WIKI's less-than-wild Ways

Grrrrrrrrrr.
After 2+ weeks of working on a collaborative website project, I find myself mostly frustrated by the shortcomings of what is supposed to be a useful tool for group interraction. The host website we used, wetpaint.com, cannot, I suppose, be blamed for the what amounted to a pile of minor glitches and limitations of a second-rate text editor. After all, you get what you pay for, right? Who am I to complain?

The real problem is that I am getting a little too tech-savvy. After reading that last article by Roger Black about the future of web design, which really was mostly about the history of web design, I am more apt to look for those details in a web page which make for easy utilization and navigation. The WIKI, unfortunately, has made me painfully aware of exactly what the author was getting at when he described just what it takes to cause a web site to grind to a screeching halt.

Despite its irreproachable intentions, wetpaint.com is trapped in its own version of 1990s internet antiquity. The editing options are not just limited; I found them to be rather confining and restrictive. I wrestled for hours on end trying (unsuccessfully) to place photos attractively or format lists of numbered items - it seemed as though the word processor program had one idea of how things should be listed, while my own ideas were somewhat different. What's worse is that the word processor won out, one way or another. That is not how things should go in an application that is supposed to promote user creativity and expression. We humans are supposed to be in control here.

Getting beyond all the formatting difficulties, the underlying structure of the website, while predictable and acceptable as a standard, seemed almost crude at times. Navigation was awkward and time consuming. Features such as the Photo Gallery and the To-Do lists were not always accessible when I needed them; for example, I could not view a photo in full size without either interrupting the page edit or actually inserting the photo into the page to see it. Other options as well were locked and unusable while editing a page. Overall it made for a lot of tedious, repetitive work that could have been much simpler and quicker if the user was given just a few more capabilities (mainly while editing).

One thing I did like was the ease with which links could be inserted into the document. Both internal and external links were simple to create by typing a URL or a WIKI page name into a text box. Once I discovered this feature I had a lot of fun cross-referencing my pages and providing links to outside sites as well. It gave the document a more professional and polished aspect, overall. Page anchors (which appear as "Previous" and "Next" links on each page) were created by another group member (thanks, Jose!) and made the whole website MUCH easier to navigate. For some reason, the sidebar navigation menu just seems awkward - and I refer, once again, to the article by Roger Black on re-creating web design. All the menus and lists are just not cutting it anymore. They make the experience slow and cumbersome, and at this point in Internet history, most users and surfers can easily hop onto another site that gratifies their need for speedy access to information and tools. Plainly, it is these more fluid sites that will generate visitor interest and, consequently, revenue for the host organization. In other words, I'm sold. Pass the Flash Player, please.

[check out our finished product at www.bardsofbrooklyn.wetpaint.com]