TWiki as Web Commentary Tool

This topic incorporates some discussion refractored from IndexedThreadedDiscussions.

I am interested in exploring possibility of using TWiki as a flexible tool to comment on other web pages. Some of the uses I see for this include:

• Making a comment about a web page on another (non-wiki) site. For example, providing a critique of an article (DocumentMode) or a discussion (ThreadMode) about an article on some other web site and being able to see both within the same window.
• Separating ThreadMode from DocumentMode into separate-but-linked topics with a TWiki site but still displaying them within same window.
• Providing a modest (but still useful) degree of integration between TWiki and other server-based applications. For example, adding the capability to add comments to a photo-gallery program that does not include that function. (I discussed this idea some in IntegrationWithOtherWebApps.)

Some of the basic functionality I envision for this includes:

1. Having a two-frame skin that displays the page-to-be-commented-on in the top frame and the TWiki topic in the lower frame. (See #FramesConsideredHarmful below for further discussion about use of frames.)
2. Providing a link in the TWiki-topic that opens up the page-to-be-commented-on in the top frame.
3. It would realy nice to be able to provide a link to a particular paragraph within the page-to-be-commented-on, obviously without requiring some code to be embedded within that page. Could this possibly be accomplished using a search function?

-- LynnwoodBrown - 13 Aug 2002

Discussion

Invitation to try out IndexedThreadedDiscussions -- LynnwoodBrown - 13 Aug 2002

I invite you to try out the convention I described IndexedThreadedDiscussions for this discussion. Basically it involves:

• Adding a heading before your comment that includes your signature and date stamp.
• If your comment is a response to an earlier comment, add it right after it with a lower-level heading.
• A bar at the end of your comment.

---

side-by-side instead of top-bottom -- MattWilkie- 11 Aug 2002

I personally find top and bottom split windows hard to work with because you can only see a few lines at once. Side-by-side windows are easier to use, for me.

If the extra frame is detachable like some of the "remote control" web navigation frames I've seen then the user could arrange to suit.

Side-by-side vs top-bottom -- LynnwoodBrown - 11 Aug 2002

Matt - It's interesting to hear your different take on this. I suppose the relative usability of the two approaches would depend on several factors - including how large a screen the user has, what kind of content was in the two frames (eg lists versus paragraphs), etc.

In the example I spoke of before, we addressed your concern by making the frames such that the bar between them was moveable. In this way, the user could choose how many lines were visible in each frame. I found this quite workable. I usually set it up with 25% for the top frame which was enough to see the few lines I was directly commenting on and then 75% for the bottom frame so I could see a least a full paragraph of what I was writing.

I'm not familiar with side-by-side layouts that serve similar function so I can't say what I think of that. I've seen lots of layouts (including, or course, several TWiki skins) that use a right or left vertical frame (or equivalent) for navigational links which makes sense to me. But if both left and right sides had paragraphs or tables, it seems like they would get somewhat scrunched up (as least on my 17" screen). Maybe not...

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to as "remote control" web navigation frames. Can you point to an example?

BTW - this is getting further away from the specific discussion of IndexedThreadedDiscussions. I'm really interested in this thread and might like to split it off at some point into some topic along the lines of LayoutForCommentary or something along those lines.

detachable frame example -- MattWilkie - 12 Aug 2002

see http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/Physics/index.htm

---

Frames considered harmful -- WoutMertens - 12 Aug 2002

Note that there are some problems with using frames. They are iterated at http://gothic.moremagic.com/~karri/noframes.html .

---

Jakob Nielsen OK with this specific use of frames

In Jakob's Nielsen's off-cited article on Why Frames Suck (Most of the Time), he does point to exceptions under the heading "When It's OK to Use Frames." In particular, he suggest that:

"Frames are also useful for "meta-pages" that comment on other pages. For example, a Web design styleguide may need to mix discussions of design principles with live examples of entire pages that follow (or break) the rules. In these cases, the embedded page should be treated as an embedded image (even though it is implemented as an independent page) and the "main" information that users will want to bookmark should be the content of the commenting frame."

---

How about crit method? -- JohnRouillard - 13 Aug 2002

Has anybody though of the crit (see CritOrg) method. I was considering a crit style plugin using a url of:

http://site/twiki/bin/critview/Codev/TWikiAsWebCommentaryTool

but I never got around to actually linking to the crit tool.

---

Crit realted opinion -- ZeljkoBlace- 14 Aug 2002

Crit is wonderfull tool (used it several times) but should it be really integrated ??? I am not sure.

btw LynnwoodBrown Great work with Indexing discussions!

---

Other implementations of basic idea proposed here

Wikalong Mozilla Extension

Well I guess this is an idea who's time as come. The basic functionality I was proposing here has been implemented as a Mozilla (and Firefox of course) extension called WikalongExtension. From the description on their site: "Wikalong is a FirefoxExtension that embeds a wiki in the SideBar of your browser, indexed off the url of your current page. It is probably most simply described as a wiki-margin for the internet. One general difference in the functioning of the wiki you may find is that wiki links would be external, as opposed to traditional wikis which are more internal link centric."

I'd still love to see something like this created in TWiki.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 28 Nov 2004

Wow, that is really cool Lynnwood. Thanks for pointing it out. I've got it running right, now, commenting on this wiki page. Best of all, is that it is very quick. I wonder if it will stay that way. (and how the heck do you define your own back end storage server?)

-- MattWilkie - 01 Dec 2004

Gibeo web annotation

http://gibeo.net/ implements a somewhat related idea but takes a different approach. It allows you to add comments about specific locations within an external web page and displays that page with icons. (This is similar to the 3rd functionality I listed in my original outline for this idea.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 01 Dec 2004

Perl-based "Annotation Engine"

Now this has potential! Check out Annotation Engine, an OS, free, perl-based annotation system that really comes very close to doing everything I proposed initially! It combines many of the features of Wikalong and Gibeo approaches. And look at this: in Wiki:AnnotationEngine, the author even proposes to integrate his script into a wiki! This is an ripe opportunity to create a "killer feature" for TWiki, if I've ever seen one! Any coders out there interested?

-- LynnwoodBrown - 01 Dec 2004

A General Cautionary Note

I don't want in the least way to discourage exploration of these kinds of tools, on the contrary I haven't been this interested in a new web application in a long time. However there is significant potential for abuse of privacy: whatever website is hosting the comment storage has a complete record of every website and page you visit (as long as the tool is active, which, to be truly effective and interesting would be all the time) AND what you think about it.

Maybe everything could be tunneled through an anonymising proxy(?)

-- MattWilkie - 01 Dec 2004