website issue
by brynn
Something weird is happening with the website. I'm not quite sure how to
explain it. Images are missing (except in the gallery) and all links, even text
links, are blue spheres.
Just in case you didn't notice yet. I waited half an hour, to make sure it
wasn't a momentary glitch.
All best,
brynn
6 years, 5 months
- 5
- 8
testing of link upload feature
by brynn
Hi Friends,
I've just tested the new link upload feature. Here's the test:
https://inkscape.org/en/~brynn/%E2%98%85getting-cmyk-color-from-inkscape-...
Everything seems to be working ok. Except I didn't know what to do with the
license. How will someone who uploads someone else's tutorial (or other
resource) know about its license?
I suppose any written work has a copyright, by the definition of copyright (as
far as I understand it). And since I was uploading (a link to) someone else's
tutorial, I thought they should have the credit. So I selected full copyright.
But the way it looks is sort of like I'm the copyright holder.
Also I wonder if Public Domain, or any other license except for full copyright,
should even be available. Or does the fact that a link is being uploaded make
license completely irrelevant? (Can a link have a license?)
There is a section in the regular resource upload for Permission (own the work,
permission, and no permission), which is missing for the link upload. And I
wonder if it should be available. Then I could use "no permission", and that
might at least help to indicate who's holding the copyright.
Another issue is the author of the tutorial (or other resource). There's no
place to indicate that. I wrote it into the description, but not everyone who
uploads a link will do that. I wonder if it needs to have its own field, like
the title -- especially since we're uploading something written by someone else
(a link to it, I mean). That would go even further to make clear about the
license. (If a link can have a license.)
Just some thoughts. :-) And thanks for the new feature!!
All best,
brynn
6 years, 6 months
- 1
- 0
revisiting vetting of tutorials (on the website)
by brynn
Hi Friends,
Trying to make brief as possible. (Martin, specific question for you in
this.) (But comments welcome from anyone.)
Some few months ago, there was a request on this list to update the
Video Tutorials page (https://inkscape.org/en/learn/videos/). After some
discussion, it was decided it would be better to put the effort into getting
better tutorials uploaded into the Tutorials section of the gallery
(https://inkscape.org/en/gallery/=tutorial/?order=-edited).
At that time, I mentioned my plan to re-contact all the tutorial
authors, that I've already contacted once before, for the tutorials I have
already curated (or vetted) on this page
https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php, inform them, if they aren't
already aware of the new website, and including instructions to upload their
tutorials, if they are interested. This bug report covers several related
ideas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape-web/+bug/1603669 (Someone else is
going through a similar process for Inkscape extensions.)
But I can't start on it, at least until the forum situation is settled.
So I was thinking, if there would be some way to allow anyone to vet tutorials,
which either are already uploaded, or which they want to upload; then anyone who
wants to could get started already.
I wrote some brief guidelines, which I thought to upload to both
tutorial pages (text and video) (or maybe combine both pages into just the
vetting guidelines page). However, in some discussion with Maren about moving
forward with the plan, we've realized that this can't be done without some
somewhat significant changes to the website.
(For the record, when I say "we" it doesn't mean both of us are in favor
of doing this. She actually isn't in favor of it, but is still helping figure
out if it could be done, and how.)
We can't have a tag such as "vetted" or "approved" for tutorials,
because anyone, just anyone, could add such a tag, whether they actually have
read or viewed or worked through the tutorial or not. Theoretically, even
spammers could use it. Theoretically, if there's a way to disallow tags, maybe
certain words should be disallowed, like "approved" for example.
So there needs to be a way to either make a particular tag/filter
("vetted" or "approved" or other) available only for certain people, or only
make it available for a certain user group. In discussions with Maren (who
knows more about the inner workings of the website than I do), there doesn't
seem to be any way to make any certain tags available (or not available) for
only certain people to use.
But there does seem to be some functionality, which has been planned
for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be
approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by'
(person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created
for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request
these fields be defined (and made functional).
I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some
other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people
who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that
account. So question for Martin.
Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a
waste of time for tutorials? Could this be done before the forum issue is
settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process
that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could
be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I
might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of
that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty
I haven't seen yet.)
Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should
something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding
something correctly?
Thanks for any comments,
brynn
6 years, 6 months
- 2
- 3
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →