As many of you know, people redesign WP all the time. Here's this month's.
http://mhauken.no/wikipedia.html
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Sigh.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
As many of you know, people redesign WP all the time. Here's this month's.
http://mhauken.no/wikipedia.html
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
As many of you know, people redesign WP all the time. Here's this month's. http://mhauken.no/wikipedia.html
Added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns
-- Guillaume Paumier
+1 To the *sigh*
Now for the obligatory tear down:
* "Image-mode", complete lack of understanding/reinvention of Wikipedia content. Replacing Wikipedia's emphasis on content with a mode where some random image that may only be partially related to the information in the article is brought forward as something primary. (Not that the majority of articles even have a primary image in the first place). * "To focus on the content and text, no references or links are shown by default. You have to manually turn these on in the menu." WTF! This is very anti-user/bad-usability. Users are not going to look into the menu to turn on links. The mass majority of them are never going to realize that links even exists. And as much as you might think https://xkcd.com/214/ is a problem links are used by users to jump from article to article when they realize that the information they are looking for is really part of a related article rather than the one they are currently on. This "feature" will actively hinder reader's ability to navigate Wikipedia. * Additionally as much as someone might dislike the "clutter", references are an important fact of Wikipedia. References verify whether you can or can't trust a "fact" that's been put up on Wikipedia. Verifying the sources is a oft done but important part of seriously using the Encyclopedia. Hiding them doesn't help encourage that any more. * The search bar. I can understand the supposed rationale for putting search at the bottom. But before you jump on random untested idea, I'd like to see actual usability tests on putting the search field down there. Especially on tablets. Cause usability studies so far have shown that the best place for search fields is the upper right (well left on rtl). Otherwise it can become harder for random readers to find the location of the search bar. http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/12/04/designing-the-holy-search-box-exa...
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
On 2013-06-04 9:13 AM, Brandon Harris wrote:
As many of you know, people redesign WP all the time. Here's this month's.
http://mhauken.no/wikipedia.html
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Reading the summary, I thought Brandon had produced an unsolicited redesign of one of our user scripts, say the slideshow or the stockphoto gadget on Commons etc. :) It would be a nice project.
Nemo