Well, I created new icons for the Mod Status page and tried to replace the old ones. I ended up with some serious problems because, first, our Wiki wasn't able to create thumbnails for my test image, creating an error message instead of a proper picture. Reverting to an older version of the image didn't solve the problem, so I went on and worked around the issue by using the original file size. Second, it turned out that replacing an image doesn't properly update the file (some cache problems?) which is why I simply created a new upload form and attached my image to it.
Could anyone elaborate on these issues? I'd like to overhaul the Mod Status page in the not too distant future, and the new icons will be a part of it.
Anyway, here are my icons (nothing special) and their meaning:
Status: Works fine with OpenMW.
Status: Has some minor issues and/or leads to different behaviour compared to the vanilla engine.
Status: Is currently broken; future versions should solve the issues.
Mod Status page primary maintainer
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
[Continuation because of attachment limitation.]
Status: Is currently being tested. Status: Needs re-testing. Status: Will never work with OpenMW. Status: Has not yet been tested.
Status: Is currently being tested. Status: Needs re-testing. Status: Will never work with OpenMW. Status: Has not yet been tested.
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
I have some thoughts on getting users to report mod compatibility.
I think you are on the right track with the form thing. But I don't think it necessarily has to be a form, it could still be on the wiki. I think the most important aspect, after ease of use, is that users feel they can report compatibility without making too much of a claim. Like this:
If I play around a little with a mod, and encounter no issues, I'm OK with posting in some forum "This seems to work for me". But editing the "official" wiki to change the "official" status of the mod to compatible is not something I feel comfortable with unless I've really played through all content.
But for the community it's more valuable to have a "weak" report saying "no problems" than no report at all, especially if these reports are visible to everyone. Along the lines of what Cramal wrote I think it's better to handle some incorrect reports than to only accept "strong" reports.
Just some thoughts, for what they are worth.
And finally, a big thanks to all of you working on OpenMW! It's really impressive!
I think you are on the right track with the form thing. But I don't think it necessarily has to be a form, it could still be on the wiki. I think the most important aspect, after ease of use, is that users feel they can report compatibility without making too much of a claim. Like this:
If I play around a little with a mod, and encounter no issues, I'm OK with posting in some forum "This seems to work for me". But editing the "official" wiki to change the "official" status of the mod to compatible is not something I feel comfortable with unless I've really played through all content.
But for the community it's more valuable to have a "weak" report saying "no problems" than no report at all, especially if these reports are visible to everyone. Along the lines of what Cramal wrote I think it's better to handle some incorrect reports than to only accept "strong" reports.
Just some thoughts, for what they are worth.
And finally, a big thanks to all of you working on OpenMW! It's really impressive!
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
Regarding my Wiki problem:
I'm actually not quite sure what happened on the Wiki yesterday. I replaced the green icon with my version -- ready to revert it if there'd be any problems. But it did not only not update the file to my version (despite saying so) but rather prompted an error message "Error creating thumbnail: Unable to run external programs, proc_open() is disabled. Error code: 1".
So I decided to temporarily change the corresponding Mod Status page to use the original file instead of the thumbnail in order to prevent several dozens of "Error creating thumbnail[...]" messages showing up where the icon would have been when viewing this page.
@Nivim: Do you have any clue why that happended? After all, you were able to cleanly revert the changes.
I'm actually not quite sure what happened on the Wiki yesterday. I replaced the green icon with my version -- ready to revert it if there'd be any problems. But it did not only not update the file to my version (despite saying so) but rather prompted an error message "Error creating thumbnail: Unable to run external programs, proc_open() is disabled. Error code: 1".
So I decided to temporarily change the corresponding Mod Status page to use the original file instead of the thumbnail in order to prevent several dozens of "Error creating thumbnail[...]" messages showing up where the icon would have been when viewing this page.
@Nivim: Do you have any clue why that happended? After all, you were able to cleanly revert the changes.
I was going to create a thread where users can post there mod observations anyway, so we can collect different players' experiences. But before that, I want to slightly restructure the Wiki page.Neargoth wrote: [...]
I think you are on the right track with the form thing. But I don't think it necessarily has to be a form, it could still be on the wiki. I think the most important aspect, after ease of use, is that users feel they can report compatibility without making too much of a claim. Like this:
If I play around a little with a mod, and encounter no issues, I'm OK with posting in some forum "This seems to work for me". But editing the "official" wiki to change the "official" status of the mod to compatible is not something I feel comfortable with unless I've really played through all content.
[...]
- psi29a
- Posts: 5362
- Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
- Location: Belgium
- Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
- Contact:
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
Time to PM Lgro if you have problems with the wiki.
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
Just a quick heads-up:
lgro managed to fix the Wiki problems (he had to disable imagemagick). I just updated the Mod Status page with the new icons, and everything worked as expected.
Changes in Mod Status:
- replaced old icons by new ones
- added two more icons to complete our set of mod states
- changed/added description texts for all states
More changes will be made after the 0.40 release.
lgro managed to fix the Wiki problems (he had to disable imagemagick). I just updated the Mod Status page with the new icons, and everything worked as expected.
Changes in Mod Status:
- replaced old icons by new ones
- added two more icons to complete our set of mod states
- changed/added description texts for all states
More changes will be made after the 0.40 release.
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
I will post my google form a little every where when the 0.40 will be released.
And after 1 week or two will try to summarize the informations and include them into the wiki
And after 1 week or two will try to summarize the informations and include them into the wiki
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
Very good. I think we should include it when posting the release notes in other forums / on other sites.
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
The adress of the google-form is this one
https://goo.gl/forms/4EDcw066I6cLcMgh2
The google form is made for people that are using OpenMW, but don't have the time to fully document on the wiki.
It is better to document the wiki directly
https://goo.gl/forms/4EDcw066I6cLcMgh2
The google form is made for people that are using OpenMW, but don't have the time to fully document on the wiki.
It is better to document the wiki directly
Re: Mod Status page primary maintainer
A few suggestions for the Google form:
1. Technically it's "0.40.0", "0.39.0", ...
2. We have different Linux builds, right? Maybe we should differentiate between them.
3. Last question: "List the mods you have completely tested and can guarantee that they are working properly in OpenMW. Please, also specify the version of OpenMW the mods were tested with."
4. You use space characters before question marks. That would be correct in French but is wrong in English where there is no space before a punctuation mark. You should also add full stops or colons at the end of the last three items.
1. Technically it's "0.40.0", "0.39.0", ...
2. We have different Linux builds, right? Maybe we should differentiate between them.
3. Last question: "List the mods you have completely tested and can guarantee that they are working properly in OpenMW. Please, also specify the version of OpenMW the mods were tested with."
4. You use space characters before question marks. That would be correct in French but is wrong in English where there is no space before a punctuation mark. You should also add full stops or colons at the end of the last three items.