[Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Richard Symonds]

I have had it beaten into me by the UK Board that volunteers should be at
the heart of everything ;-)

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 14 July 2012 19:53, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org> wrote:

> (Well obviously not millions for the design, I meant "use some of our
> money". =))
>
> On 15 July 2012 01:52, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org> wrote:
>
> > Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
> >
> > Michel
> >
> >
> > On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds at wikimedia.org.uk
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
> >> mainpage?
> >>
> >> Richard Symonds
> >> Wikimedia UK
> >> 0207 065 0992
> >> Disclaimer viewable at
> >> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
> >> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very "male", too.
> >> >
> >> > One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
> >> >
> >> > http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
> >> >
> >> > I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
> >> > graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts of bells and
> >> whistles
> >> > for your browser.
> >> >
> >> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look
> at
> >> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
> >> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
> >> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
> >> like
> >> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
> >> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
> >> >
> >> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a
> flow
> >> of
> >> > images:
> >> >
> >> > http://pinterest.com/
> >> >
> >> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly
> designed,
> >> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would
> show
> >> > off its new images.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> wikipedia at zog.org
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield <davidrichfield at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being
> ugly.
> >> > > > To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup
> >> to
> >> > > > a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy.
> Wikipedia
> >> > > > generates results which adapt to window size very gracefully
> without
> >> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the
> center
> >> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> >> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
> >> yeah,
> >> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
> >> scientifically
> >> > > measurable way.
> >> > >
> >> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's
> adding a
> >> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
> >> the
> >> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
> >> panel).
> >> > >
> >> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before
> it
> >> > > becomes hard to read.
> >> > >
> >> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads,
> >> well,
> >> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills,
> >> but
> >> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column
> would
> >> > *not*
> >> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is
> >> about
> >> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> >> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> >> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> >> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (
> >> http://evernote.com/clearly/)
> >> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
> >> font.
> >> > *
> >> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
> >> Margins.
> >> > > Leading. Kerning.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
> >> Wikipedia.
> >> > :)
> >> > >
> >> > > Michel
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>