someone recently had an issue with a plugin they were using that didn’t give websites location data or something like that? see what weird privacy plugins you have and add the wiki to the whitelist 
3 Likes
Yeah, this looks a lot better to me.
Unfortunately, I don’t think they can use white as the favicon because it’d clash with most browser chrome. They can’t use another color either, because of their own brand guidelines. Really wishing we had a different DevForum logo right now so the wiki could use the Studio icon without any problems. 
13 Likes
Only adblock, I will try whitelisting the wiki, thanks 
3 Likes
I like that the blue logo is an all-encompassing logo for anything developer related
though adding a small ‘?’ to the tab icon to differentiate it could be an easy fix
3 Likes
Can’t relate, still getting this favicon for some reason:
On a serious note, the wiki make-over looks great. Definitely a huge step up, and I’m excited to see what’s to come.
3 Likes
I am sorry about that. We have a number of safeguards in place, which may need to be tweaked, as the wiki has been deployed to a brand new environment. I will work with Ops on this.
2 Likes
Great idea. I will put this in our backlog.
2 Likes
Whoops. Yes, that is clearly a mistake. Yes, we will scale it down.
1 Like
We’ll take a look. The aspect ration may be off as the images have embedded padding that varies from image to image.
1 Like
Yikes. We need to take a look at that. Thanks for pointing that out to us.
2 Likes
Was reading the Make a Game article on the wiki and I just have to say…
I really dislike the rebranding of FilteringEnabled as “Experimental Mode” and the explanation given that Experimental Mode is somehow useful for testing a game. It isn’t. FilteringEnabled should just be the default option. What we have now is just needlessly confusing.
5 Likes
I have reported this to Ops. We are investigating…
2 Likes
Can you elaborate for me? A ‘tab icon?’
1 Like
Pretty sure he’s referring to the favicon, which is what I was talking about in my post that he replied to. It’s hard to tell the wiki favicon from the DevForum one.
2 Likes
An amazing improvement. I’be only gotten around to going through one page and I can say it’s been extremely informative. Awesome job 
(Really insightful: http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Improving_Performance)
1 Like
Absolutely incredible, we’ve needed this for quite a long time! Is this the type of job the new Information Experience interns will be doing regularly?
I can see both sides. There’s a web application framework called Meteor that follows a similar paradigm:
Every newly created Meteor project has the insecure package added by default. This is the package that allows us to edit the database from the client. It’s useful when prototyping, but now we are taking off the training wheels. To remove this package, go to your app directory and run…
When the developer is ready to remove the insecure package (like turning Experimental Mode off), they write explicit methods where client-server communication is done (like RemoteEvents and RemoteFunctions) and move the server-side logic into the server code and only call those methods remotely.
I’m not sure if this has a 1:1 parallel with Roblox, but in principle it’s the same. It’s definitely easier to just create a part from a local script instead of calling a remote event to create it when you’re prototyping.
On the contrary, since Play Solo mode is both the server and the client, it’s essentially the same as having Experimental Mode on anyways, so the developer doesn’t really lose the ability to prototype easily regardless of the status of Experimental Mode. I can understand (and have felt) the same way you feel about it, since whenever I want to test something, I always just have Experimental Mode off (filtering enabled on) and use Play Solo to prototype before moving it into a more well-defined structure with Remote objects.
I feel like it’s probably better to have a distinction that the developer can make a conscious decision about than to have an online game behave differently than test mode in Studio to a brand new developer by default (though it can be prudent to teach good practices from the start). In my opinion, I feel like the current situation is probably better for people who are brand new to the platform, so long as it’s explained well what the difference is.
(But for the rest of us, a toggle for the default setting would be nice.)
I love the make-over. I think it could do with a slightly different color, or at least something to distinguish it from the devforum since they both have the same exact logo, but overall it’s very nice.
One thing I should note, on the “Why Roblox?” page, it details the Dynamic Lighting and shows a screenshot of the Future Is Bright demo.
It does note that it’s a “test environment”, but that doesn’t really get the point out that Roblox doesn’t come with that level of lighting in it’s current state. That could be easily mistaken for the room itself being the test envionment or some sort of scripting experiment. I think it should be made more obvious for new users that Roblox doesn’t have that kind of lighting yet.
Also, i’m pretty sure in it’s current state we can’t consider Roblox as having “photo-realistic lighting” or having really any capability of such.
4 Likes
Gotcha. We are working on a fix for this.
2 Likes
The wiki overhaul look amazing. The update is definitely an upgrade. I can’t wait to see what other things will be updated or added/removed.
1 Like