Another direction that I've seen is more direct integration with other project support tools, so project planning, issue management, and all that stuff.
Personally, I think the next big direction is going to be some sort of multimedia based Wiki, not just a Wiki where multimedia can be embedded in the text.
I really like MediaWiki. It's widely used and free/Free. The markup syntax is straightforward and allows you to do enough basic styling that you don't need to use custom HTML or to use a WYSIWYG. I assume by "sexy web 2.0" you mean Flash/AJAX, but I like MediaWiki because it works cleanly with basic HTML/Javascript (you don't have to wait for custom widgets to load, etc...).
What makes wikis reach their potential of usefulness is the community that develops around them more than the software itself. You need to find a niche where people are both passionate about (but not criminally insane about) the central topic and have enough technical prowess to log on to a website and edit some text.
"Wiki" is ultimately just a pattern:
Open editing by all/most visitors
Integrated revision tracking and rollback to reduce the cost of mistakes
Simple syntax for cross-linking between articles, and auto-creation of stub articles when referenced
That's not a perfect description, but it's a combination that isn't particularly magic. Successful wikis combine those things with a critical mass of people creating and maintaining content.
The next step, IMO, is less about web 2.0 shininess and more about the integration of better structural information. Adding any metadata beyond "this points to that" is an exercise in brute force hand-markup. Maybe microformats? Maybe the development of more structured knowledgebase software that uses wiki-ish editing UI but a smarter backend? I'm not sure, but I think better handling of the structured data is really the next wave.
Extensibility.
Check out DekiWiki, they are doing an excellent job with this.
DekiWiki extensions
The wiki-of-the-future will be completely editable online, concurrently by everyone. Check out EtherPad for a demo of the techonology.
For me, in terms of Enterprise style uses for a wiki, I have a couple of thoughts;
An effective way to keep and synchronise a central, web based wiki with multiple, offline, desktop style wiki's for people on the go
To move towards wiki as a function as opposed to wiki as a system, so we can integrate the wiki collaborative system into other things