I thought you guys would like this link, if you haven't already seen it.
http://dribbble.com/wirwoluf/projects/104912-wikipedia-redesign
Pat
I like what they did here. I actually worked on a similar Athena concept, but not as well executed: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:AthenaRedesign_09_06_2012.png
I think the color is a bit distracting (a little too big of a treatment) but otherwise the information architecture is pretty solid. I'm really liking how he handled article layouts as well.
Getting an itch to design a new skin again! :-)
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Patrick Hendricks pat@revil.com wrote:
I thought you guys would like this link, if you haven't already seen it.
http://dribbble.com/wirwoluf/projects/104912-wikipedia-redesign
Pat
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
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.
http://dribbble.com/wirwoluf/projects/104912-wikipedia-redesign
Pat
The thing I find most interesting is the left menu. I think showing the table of contents here is not that useful but I think the fact it encourages exploration of content is interesting. When I first glanced at this I thought the designer was showing categories which did seem like an interesting concept that encouraged better exploration of knowledge on the site.
Every time I talk to someone about Wikipedia I'm interested to see if they can name 3 menu items in the Wikipedia left menu. I then do the same for Facebook. I'm yet to find someone who can name 3 in Wikipedia's menu that are not active Wikipedia contributors. It would be great to make use of this space in a more engaging way that encourages more time spent on the site.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
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.
http://dribbble.com/wirwoluf/projects/104912-wikipedia-redesign
Pat
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 01/28/2013 10:53 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
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.
How well are we doing at giving feedback to those designers so they can learn more, improve their concepts, get them closer to implementable solutions and get them involved?
I have contacted Hamza inviting him to check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design and join this list.
A few points:
- Like others they seem to
They? It seems to be the work of a single person. I think we can all agree that it's a good starting point.
I wish we would have more Hamzas in this list proposing and discussing with pixels ideas to improve the design of Wikipedia and the many other products we have around.
One question: what is the process to propose improvements to Wikipedia (to the Vector skin and to the specific Wikipedia UI)?
I understand that "unsolicited redesigns" like this have little chance of getting through but (with the eyes of a designer) it is not simple at all to find a way to propose enhancements.
Hamza replied saying that he will join the list, that he is working on another concept, and also that
On 01/28/2013 12:44 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
One question: what is the process to propose improvements to Wikipedia (to the Vector skin and to the specific Wikipedia UI)?
... just in different words.
I also "fear" getting this question at FOSDEM this weekend, so it would be useful to have an answer from the people in the know.
There is a related essay on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns . Quim, you might want to update it once you figure out the answer (or it might already be there in the page?).
Best regards, Bence
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hamza replied saying that he will join the list, that he is working on another concept, and also that
On 01/28/2013 12:44 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
One question: what is the process to propose improvements to Wikipedia (to the Vector skin and to the specific Wikipedia UI)?
... just in different words.
I also "fear" getting this question at FOSDEM this weekend, so it would be useful to have an answer from the people in the know.
-- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**User:Qgilhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
______________________________**_________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/designhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 01/29/2013 03:58 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
Hamza replied saying that he will join the list, that he is working on another concept, and also that
On 01/28/2013 12:44 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
One question: what is the process to propose improvements to Wikipedia (to the Vector skin and to the specific Wikipedia UI)?
... just in different words.
I also "fear" getting this question at FOSDEM this weekend, so it would be useful to have an answer from the people in the know.
You can take https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448 as one scenario for how it happens/might happen in practice. This is specifically a proposed change to Vector.
Matt Flaschen
On 01/29/2013 02:16 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
You can take https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448 as one scenario for how it happens/might happen in practice. This is specifically a proposed change to Vector.
Thank you!
Thinking of other ways of getting closer to implementation and therefore to convincing proposals...
Of course the definitive one is to create a new skin based on your design concept and promote it so people can use it in test / 3rd party wikis. But this might be too tough for some as a proof of concept exercise, and still won't motivate many Wikipedia users willing to try the skin in their beloved Wikipedia.
Could Greasemonkey scripts be an alternative to offer a functional prototype? Can our own userscripts cover that role?
At least this would allow a path to UX contributors to build alternatives and offer a simple way for Wikipedia community members to try them out. This would start discussions probably more productive (from both sides) than the ones you can reach with mockups alone.
On 01/30/2013 10:23 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
Of course the definitive one is to create a new skin based on your design concept and promote it so people can use it in test / 3rd party wikis. But this might be too tough for some as a proof of concept exercise, and still won't motivate many Wikipedia users willing to try the skin in their beloved Wikipedia.
It depends which we're talking about:
* Creating a new skin. Just creating a good new skin is quite time-consuming. Getting it added as a choice to WMF would be another hurdle, since the general trend is going the other direction (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/25170/).
* Improving Vector. For this you can make a Gerrit change to do the improvement. People will be able to check it out to test somewhere (e.g. Wikimedia Labs).
Could Greasemonkey scripts be an alternative to offer a functional prototype? Can our own userscripts cover that role?
Yes. HTML changes can be done through a JS userscript, and CSS can be done with user CSS. *However*, the criteria for a change isn't just that it looks good. People are going to want to consider maintainability, and it helps if the proposer knows how to change an actual skin.
At least this would allow a path to UX contributors to build alternatives and offer a simple way for Wikipedia community members to try them out.
Yes, but it shouldn't be thought that it's an easy jump from "user script people like" to "available as a new skin" or "change to Vector"
Matt Flaschen
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:44:42 +0100, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
One question: what is the process to propose improvements to Wikipedia (to the Vector skin and to the specific Wikipedia UI)?
Submit a patchset to gerrit or open a bug on Bugzilla or both, and then poke people. Notably Trevor.
At least that's what I'm doing and it's working.