On 5/18/06, Łukasz Garczewski tor@oak.pl wrote:

Anthony DiPierro napisał(a):

...

Is the design going to be GFDL?

After a brief talk with Delphine and some other people (including non-wikimedians) during the Wikimedia Polska 2006 meetup my take on this is:

No, the design should NOT be GFDL, CC-whatever or under any other free license. The webpage design is an integral part of the sites' visual identity, just as much as the project logos (if not more).

Monobook is currently distributed along with every MediaWiki package. Anybody can set up a site that looks almost EXACTLY like Wikipedia and be on the safe side of the law.

Sure, giving our website design away under a free license is a nice thing to do but... Why the hell should we be nice?

The entire reason Wikimedia exists is to be nice.

If this doesn't seem to convince you think about this for a moment: Why don't we just release the logos under a free license? When you come to an answer simply apply it to the design as well, cause this is the same area - visual identity.

I should point out that not everyone in the world thinks the logos *should* be under a free license.

(Disclaimer: No, I did not assume Anthony was implying that the design should be under GFDL when he asked the question above. I assumed a number of people might think that.)

Heh, I guess I'll keep you all guessing how I feel on the matter :).

-- Cheers, TOR

Anthony

Hello,

I simply believe that we're being nice simply by gathering and providing knowledge. We do not have to be really, really, reaaaally nice by also saying "Please, confuse people and mess with our visual identity by using our site design! Go ahead! It's free!". That's not even being nice anymore. That's being dumb (I know I will most probably regret using this word when I wake up tomorrow...).

Sure, let's fight anyone who uses fragment of our 'trademarks'. Or who use fragments of our 'visual designs'.

I feel that we are here because of what we want to do, not because of what we've done. If we see, that we can be out-competed by anyone else, who can be nicer and more efficient, let them lead the way.

Screw all that what we've built, it's all GFDL, it all can be forked. Let's concentrate on what we, as a community may create and we won't have to care about trademarks, designs or any power ladders.

And yes, you will regret the word.

Let's confuse everyone with the idea that knowledge can be free.

Let's confuse everyone that they can find information they need in seconds.

Let's confuse everyone by relying on idea, that in confusion people start to think and bring new ideas.

Total world domination is nice, but people should have a choice (and fun :).

And we should not be the watchdog of 'what is our only asset' - trademarks or whatever else.

Our real asset is potential. And if there's general feeling otherwise, that would be perfect demotivation.

Domas

Ben Yates napisał(a):

It honestly doesn't seem like a very important issue right now considering the number of improvements that could potentially be made if we were to set the issue aside for now.

Quite right.

For example: has wikimedia/wikipedia ever been formally tested for usability, to see (in hard data) how the interface could be improved?

Well... Gandalf (Mozilla Europe Board Member, Lead Developer of Aviary PL etc.) has thrown one example of bad (usability- and accessibility-wise) design after the other at us during the meetup I mentioned. But I don't think he did a thorough test. I do know that he is a pro and that he was the first person I though of when I saw the overhaul proposal.

I am going to try to contact him this weekend and get him involved in this. Will keep you posted.

Ben Yates schrieb:

The licencing debate seems irrelevant for the moment. I'm sure designers willing to do pro-bono work would also be willing to licence that work under the GFDL (or under standard copyright). It honestly doesn't seem like a very important issue right now considering the number of improvements that could potentially be made if we were to set the issue aside for now.

It's not as irrelevant as one may think. I was playing with the idea of a design contest for the german wikipedia among pro's for quite some time. One of the problems which arose there with our free licenses is the possibility of modification. If you're a good designer, creating a good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was, though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

For example: has wikimedia/wikipedia ever been formally tested for usability, to see (in hard data) how the interface could be improved?

OpenUsability made two usability tests for the German Wikipedia, you can find the test results (in english) on: http://openusability.org/projects/wikipedia/

Lots of issues apply to wikipedia and mediawiki in general.

greetings, elian

On 5/18/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was, though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

That brings up another question I had. If the designer creates the layout for free, would it be a work for hire, with the copyright owned by the Foundation, or would the designer retain all control over it? Reading over the public discussions by the designers on this matter it seems like they're not going to be willing to do the work for nothing, even if they do it for zero monetary compensation.

Also, would any of this change if the design was paid for? Even if the Foundation doesn't want to spend money on something like designing the website, perhaps because it's questionable whether website design is the most effective way to spend money achieving its goals, it would always be possible to set up a separate fund from separate donations to pay for it.

Anthony

Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:

If you're a good designer, creating a good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the given Monobook design.

There are even some hacks that do alter on purpose polished layout in order to improve usability (for example a checker background for images in Wikimedia Commons in order to see transparency directly, see for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png).

Destruction is what a broad majority considers destruction and this can differ from community to community (For example I really dislike most of the namespace colors used in various Wikipedias but that's probably my personal taste only...).

But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was, though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say GFDL) to say that this is a modified design so that the original author does not get blamed because some local ignorant admin did enforce his personal taste (although my own experience says that only in small communities you can act as dictator, in larger communities you need very good points so that other admins don't revert you).

So if a majority of a community is dumb and likes a stupid change, well I'd say they don't deserve anything better... And even in that case the original author has nothing to do with it.

So I am sure there will be projects that will destroy any given design that makes sense but these projects have to live with the problem that they are very probably not professional and thus probably not relevant. And a project that is irrelevant won't be noticed or just ignored over time (and if people from that project notice this loose of interest they will hopefully consider it and change their current style)...

Greetings, Arnomane

arnomane@gmx.de wrote:

Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:

...

If you're a good designer, creating a good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the given Monobook design.

If a professional develops a main page design he or she needs to accept that that contribution may be edited mercilessly from the moment it is in place. There is no basis for presuming that all alterations will be destruction.

Destruction is what a broad majority considers destruction and this can differ from community to community (For example I really dislike most of the namespace colors used in various Wikipedias but that's probably my personal taste only...).

I don't dispute that some people have very poor fashion sense in their choice of colours. Some are so lacking in contrast as to be impossible to read, but ultimately it's up to the people involved there to make their own decisions.

But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.

Again each project should be completely free to adopt your "corporate design" or not. Having this multiplicity of designs maintains the dynamism of the the Wikimedia projects. Some will suck. Others will introduce new design ideas that can be adopted by the other projects. Most will follow a sensible middle ground. When you mandate a single professional design for all projects the results become static and stale.

...

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was, though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say GFDL) to say that this is a modified design so that the original author does not get blamed because some local ignorant admin did enforce his personal taste (although my own experience says that only in small communities you can act as dictator, in larger communities you need very good points so that other admins don't revert you).

Most of our GFDL pages are already modified, so this would be no different. Credit for the professional designer's modifications will be there in the page's history just like anyone else's modifications before and after.

So if a majority of a community is dumb and likes a stupid change, well I'd say they don't deserve anything better... And even in that case the original author has nothing to do with it.

It's premature to suggest that the changes supported by the community will be stupid. The professionals have not yet submitted their proposals, so we have not yet had the opportunity to determine the extent they will be stupid.

So I am sure there will be projects that will destroy any given design that makes sense but these projects have to live with the problem that they are very probably not professional and thus probably not relevant. And a project that is irrelevant won't be noticed or just ignored over time (and if people from that project notice this loose of interest they will hopefully consider it and change their current style)...

This last paragraph perfectly exemplifies the kind of professional arrogance that I have railed about since at least the year 40 BWP. It perfectly represents the head-up-one's ass attitude maintained by professionals overwhelmed with their own sense of importance. As someone has already affirmed Wikipedia did not get where it is by allowing itself to be guided by professionals. Perhaps this universe where things that are "not professional and thus probably not relevant" would better be described as one where being professional is irrelevant. Except for an unusually easy ride that has been given to lawyers, all professionals who have participated in building Wikipedia have had to accept that they must work with non-professionals. I see no reason to make an exception for webpage designers.

What keeps me involved is the acceptance of a series of underlying principles, not the least of which were outlined in Jimbo's "Free the ... " speech. I am very pleased to speak out when anyone would attempt to subvert those principles in the name of order and consistency.

I recently had the pleasure of hearing a presentation by Dean Fink based on his recent book, "Leadership for Mortals". The emphasis was on leadership in education in the 21st century, but the principles involved can apply as easily in other fields of practice. Professionals are characterized by having an agenda, or at least a vested interest in the ways of the past. Real learning brings more than that into play, and perhaps some day I can rant about that at greater length. The memorable point that he made about Noah's Ark was "Remember the Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals."

Ec

On 5/18/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was, though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

I can't see how this is at all practicable. Monobook (and the shared Common.css) are edited all the time, by necessity or at whim, as each individual project sees fit. For that matter, if a designer is that proud of his work, he's certainly not going to like all the custom styles used on many pages and in almost all templates.

Austin

On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:

Sharing is good. Making the logos proprietary is one way of ensuring a consistent identity. And you know what's one of the best arguments against it? That people will start arguing that now that you've made one part of your site proprietary, you should do the same for others. That slope is very slippery.

I think this is a bit far fetched. But hey, Verschwörungstheorie ;-)

I would strongly argue that any redesign that does not affect the logos should be done under free content conditions.

Actually, although I did make the suggestion earlier (that Lukasz reported) that the design should be "non free", I have changed my mind (sorry Lukasz ;-) )

The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

So, the design of a specific wikipedia skin sounds like a good idea. It can be free and available, but it should not be proposed within the mediawiki package. Or at least definitely not as default.

This said, reading again the link Elian gave, I believe that before we go looking for a new skin, a corporate design, a pro's design or an admin's design (you name it) there are probably many many things to be done on the usability side. And as I understand it, a new css , as fantastically beautiful as it may be, does *not* solve all of those problems. At all. It helps, but it only hides the real issues, which are probably more technical than visual.

Cheers,

Delphine

On 5/19/06, Łukasz Garczewski tor@oak.pl wrote:

Et tu Brute... Er... Or something along those lines. This will definately cost you a lot of gummy bears... ;)

...

So, the design of a specific wikipedia skin sounds like a good idea. It can be free and available, but it should not be proposed within the mediawiki package. Or at least definitely not as default.

Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Let's be fair, and since we're talking about Caesar, let's give back to Caesar what pertains to Caesar (well, poor translation of a French saying). The compromise was elaborated by Sophie, a French web designer who pointed out to me the problem of having the Wikipedia skin as default for Mediawiki (or the other way around actually), and actually made crystal clear to me by Austin while we were talking about this thread.

;-)

Delphine

On 5/19/06, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/19/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:

...

The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

Precisely. If you decide to install the most popular wiki software package out there, you have to go out of your way to make it *not* look like Wikipedia—at least the default logo isn't the MediaWiki flower anymore (actually, it is, but at least it's defaced by annoying text that compels people to change it quickly).

On another note, "visual identity" won't come from copyrights on html or css, or even trademarking visual components—if someone's aiming for the same look, he's going to rip it off, and it's going to be in a more subtle way—he'd like to think he's being creative, after all. The issue is with passive users who just like how pretty their new wiki looks.

Austin

On 5/19/06, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/19/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:

...

The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

Precisely. If you decide to install the most popular wiki software package out there, you have to go out of your way to make it *not* look like Wikipedia—at least the default logo isn't the MediaWiki flower anymore (actually, it is, but at least it's defaced by annoying text that compels people to change it quickly).

It should also be noted that the default MonoBook skin isn't even appropriate for many wikis with its book background image. I'm often disabling it on wikis I host. I support any effort towards either a new Wikimedia skin, or a new MediaWiki default skin, as long as the result is free content.

To get an idea of what is possible -- Novell makes extensive use of MediaWiki, and has made the heaviest customizations I've seen so far in the wild:

http://wiki.novell.com/ http://en.opensuse.org/ http://www.hula-project.org/ http://www.mono-project.com/

Given their strong open source commitment, they might even be interested in collaborating.

Erik

Delphine Ménard wrote:

The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

Congratulations to your grand-mother. It is encouraging to hear that people of her generation have maintained sufficient mental alertness to manage a wiki.

Ec

On Fri, 19 May 2006, Lukasz Garczewski wrote:

If this doesn't seem to convince you think about this for a moment: Why don't we just release the logos under a free license? When you come to

Why don't we? I don't know the reason. It is possible to have a freely-licensed logo whose use is regulated via trademark; Debian has managed this with their logo.

Beyond this, there is a need for free licenses that deal effectively with copyrightable elements of identity. Debian and GNOME and other projects are trying to deal with this.

It is one thing to say "This logo/design cannot be used to create a site or content that pretends to be Wikipedia content, or confuses [consumers]". It is another to say that there is no permissible use which does not require a license (which is the same kind of unscalable arrangement that traditional copyright makes for other content).

For a related discussion, see: http://wiki.mako.cc/TrademarkFreedom

Sj