At first glance it starts to look a little interesting. But after
looking closer it looks like the same old failures others keep making
are sitting there as well.
A few points:
- Like others they seem to completely pass over things that are
fundamental to Wikipedia. Like eliminating the well known logo entirely.
- And of course they completely skip any thought on how to handle the
other parts of editing. Such as move/rename, delete, protection, etc...
-- They even come up with an interesting idea for disambig (although
there's a good chance that said change could actually be
counterproductive) but make no effort to figure out how to fit in things
like protection notices.
- And they go a little bit too far with the flat Metro style and get
really close to committing some of the same usability atrocities that
Microsoft made. Some of the items on the page don't really indicate they
are clickable like they should. For example the TOC ("Content" on the
left) looks exactly like page text.
The first few images even make it look like they are aiming for a nice
vibrant look with a good use of colours. But when you drop below that
top part with almost the only real colour on the page. It turns out even
duller than monobook, much less vector.
It feels more like reading a 20th century newspaper instead of reading a
21st century digital encyclopedia.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/
On 13-01-28 10:33 AM, Patrick Hendricks wrote:
I thought you guys would like this link, if you
haven't already seen it.