On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:27 AM Gergő Tisza <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:57 PM Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If we're collecting exemplars, I'd like to add Bartosz >> Ciechanowski's superlative articles <https://ciechanow.ski/archives/>, >> like the ones on bicycles <https://ciechanow.ski/bicycle/> and sound >> <https://ciechanow.ski/sound/>. His articles are the best examples I >> know of interactive content that complements long-form text content. >> > > This concept was popularized by Bret Victor under the name "explorable > explanations <http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/>". There is a > whole Wikipedia article > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorable_explanation> on it. There are > some great examples on his website, and there are some websites for > collecting similar content, such as explorabl.es and an awesome list > <https://github.com/blob42/awesome-explorables>. I agree they are really > cool but... > > >> The critical issue is *security*. Security is the reason the graph >> extension is not enabled. Security is the reason why interactive SVGs are >> not enabled. Interactive visualizations have a programmatic element that >> consists of code that executes in the user's browser. Such code needs to be >> carefully sandboxed to ensure it cannot be used to exfiltrate user data or >> surreptitiously perform actions on wiki. >> > > I think it's fundamentally a human scaling problem. Being able to create > good interactive content is just a much more niche skill than being able to > create good text content. Interactive animations were very much part of > Yuri's vision > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yurik/I_Dream_of_Content> for the > Graph extension, but during the decade Graph was deployed in production the > number of such animations made was approximately zero. Granted Vega is > probably not the easiest framework for creating animations, but I don't > think there are other tools which would make it much easier. You could just > write arbitrary Javascript and package it as a gadget; but no one did that > either. Instead, both gadgets and Graph usage are mostly focused on very > basic things like showing a chess board or showing bar charts, because > those are the things that can be reused across a large number of articles > without manually tailoring the code to each, so the economics of creating > them work out. > > Security is a challenge but could be worked around via iframes. But it's > hard to justify the effort required for doing that when there is no > community of animation makers interested in it - there are plenty of > volunteers who want to *have* animations, but it's not very clear that > there are any who want to *make* animations. This is the same problem > geni mentioned for videos - a lot of people say "we should have more > videos", but it's not very clear who would make them. If platform support > were the bottleneck here, I think the platform support would happen. But as > things look now, it would just be a poor investment of resources IMO > (compared to e.g. the Gadgets extension or Toolforge or Scribunto which do > sustain vibrant volunteer ecosystems which are significantly held back by > the limitations of these platforms). > thank you for sharing ori and gergo. coming from i opened the page "how to tune a guitar": https://mathisonian.github.io/idyll/how-to-tune-a-guitar/, and the readings about "reinventing human explanations" and so on: https://explorabl.es/reading/. the sheer number of examples is saw out of these links does not sound like there is a lack of persons who love to do that. rupert
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/7A6223FVC4SRJQSPZQLO5EILX7N7HZEG/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
