Here's some inspiration in our quest to modernize Wikipedia ...
The New York Times is redesigning its Web site — starting with the article experience.
Check out some of their elegant solutions for finding, viewing and talking about articles:
I like the simpler look and feel, with large photos, easy navigation and conversation space.
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate for Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
The NYTimes designers also broke new ground last year with Snowfall, if you haven't seen it already:
This cool montage of text, photos, graphics and videos engages the mind and the heart, and helps you learn faster, in different ways. I would love to see this type of multimedia integration in future versions of Wikipedia …
Enjoy …
Fabrice
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation
Thanks!
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here's some inspiration in our quest to modernize Wikipedia ...
The New York Times is redesigning its Web site — starting with the article experience.
Check out some of their elegant solutions for finding, viewing and talking about articles:
I like the simpler look and feel, with large photos, easy navigation and conversation space.
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate for Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
The NYTimes designers also broke new ground last year with Snowfall, if you haven't seen it already:
This cool montage of text, photos, graphics and videos engages the mind and the heart, and helps you learn faster, in different ways. I would love to see this type of multimedia integration in future versions of Wikipedia …
Enjoy …
Fabrice
Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
NYT is an interesting case study for us. Online newspapers generally adopted a deliberately old fashioned look and feel because they strongly believed (and have some evidence) that traditional presentation enhances credibility. Newspapers modernize presentation very conservatively on paper and only rarely change paper size or key fonts. Mastheads are deliberately intended to look 100 years old. Their online presentation less rigid, but generally echos the paper version.
I note that although they are modernizing and incorporating some of this decades web presentation trends (more whitespace, bigger pictures, less clutter) they are still using a serif font.
Most web sites (including Wikipedia) use sans serif fonts. The ones that don't are often doing it on purpose to evoke feelings of old fashioned credibility. Notable examples are practically all online newspapers (even many that never had a paper version like the Huffington Post) and britannica.com.
If we ever put significant work into our online style I suspect we'll have similar parameters to the NYT redesign, less clutter, more whitespace, but keeping the overall feel strongly connected to the old version because it is what users associate with our brand. I doubt we'd change font. Modernity is a selling point for us, not a weakness. We need to modernize to keep us out of that awkward spot that brands, buildings and hobbies fall into where you are no longer new and fashionable, but are not yet a 100 year old tradition.
Luke Welling
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Here's some inspiration in our quest to modernize Wikipedia ...
The New York Times is redesigning its Web site — starting with the article experience.
Check out some of their elegant solutions for finding, viewing and talking about articles:
I like the simpler look and feel, with large photos, easy navigation and conversation space.
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate for Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
The NYTimes designers also broke new ground last year with Snowfall, if you haven't seen it already:
This cool montage of text, photos, graphics and videos engages the mind and the heart, and helps you learn faster, in different ways. I would love to see this type of multimedia integration in future versions of Wikipedia …
Enjoy …
Fabrice
Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
It would be interesting if wikipedia could look more like that.
--Tom
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Luke Welling WMF lwelling@wikimedia.org wrote:
NYT is an interesting case study for us. Online newspapers generally adopted a deliberately old fashioned look and feel because they strongly believed (and have some evidence) that traditional presentation enhances credibility. Newspapers modernize presentation very conservatively on paper and only rarely change paper size or key fonts. Mastheads are deliberately intended to look 100 years old. Their online presentation less rigid, but generally echos the paper version.
I note that although they are modernizing and incorporating some of this decades web presentation trends (more whitespace, bigger pictures, less clutter) they are still using a serif font.
Most web sites (including Wikipedia) use sans serif fonts. The ones that don't are often doing it on purpose to evoke feelings of old fashioned credibility. Notable examples are practically all online newspapers (even many that never had a paper version like the Huffington Post) and britannica.com.
If we ever put significant work into our online style I suspect we'll have similar parameters to the NYT redesign, less clutter, more whitespace, but keeping the overall feel strongly connected to the old version because it is what users associate with our brand. I doubt we'd change font. Modernity is a selling point for us, not a weakness. We need to modernize to keep us out of that awkward spot that brands, buildings and hobbies fall into where you are no longer new and fashionable, but are not yet a 100 year old tradition.
Luke Welling
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here's some inspiration in our quest to modernize Wikipedia ...
The New York Times is redesigning its Web site — starting with the article experience.
Check out some of their elegant solutions for finding, viewing and talking about articles:
I like the simpler look and feel, with large photos, easy navigation and conversation space.
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate for Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
The NYTimes designers also broke new ground last year with Snowfall, if you haven't seen it already:
This cool montage of text, photos, graphics and videos engages the mind and the heart, and helps you learn faster, in different ways. I would love to see this type of multimedia integration in future versions of Wikipedia …
Enjoy …
Fabrice
Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Have you checked out the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org) recently? We're moving slowly in that direction – though our watchlist star doesn't spin... yet :)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom Fish guerillero.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
It would be interesting if wikipedia could look more like that.
--Tom
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Luke Welling WMF lwelling@wikimedia.org wrote:
NYT is an interesting case study for us. Online newspapers generally
adopted
a deliberately old fashioned look and feel because they strongly believed (and have some evidence) that traditional presentation enhances
credibility.
Newspapers modernize presentation very conservatively on paper and only rarely change paper size or key fonts. Mastheads are deliberately
intended
to look 100 years old. Their online presentation less rigid, but
generally
echos the paper version.
I note that although they are modernizing and incorporating some of this decades web presentation trends (more whitespace, bigger pictures, less clutter) they are still using a serif font.
Most web sites (including Wikipedia) use sans serif fonts. The ones that don't are often doing it on purpose to evoke feelings of old fashioned credibility. Notable examples are practically all online newspapers
(even
many that never had a paper version like the Huffington Post) and britannica.com.
If we ever put significant work into our online style I suspect we'll
have
similar parameters to the NYT redesign, less clutter, more whitespace,
but
keeping the overall feel strongly connected to the old version because
it is
what users associate with our brand. I doubt we'd change font.
Modernity
is a selling point for us, not a weakness. We need to modernize to keep
us
out of that awkward spot that brands, buildings and hobbies fall into
where
you are no longer new and fashionable, but are not yet a 100 year old tradition.
Luke Welling
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here's some inspiration in our quest to modernize Wikipedia ...
The New York Times is redesigning its Web site — starting with the
article
experience.
Check out some of their elegant solutions for finding, viewing and
talking
about articles:
I like the simpler look and feel, with large photos, easy navigation and conversation space.
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate
for
Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
The NYTimes designers also broke new ground last year with Snowfall, if you haven't seen it already:
This cool montage of text, photos, graphics and videos engages the mind and the heart, and helps you learn faster, in different ways. I would
love
to see this type of multimedia integration in future versions of
Wikipedia …
Enjoy …
Fabrice
Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Editor Engagement Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
On 03/13/2013 01:23 PM, Maryana Pinchuk wrote:
Have you checked out the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org http://en.m.wikipedia.org) recently? We're moving slowly in that direction – though our watchlist star doesn't spin... yet :)
It does on the desktop. :)
Matt Flaschen
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Luke Welling WMF lwelling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Their online presentation less rigid, but generally echos the paper version.
The left gutter margin in the NYTimes redesign really bothers me. What's it for? The top sections and bar sometimes splat across it. It's almost the same width as a scrollbar. I don't know another site that draws a left-only edge that way.
Modernity is a selling point for us, not a weakness. We need to modernize to keep us out of that awkward spot that brands, buildings and hobbies fall into where you are no longer new and fashionable, but are not yet a 100 year old tradition.
Wikipedia is 84 years old (on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). Judging from the incinerating flames in the comments to http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/on-the-ugliness-of-wik... , uses do feel a sense of tradition upon which we can build.
-- =S Page software engineer on E3
On 03/13/2013 02:18 AM, Fabrice Florin wrote:
This general direction and some of these ideas would seem appropriate for Wikipedia as well, to create a more inviting experience that encourages people to stay and help out.
Agreed. An good encyclopedia article is inherently a deeper dive than a newspaper article, but I still think we can learn from these kinds of interfaces.
Matt Flaschen