Not sure if it is relevant, but there was a User Interface writen and in use across the Coventry Poly mainframe network in 1985, called Newt, it had lots of the features you see now, screen names in particular. Well, it seems I just went ahead and converted the list to a table, realizing weeks later there could be something about just that on the Talk page. By the way, there is something wrong with QQ'a numbers - Artem a 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) And whith it we can easy compare sizes of IM-networks without messing up with active/total/peak numbers. rjcuk 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I agree table will better. Otherwise I think I should be able to live with it - and - it might be easier to edit in list format.ģ.3 million unique visitors per month ( August 2006)Ĥ0-50 million users large error margin because of unpublished user counts for Google Talk ( October 2006)ģ5 million users (including 4 million mobile) ( October 2006)Ģ million users (majority in South Africa, more than 150,000 international) ( October 2006) Or maybe it would be better organising this by date (I haven't a clue how to do that, though). I checked "Wikipedia:When_to_use_tables", and it does say "Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features." I'm not sure if this is one of those times. I was just wondering - might it be better for this information to be displayed in a table? I found it really difficult trying to read the list of instant messengers - does anyone else feel the same? Maybe it's just me.
0 kommentar(er)
