Don't forget to make an important note on how the chat pics its server based on the location you are currently editing and how its server wide.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk

fuchserl wrote: I don't know how the chat rooms are organized in the US (is there one room per state or just one for the whole US?).....

I believe the entire US is in one chat room. Can't vouch for Canada though.

I'm still getting the hang of Wiki Editing and the Waze layout to how pages should be constructed. That being said, I'm going to take the leap and help out with the page. Only way to learn is to get my feet wet and start editing.

I've gone ahead and taken some screenshots of the chat window. Here are the shots I have taken so far:
- Focused window of chat members with GPS icon visible
- Image of entire WME after selecting a name, indicating what an editor will see
- Image of the visible/invisible drop-down menu
- Image of the WME Chat window itself
- Image of the WME Chat icon when it is minimized

How should I go about uploading these images, after I have edited them, so they can be used in the Chat Wiki? (Editing the shots to add highlight features to focus on the important parts of the image)

Should I upload them here first for review?

[EDIT]
Also, the file type I should save them as? (jpeg, png, etc)

Another bad 'feature' is when reviewing the chat, the 'new message' icon pops up right over the down arrow so you end up scrolling all the back down.

This is really great work! I have two comments -- a simple one, and one less simple.

The simple comment -- I would suggest using the word "avatar" instead of "icon" when referring to the hard-hat image representing an editor on the WME map. "Icon" is not wrong but "avatar" specifically means an image that represents a person. This could help reduce confusion because there are other icons (like the Rank Cone for example) but only one avatar.

The less simple comment involves an aspect of the WME chat I didn't see discussed clearly: I worry that the chat "steals fire" from the forums, in two ways.

First, it sometimes appears that many newer editors see the chat as an easier alternative to searching the forums (not to mention the wikis). If there are other editors present who are happy to help, no problem. But if the questioner receives a frosty response or no response at all, having had the bad luck to be the 1,536th person to ask why his editing points aren't updating, the unmet expectation of cheery help could lead to hard feelings. Should it be stated (in red boldface perhaps!) that the chat is not a substitute for searching the forums and wikis?

Second, if a junior editor wants to do something odd or questionable and has found one or two more senior editors who agree with his/her plan, it's hard to resist the temptation to forge ahead without any mention in the forums. Since the chats themselves are not saved, much less archived where they are visible to all, that leaves no record of the plan or the thought process for other editors (both present and future) to learn from. I am not sure how to address this, but it worries me.

That being said, again, this is great stuff, thanks for the good work.

Should we mention somewhere that creating a permalink functions as a browser refresh and thus erases all messages?

vectorspace wrote:

DwarfLord wrote:I would suggest using the word "avatar" instead of "icon" when referring to the hard-hat image

I agree. If nobody objects, I suggest DwarfLord make this change.

Done.

I have a bit of confusion perhaps someone can clear up regarding visibility and invisibility. One has two controls for these. Enabling the "Live Users" layer controls whether you see avatars, and enabling "visible" controls whether anyone sees you. Questions:

• Has it been confirmed that an "invisible" setting really does render one completely invisible? No entry in the participating list, and no avatar displayed regardless of other editors' Live Users setting? (I have a recollection that in the early days this was not strictly true but doubtless there have been improvements.) If so, the "stalking" advisory would not apply would it? From a management perspective sometimes you're curious what someone is working on, especially if it's in an area you have worked yourself, but you don't want to alarm them unnecessarily. Perhaps that is rude even if one is invisible, and once I've taken a look at what's going on, it would feel odd to hang around anyway. But the WME appears to allow it. Strange situation.
• In my experience the "Live Users" layer defaults to off. Seemingly every time. I am really not sure why WME has the layer at all. Why wouldn't someone want to see that other editors who are voluntarily visible are working in their area? It reminds me of Zaphod Beeblebrox's "panic-sensitive sunglasses" that go opaque just before you see something that might alarm you. But given that we have the layer, why does it default (apparently, at least in my experience) to off? It makes it that much harder to get other editors' attention. I forget to enable it all the time myself.

That latter point may be better off placed in the WME requests area but if Live Users really does default to off every time that's worth putting in the wiki. Unless it's there and I missed it...

kentsmith9 wrote:

DwarfLord wrote:That latter point may be better off placed in the WME requests area but if Live Users really does default to off every time that's worth putting in the wiki. Unless it's there and I missed it...

Not sure I follow what you mean. At what point do you believe it is disabled by default? How do you get to that point?

When I am on WME and I select a permalink or refresh, if I had "live users" layer on, it stays on for me.

Looks like PesachZ has the answer for me. I must be turning it off all the time when loading permalinks. Thanks PesachZ!

Perhaps over in the WME feature requests area I'll suggest that the Live Users layer be forced perpetually on. If an one's avatar really is always visible regardless of one's "invisibility" setting, it is puzzling why anyone would want to be seen without seeing. It's not like there are so many other editors they would clutter the screen

PesachZ wrote:perpetually on isn't good either as it may interfere in viewing the map...or you choose not to participate on WME chat and don't want to be diatribes

(Autocorrect strikes again...?)

Good points all, still, Live Users doesn't behave like other layers. Unlike roads, landmarks, cities, GPS points, et cetera, the vast majority of the time there won't be any other editors in your view. So there is no immediate feedback on whether the layer is on or off. In my case I stop thinking about it for hours on end and forget to check. How much more likely is it that a novice editor would have it off by accident and be unreachable that way...

Instead of making it permanently on, maybe have it default to on and throw a warning dialog when you turn it off either deliberately or via a permalink? Or a bright indicator showing when it is on or off? I don't know, and this belongs on the WME feature suggestion area anyway. But for sure it is not like the other layers.

PesachZ wrote:[layers are] turned off when loading a permalink which was created without them, or with them off...You override this by modifying the PL before loading the page to remove the layer section.

My issue may be due to what, at first glance, looks like a bug in which permalinks that have no "layer=" field cause the WME to disable the "Live Users" layer. The permalinks Waze emails regarding URs do not have a "layers=" field and so apparently every time I follow one I turn off "Live Users". I've started a different thread asking if anyone can reproduce this behavior, here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=96748