[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

--
Michel Vuijlsteke
http://blog.zog.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Hay (Husky)
Yup, i think it's pretty nice. I especially like the 'edit' modus with
the live edit view. And the colored bars on the top of the main page
indicating the number of articles in a certain language.

-- Hay

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
>
> --
> Michel Vuijlsteke
> http://blog.zog.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.

Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that page
is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so
that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Andreas Kolbe-2
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our
effort. ;)

Andreas

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> > http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
>
> There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
>
> Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that page
> is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so
> that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Ed Erhart-2
I wonder what the wikipediaredefined people would think of Brandon Harris'
Athena Project?

cf. <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed>,
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Athena>, etc.

--Ed

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our
> effort. ;)
>
> Andreas
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > > Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> > > http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
> >
> > There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
> >
> > Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that
> page
> > is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so
> > that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Peter Gervai-5
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

Yes, interesting.
I asked them about whether they intend to keep it "teling us" instead
of "discussing it" (no email list but an email), and mentioned some
thoughts of mine, which I share here:

- the design fails without javascript [why javascript often bad or
non-applicable is a long thread itself]

- it (often) wastes screen space

- "wiki" is ***NOT*** wikipedia, nor is it wikimedia, nor is it a
brand or a trademark or a name of one entity. it's like saying
"webpage"

- it did not seem to touch one of the most important part deserving
more professional attention: typography.



--
 byte-byte,
    grin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
>
> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

TL;DR:
* It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for
typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs.
* It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except
some proposed reader-centric features.

Now, the longer version.

The beginning is just horrible:

* They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact
that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an
original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read.
It may be useful somewhere, but not here.
* They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the
one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same,
but they should still do their homework properly.
* They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the
main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main
page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW.
* They create logos for sister projects from their English names and
once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the
world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters
without a good reason to begin with.

Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is
completely different from what editors call "history". They should
have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It
requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the
current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If
nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical
innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers
(99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.

Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very
different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the
current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to
that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning,
disregarding the very basic design principle that different things
should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the
way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse
it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View
history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more
sense.)

Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they
actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard
yet again that there are other languages.

So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution
as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to
be.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Ed Erhart-2
I think they would consider it a vast improvement over what we have, and a
10-year leap forward. :) So, all I can say is: Yes, please, Brandon.

However, the Signpost Op-Ed contains one statement I can't let pass without
comment:

"... featured articles are so good precisely because they are edited by so
many."

Brandon, if you follow WP:FAC for any length of time, or try to write a
Featured Article yourself, you'll realise that any Featured Articles
Wikipedia has are the work of usually one, or at most two or three editors
who sat down and decided to take an article to Featured status, and have
been watching the article like hawks ever since it acquired that status.

It may be an article of faith within Wikimedia that crowdsourcing leads to
superb articles, but it's not one experience has borne out. Once Featured
articles stop being watched and are indeed edited "by many" people, they
typically decay within a few years, and end up for delisting at WP:FAR.

Andreas


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Ed Erhart <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I wonder what the wikipediaredefined people would think of Brandon Harris'
> Athena Project?
>
> cf. <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed
> >,
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Athena>, etc.
>
> --Ed
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than
> our
> > effort. ;)
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > > > Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> > > > http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
> > >
> > > There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
> > >
> > > Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that
> > page
> > > is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons
> so
> > > that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
On 8 August 2012 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View
> history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more
> sense.)


That would be an *excellent* thing to do in MediaWiki in general.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
Things I would change, I think that all pages have to have the main objective
of the Movement, and a comprehension of the project is part of something
bigger.

And this proposed segmentation is archaic, there are several items that fit
into more than one segment, and knowledge should not be typified.

I think if you change the platform at this level, there are things that
could be better integrated, as have a news clipping of WikiNews in Wikipedia
articles, double click on selected words, or a certain word when selected would
open a toolbox for Wiktionary...

In all, there are many cool ideas that can be used.

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
[hidden email]
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Ziko van Dijk-2
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Perfectly sound remarks, Amir.
I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems
linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements.
One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take
"WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your
language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no
problem, use them.
The letter type could be a better one, indeed.
"History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the
Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic
growth would be great.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/8/8 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>:

> 2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
>> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
>
> TL;DR:
> * It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
> can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for
> typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs.
> * It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except
> some proposed reader-centric features.
>
> Now, the longer version.
>
> The beginning is just horrible:
>
> * They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact
> that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an
> original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read.
> It may be useful somewhere, but not here.
> * They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the
> one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same,
> but they should still do their homework properly.
> * They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the
> main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main
> page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW.
> * They create logos for sister projects from their English names and
> once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the
> world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters
> without a good reason to begin with.
>
> Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is
> completely different from what editors call "history". They should
> have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It
> requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the
> current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If
> nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical
> innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers
> (99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.
>
> Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very
> different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the
> current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to
> that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning,
> disregarding the very basic design principle that different things
> should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the
> way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse
> it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View
> history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more
> sense.)
>
> Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they
> actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard
> yet again that there are other languages.
>
> So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution
> as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to
> be.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Victor Grigas
Labas!

My 2 cents:

Overall the team at http://www.newisnew.lt/lt have some very good ideas to
share, however:

If you are colorblind, the rainbow thing wont make any sense, and I
strongly dislike the idea of burying smaller languages under a mouse. I
think that Lithuanians (this re-design has been proposed by a Lithuanian
firm) might be able to understand my dislike of that idea (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban). Also the W as a logo is
EXTREMELY Euro-centric. In my opinion the puzzle globe, while it's busy, is
a healthier representation of what the project is and represents. It's busy
like a European coat-of-arms is busy: you won't understand it until you
spend some time understanding the complexity of the symbols and their
relationships to each other.

The designers should post mock-ups of their work here if they are serious
about making a change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal



On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Perfectly sound remarks, Amir.
> I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems
> linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements.
> One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take
> "WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your
> language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no
> problem, use them.
> The letter type could be a better one, indeed.
> "History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the
> Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic
> growth would be great.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> 2012/8/8 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>:
> > 2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> >> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
> >
> > TL;DR:
> > * It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
> > can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for
> > typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs.
> > * It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except
> > some proposed reader-centric features.
> >
> > Now, the longer version.
> >
> > The beginning is just horrible:
> >
> > * They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact
> > that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an
> > original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read.
> > It may be useful somewhere, but not here.
> > * They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the
> > one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same,
> > but they should still do their homework properly.
> > * They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the
> > main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main
> > page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW.
> > * They create logos for sister projects from their English names and
> > once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the
> > world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters
> > without a good reason to begin with.
> >
> > Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is
> > completely different from what editors call "history". They should
> > have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It
> > requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the
> > current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If
> > nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical
> > innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers
> > (99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.
> >
> > Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very
> > different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the
> > current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to
> > that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning,
> > disregarding the very basic design principle that different things
> > should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the
> > way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse
> > it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View
> > history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more
> > sense.)
> >
> > Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they
> > actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard
> > yet again that there are other languages.
> >
> > So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution
> > as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to
> > be.
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
> dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
> http://wmnederland.nl/
>
> Wikimedia Nederland
> Postbus 167
> 3500 AD Utrecht
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
+1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773
149 New Montgomery Street 6th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Sarah Stierch-2

On 8/8/12 6:07 PM, Victor Grigas wrote:
> Labas!
>
>
> The designers should post mock-ups of their work here if they are serious
> about making a change:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal
>

And that is after we pay them lots of money to do the redesign for "us" ;)

-Sarah


>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Perfectly sound remarks, Amir.
>> I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems
>> linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements.
>> One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take
>> "WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your
>> language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no
>> problem, use them.
>> The letter type could be a better one, indeed.
>> "History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the
>> Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic
>> growth would be great.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
 >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today
<https://donate.wikimedia.org/><<
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Steven Walling's started an essay on Wikipedia redesigns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

metasj
In reply to this post by Hay (Husky)
Ah, it is quite beautiful.  Thanks to the designers for sharing their
visual ideas.  I love seeing design fantasies like this; more please.

The rainbows and color-bars are beautiful, even though some people (in my
family too :) are colorblind.  The color bar would work just fine without
hue, since the one you are focused on gets highlighted and captioned. But I
think that is not the most interesting part of their designs!

On wikipedia.org (and wikimedia.org ...!): it's due for some visual love.
 We could make the search-bar bigger and central, minimize extra text, and
make search and sister projects a visible focus, without hiding
language-names behind a dropdown.

When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current
skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even cover
the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design.  [and every month some
long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to
other languages, which they found useful!]

Hopefully after discussion with them these images/screencaps are usable as
ideas in the on-wiki discussions.

SJ

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Hay (Husky) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yup, i think it's pretty nice. I especially like the 'edit' modus with
> the live edit view. And the colored bars on the top of the main page
> indicating the number of articles in a certain language.
>
> -- Hay
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> > http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
> >
> > --
> > Michel Vuijlsteke
> > http://blog.zog.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

David Gerard-2
On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current
> skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even cover
> the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design.  [and every month some
> long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to
> other languages, which they found useful!]


Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally
convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and
when?


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

James Alexander-3
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current
> > skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
> cover
> > the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design.  [and every month some
> > long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to
> > other languages, which they found useful!]
>
>
> Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally
> convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and
> when?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session
on firefox and  incognito window on chrome).


--
James Alexander
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

metasj
Open by default for me too on all the browsers I have access to.
The question still came up at Wikimania :-/

Unfair of me to ascribe it to the skin.  I suppose we've been hiding the
existence of other languages since the transition from having them above
the page title in Classic :-)

SJ

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current
> > > skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
> > cover
> > > the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design.  [and every month some
> > > long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to
> > > other languages, which they found useful!]
> >
> >
> > Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally
> > convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and
> > when?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session
> on firefox and  incognito window on chrome).
>
>
> --
> James Alexander
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

phoebe ayers-3
IIRC: languages defaulted closed in a first iteration of the new skin,
and then following discussion/complaints they was set to default open
again. Please don't ask me for links to said discussion, I don't
remember where it was :)

Re: the redesigns --
Personally I don't like this particular proposed redesign, but I do
like in general the idea of people redesigning and remixing WP. Maybe
the page Steven started can evolve into a portal for potential
redesigns, design contests, resources for designers (especially for
people who actually want to get serious with the skin), and community
design challenges... eg SJ suggests that wikipedia.org and
wikimedia.org need love, I'd add the front page of the english
wikipedia to my personal wish-it-were-more-beautiful list!

-- phoebe



On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Open by default for me too on all the browsers I have access to.
> The question still came up at Wikimania :-/
>
> Unfair of me to ascribe it to the skin.  I suppose we've been hiding the
> existence of other languages since the transition from having them above
> the page title in Classic :-)
>
> SJ
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current
>> > > skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
>> > cover
>> > > the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design.  [and every month some
>> > > long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to
>> > > other languages, which they found useful!]
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally
>> > convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and
>> > when?
>> >
>> >
>> > - d.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session
>> on firefox and  incognito window on chrome).
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Alexander
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Rich Farmbrough
Apart from using a vandalized version of [[Pyramid]] and a graphically
horrendous capital I, there are some nice elements in a generally good
layout.

The key improvement needed (and WAP has made this evident to more
people) is to stop wasting real estate on more and more nested top bars
and side bars.  Even with a modern 15.2 inch laptop many pages have
threir contents squeezed enough by the OS, browser and MW bars that
there is little room left for infoboxes, TOCs, pictures, tables  and
navboxes.

There is also a desire to "visualise" that may be applied where it is
not needed.   We do not need the interface to show us the relation
between the number of articles on arts and the number of articles on
humanities - this is not necessarily a useful statistic for researchers,
and even less so for readers.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
123