User talk:Majr/Archive 15

Collapsible stuff
Instead of maintaining a custom-built solution, is there any reason not to recommend the use of ? There's no additional overhead involved with it, since the code's included in core and is thus already sent on every page request. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, mw-collapsible sucks, which I why I originally wrote an updated version based on the script that mw-collapsible was meant to replace. Its main issue is it purely uses JS to collapse elements, which means there is a large page jump once the page finishes loading where all the elements collapse, this is especially problematic for anchor links, as you will end up further down the page than the anchor, as the collapsed elements above it have moved the rest of the page up. This also makes the page a lot slower to load if there are a lot of things on the page to collapse (you may recall the issue with the recent changes being slow when it was first changed to use mw-collapsible).
 * Other issues are:
 * It doesn't have the ability to specify the collapse button to be inline (we use that a fair bit).
 * It uses actual links for the collapse toggle, which is semantically poor and can be confusing to users (middle-clicking a collapse toggle will open the current page in a new tab rather than do anything sensible, for example). To be fair we use a span styled to look like a link, rather than using a button, so it's not much better off semantic wise, but at least it won't do anything but toggle the collapsing.
 * It uses silly low performance jQuery animations which don't work properly.
 * –Majr 01:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * mw-collapsible is pure JS because if you use CSS to hide the content initially and then JS is used to show it after page load, viewers with JS disabled will be unable to show the content without using developer tools in their browser. Because of this and other accessibility concerns/problems, Wikipedia policy is to never put actual page content in a collapsible section, which is why the vast majority of collapsible content on WP articles is the navboxes.
 * I actually don't recall anything about RC being slow, since I haven't used enhanced RC for years. And I can't really comment on your other concerns, since I only have personal anecdotes I could respond with, and I'm definitely not a UI/UX expert. Mostly I was curious about why you were reinventing the wheel here, especially since you could just submit patches against core to have fixes and features added for all MW users. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Except it isn't because there's MediaWiki:Noscript.css (which reminds me I didn't update it), to unhide the content when JS is disabled, and mw-collapsible would be able to restrict its stylings to.
 * In the end, even if I did patch mw-collapsible (which would only be possible for some configurations), I wouldn't see the change for at least a year, maybe two, since we're always on an old version of MW. So we either have no collapsing, or I re-invent the wheel with a ~100 line script. –Majr 05:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)