Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
-- Michel Vuijlsteke http://blog.zog.org
Yup, i think it's pretty nice. I especially like the 'edit' modus with the live edit view. And the colored bars on the top of the main page indicating the number of articles in a certain language.
-- Hay
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
-- Michel Vuijlsteke http://blog.zog.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Ah, it is quite beautiful. Thanks to the designers for sharing their visual ideas. I love seeing design fantasies like this; more please.
The rainbows and color-bars are beautiful, even though some people (in my family too :) are colorblind. The color bar would work just fine without hue, since the one you are focused on gets highlighted and captioned. But I think that is not the most interesting part of their designs!
On wikipedia.org (and wikimedia.org ...!): it's due for some visual love. We could make the search-bar bigger and central, minimize extra text, and make search and sister projects a visible focus, without hiding language-names behind a dropdown.
When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even cover the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design. [and every month some long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to other languages, which they found useful!]
Hopefully after discussion with them these images/screencaps are usable as ideas in the on-wiki discussions.
SJ
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
Yup, i think it's pretty nice. I especially like the 'edit' modus with the live edit view. And the colored bars on the top of the main page indicating the number of articles in a certain language.
-- Hay
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
-- Michel Vuijlsteke http://blog.zog.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even cover the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design. [and every month some long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to other languages, which they found useful!]
Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and when?
- d.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
cover
the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design. [and every month some long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to other languages, which they found useful!]
Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and when?
- d.
hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session on firefox and incognito window on chrome).
Open by default for me too on all the browsers I have access to. The question still came up at Wikimania :-/
Unfair of me to ascribe it to the skin. I suppose we've been hiding the existence of other languages since the transition from having them above the page title in Classic :-)
SJ
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
cover
the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design. [and every month some long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to other languages, which they found useful!]
Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and when?
- d.
hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session on firefox and incognito window on chrome).
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
IIRC: languages defaulted closed in a first iteration of the new skin, and then following discussion/complaints they was set to default open again. Please don't ask me for links to said discussion, I don't remember where it was :)
Re: the redesigns -- Personally I don't like this particular proposed redesign, but I do like in general the idea of people redesigning and remixing WP. Maybe the page Steven started can evolve into a portal for potential redesigns, design contests, resources for designers (especially for people who actually want to get serious with the skin), and community design challenges... eg SJ suggests that wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org need love, I'd add the front page of the english wikipedia to my personal wish-it-were-more-beautiful list!
-- phoebe
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Open by default for me too on all the browsers I have access to. The question still came up at Wikimania :-/
Unfair of me to ascribe it to the skin. I suppose we've been hiding the existence of other languages since the transition from having them above the page title in Classic :-)
SJ
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes to hiding the existence of other languages... our current skin has done that so effectively, that this design team didn't even
cover
the 'Other languages' sidebar in their design. [and every month some long-time reader of wikipedia asks me why we stopped including links to other languages, which they found useful!]
Oh, someone changed this from defaulting open (like they were finally convinced to) to defaulting closed? That's nice. Who did this and when?
- d.
hmm, I'm still seeing it as defaulting open (Tested in new private session on firefox and incognito window on chrome).
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Apart from using a vandalized version of [[Pyramid]] and a graphically horrendous capital I, there are some nice elements in a generally good layout.
The key improvement needed (and WAP has made this evident to more people) is to stop wasting real estate on more and more nested top bars and side bars. Even with a modern 15.2 inch laptop many pages have threir contents squeezed enough by the OS, browser and MW bars that there is little room left for infoboxes, TOCs, pictures, tables and navboxes.
There is also a desire to "visualise" that may be applied where it is not needed. We do not need the interface to show us the relation between the number of articles on arts and the number of articles on humanities - this is not necessarily a useful statistic for researchers, and even less so for readers.
Richard Farmbrough, 08/16/2012 11:56 AM:
The key improvement needed (and WAP has made this evident to more people) is to stop wasting real estate on more and more nested top bars and side bars. Even with a modern 15.2 inch laptop many pages have threir contents squeezed enough by the OS, browser and MW bars that there is little room left for infoboxes, TOCs, pictures, tables and navboxes.
Please take TOCs out of this bunch. Precisely because the information you need to find on the page is likely to be out of your screen and far from your sight, the TOC is your only chance to reach it quickly and easily (not to mention linking it). The automatically and super-easily created TOC is one of the most useful features of MediaWiki and one that even many modern rich text editors can still envy.
Nemo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
Apart from using a vandalized version of [[Pyramid]] and a graphically horrendous capital I, there are some nice elements in a generally good layout.
Looking at their screenshots, it seems as if that horrible font is not part of their suggestion to improve Wikipedia; it's just used in their own text.
I'd like to see more than just the top bit of the page, to see how their suggestion would pan out below the TOC; I'd also like to see how it handles things like infoboxes, and they should also show how it would work on different screen sizes.
What I'd like to see on Wikipedia: A big obvious link leading people to an editor-help community like [[WP:ADOPT]] (this is based on interaction with intelligent people who refuse to edit Wikipedia because it's too daunting), and more focus on the history tab (and maybe also a re-name as suggested).
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the better branding and identification of sister projects, and the modern feel / look are all elements that can be adapted.
I'd love to see more of these complete redesign proposals with a professional feel. The current "2012 main page redesign" proposals are almost uniformly amateurish, and many make only the most minimal adjustments. More importantly, they are aimed only at the main page - what needs to be updated is really the entire thing. 10 years on and the editing interface is still shit, and the design is still aimed at satisfying lowest common denominator concerns. Time for a new approach, if only Wikimedia had a Steve Jobs on staff.
I personally think the Foundation should spend money and time on developing a new interface like this.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the better branding and identification of sister projects, and the modern feel / look are all elements that can be adapted.
I'd love to see more of these complete redesign proposals with a professional feel. The current "2012 main page redesign" proposals are almost uniformly amateurish, and many make only the most minimal adjustments. More importantly, they are aimed only at the main page - what needs to be updated is really the entire thing. 10 years on and the editing interface is still shit, and the design is still aimed at satisfying lowest common denominator concerns. Time for a new approach, if only Wikimedia had a Steve Jobs on staff. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
<rant>
If WMF had a Steve Jobs on staff, everyone would hate him for making decisions without properly consulting the community, for destroying the community, for reinventing Wikimedia again, for making unpopular decisions, for making decisions behind close doors, for being an egomaniac, etc.
Heck, we cannot even get the branding right. We call our project Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews... we have a software called MediaWiki, and the whole movement is called the Wikimedia Movement. No surprise people think Wikileaks is one of ours. No surprise people cannot get these words right. There have been several suggestions for improving the branding, but every time met with strong resistance.
I think Athena is a much more though-out design step for Wikipedia, and I am very much looking forward to it to happen. But as long as there is considerable backlash for something like a move from Monobook to Vector -- which, it seems, is not even regarded as a design update by most critics here -- I am wary about the social costs involved in such an update.
</rant>
Yes, it would be nice if it was easier to change Wikipedia.
Cheers, Denny
2012/8/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the better branding and identification of sister projects, and the modern feel / look are all elements that can be adapted.
I'd love to see more of these complete redesign proposals with a professional feel. The current "2012 main page redesign" proposals are almost uniformly amateurish, and many make only the most minimal adjustments. More importantly, they are aimed only at the main page - what needs to be updated is really the entire thing. 10 years on and the editing interface is still shit, and the design is still aimed at satisfying lowest common denominator concerns. Time for a new approach, if only Wikimedia had a Steve Jobs on staff. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
<rant>
If WMF had a Steve Jobs on staff, everyone would hate him for making decisions without properly consulting the community, for destroying the community, for reinventing Wikimedia again, for making unpopular decisions, for making decisions behind close doors, for being an egomaniac, etc.
Heck, we cannot even get the branding right. We call our project Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews... we have a software called MediaWiki, and the whole movement is called the Wikimedia Movement. No surprise people think Wikileaks is one of ours. No surprise people cannot get these words right. There have been several suggestions for improving the branding, but every time met with strong resistance.
I think Athena is a much more though-out design step for Wikipedia, and I am very much looking forward to it to happen. But as long as there is considerable backlash for something like a move from Monobook to Vector -- which, it seems, is not even regarded as a design update by most critics here -- I am wary about the social costs involved in such an update.
</rant>
Yes, it would be nice if it was easier to change Wikipedia.
2012/8/17 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if it was easier to change Wikipedia.
Oh my goodness, Magnus. Is it that easy for you? There's some room for improvement (e.g. the positioning of images) but I like a lot the result =)
That said I think the biggest idea in that proposal are two: * maybe we need a "read" mode and an edit mode to be better separated, it's of little use to have buttons and tools for interaction/editing/statistic purposes if I want only to read. We should keep that in mind also while developing the interface for mobile apps. (and I actually like a lot the current Wikipedia app on Android, because you can only read but you read it extremely well even on that small screen because there are just the things you actually want to read. * maybe the big point is "we try to make the process of designing and implementing an interface for Wikipedia easier and we see with what people come out". * (even more difficult, and maybe impractical for some reasons) we should leave to the users the possibility to tweak some elements of the design of the Wikipedia they are reading (I'm thinking about: * show/hide this * magnify that, etc.)
Cristian
On 8/17/12 12:02 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
This is quite nice, especially on a larger screen! Our current layout, which uses the full browser width for text, makes articles hard to read and cluttered-looking on larger screens. The text column with images and ToC in the sidebar is a nice change. Though on the other hand, I do like flowing text around images below some with threshold. When reading on a smaller screen, with this layout you can end up with a very narrow text column down the middle. But overall I like it. The only thing I'd really want is some way to get to more of the functionality. For example, I can't find how to view edit history.
-Mark
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 8/17/12 12:02 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
This is quite nice, especially on a larger screen! Our current layout, which uses the full browser width for text, makes articles hard to read and cluttered-looking on larger screens. The text column with images and ToC in the sidebar is a nice change. Though on the other hand, I do like flowing text around images below some with threshold. When reading on a smaller screen, with this layout you can end up with a very narrow text column down the middle. But overall I like it. The only thing I'd really want is some way to get to more of the functionality. For example, I can't find how to view edit history.
Thanks! This is just a demo, most functionality is missing; no point in implementing all of it unless there's a potential long-term user and developer base :-)
That said, it uses only the MediaWiki API, so it can run anywhere, even on a blank page served by Wikipedia, in the far future, when there is no more server-side full-page rendering...
It's pretty useless on mobile devices, but then we have a nice mobile interface; this whole auto-collapse-on-mobile thing only goes so far, IMHO.
Upshot: Unless I get at least, say, five people who'd help debug it, and at least one person who'd help coding, I'm not going to add more functions to it. Also, the "redefined" people might sue me for stealing their layout proposal ;-)
Magnus
2012/8/17 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Upshot: Unless I get at least, say, five people who'd help debug it,
I can help with debugging :-).
and at least one person who'd help coding, I'm not going to add more functions to it. Also, the "redefined" people might sue me for stealing their layout proposal ;-)
meh!
Cristian
On 17 August 2012 10:47, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 8/17/12 12:02 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
This is quite nice, especially on a larger screen! Our current layout,
which
uses the full browser width for text, makes articles hard to read and cluttered-looking on larger screens. The text column with images and ToC
in
the sidebar is a nice change. Though on the other hand, I do like flowing text around images below some with threshold. When reading on a smaller screen, with this layout you can end up with a very narrow text column
down
the middle. But overall I like it. The only thing I'd really want is some way to get to more of the functionality. For example, I can't find how to view edit history.
Thanks! This is just a demo, most functionality is missing; no point in implementing all of it unless there's a potential long-term user and developer base :-)
That said, it uses only the MediaWiki API, so it can run anywhere, even on a blank page served by Wikipedia, in the far future, when there is no more server-side full-page rendering...
It's pretty useless on mobile devices, but then we have a nice mobile interface; this whole auto-collapse-on-mobile thing only goes so far, IMHO.
Upshot: Unless I get at least, say, five people who'd help debug it, and at least one person who'd help coding, I'm not going to add more functions to it. Also, the "redefined" people might sue me for stealing their layout proposal ;-)
It looks pretty clean and less cluttered. It also draws attention to some of our internal issues, such as massive listing of references at the bottom of the page, and all those templates linking groups of articles together; between these two, they're taking up nearly a quarter of the 'space'. They're both important issues, although separate ones.
I'm looking at this from a fairly small screen, and I wonder how wide the "text" will be when the left-side links are added in, or if your proposal is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on the eyes.
Risker/Anne
2012/8/17 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
It looks pretty clean and less cluttered. It also draws attention to some of our internal issues, such as massive listing of references at the bottom of the page, and all those templates linking groups of articles together; between these two, they're taking up nearly a quarter of the 'space'. They're both important issues, although separate ones.
I'm looking at this from a fairly small screen, and I wonder how wide the "text" will be when the left-side links are added in, or if your proposal is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on the eyes.
I think we can gather comments about Magnus proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_redefined
Also, you're invited to put your name in either list if you're interested.
Cristian
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/17 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
It looks pretty clean and less cluttered. It also draws attention to some of our internal issues, such as massive listing of references at the bottom of the page, and all those templates linking groups of articles together; between these two, they're taking up nearly a quarter of the 'space'. They're both important issues, although separate ones.
I'm looking at this from a fairly small screen, and I wonder how wide the "text" will be when the left-side links are added in, or if your proposal is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on the eyes.
I think we can gather comments about Magnus proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_redefined
Also, you're invited to put your name in either list if you're interested.
Thanks, I've added a META backlink from the interface.
Magnus
Yes, I would like to see the skin in my Preferences. Where is a wiki page for comment? :-) Ziko
2012/8/17 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/17 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
It looks pretty clean and less cluttered. It also draws attention to some of our internal issues, such as massive listing of references at the bottom of the page, and all those templates linking groups of articles together; between these two, they're taking up nearly a quarter of the 'space'. They're both important issues, although separate ones.
I'm looking at this from a fairly small screen, and I wonder how wide the "text" will be when the left-side links are added in, or if your proposal is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on the eyes.
I think we can gather comments about Magnus proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_redefined
Also, you're invited to put your name in either list if you're interested.
Thanks, I've added a META backlink from the interface.
Magnus
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/8/17 Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl:
Yes, I would like to see the skin in my Preferences. Where is a wiki page for comment? :-)
See the "META" link in the upper-right corner i.e.: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_redefined
Cristian
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/17 Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl:
Yes, I would like to see the skin in my Preferences. Where is a wiki page for comment? :-)
See the "META" link in the upper-right corner i.e.: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_redefined
Technically, it's not a MediaWiki skin. It could become one, but that would require changes in MediaWiki itself, and we all know how long that takes. There are intermediary solutions, but they'd be ugly, like loading each page in a "normal" skin, then rearranging it via JavaScript, which causes a flickering "jump" on each page load. For the moment, toolserver it is.
Magnus
Indeed Denny, making those changes is very difficult, and we are facing a number of these challenges. You know what? Given the importance of a good user interface (and other things), I could even imagine that the WMFbuilds up a new Wikipedia site and watches where the majority of people want to contribute. If that would result in a permanent fork, between a modern user interface Wikipedia and the one we have now... well, depending on some factors, I might find it worth the progress. Kind regards Ziko
2012/8/17 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de:
<rant>
If WMF had a Steve Jobs on staff, everyone would hate him for making decisions without properly consulting the community, for destroying the community, for reinventing Wikimedia again, for making unpopular decisions, for making decisions behind close doors, for being an egomaniac, etc.
Heck, we cannot even get the branding right. We call our project Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews... we have a software called MediaWiki, and the whole movement is called the Wikimedia Movement. No surprise people think Wikileaks is one of ours. No surprise people cannot get these words right. There have been several suggestions for improving the branding, but every time met with strong resistance.
I think Athena is a much more though-out design step for Wikipedia, and I am very much looking forward to it to happen. But as long as there is considerable backlash for something like a move from Monobook to Vector -- which, it seems, is not even regarded as a design update by most critics here -- I am wary about the social costs involved in such an update.
</rant>
Yes, it would be nice if it was easier to change Wikipedia.
Cheers, Denny
2012/8/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the better branding and identification of sister projects, and the modern feel / look are all elements that can be adapted.
I'd love to see more of these complete redesign proposals with a professional feel. The current "2012 main page redesign" proposals are almost uniformly amateurish, and many make only the most minimal adjustments. More importantly, they are aimed only at the main page - what needs to be updated is really the entire thing. 10 years on and the editing interface is still shit, and the design is still aimed at satisfying lowest common denominator concerns. Time for a new approach, if only Wikimedia had a Steve Jobs on staff. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that page is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
MZMcBride
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our effort. ;)
Andreas
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that page is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I wonder what the wikipediaredefined people would think of Brandon Harris' Athena Project?
cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed%..., https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Athena, etc.
--Ed
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our effort. ;)
Andreas
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that
page
is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think they would consider it a vast improvement over what we have, and a 10-year leap forward. :) So, all I can say is: Yes, please, Brandon.
However, the Signpost Op-Ed contains one statement I can't let pass without comment:
"... featured articles are so good precisely because they are edited by so many."
Brandon, if you follow WP:FAC for any length of time, or try to write a Featured Article yourself, you'll realise that any Featured Articles Wikipedia has are the work of usually one, or at most two or three editors who sat down and decided to take an article to Featured status, and have been watching the article like hawks ever since it acquired that status.
It may be an article of faith within Wikimedia that crowdsourcing leads to superb articles, but it's not one experience has borne out. Once Featured articles stop being watched and are indeed edited "by many" people, they typically decay within a few years, and end up for delisting at WP:FAR.
Andreas
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder what the wikipediaredefined people would think of Brandon Harris' Athena Project?
cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed
,
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Athena, etc.
--Ed
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than
our
effort. ;)
Andreas
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
There are some interesting and neat ideas in there.
Any idea what the copyright/license status of the images used on that
page
is? It'd be nice to be able to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons
so
that they can be annotated on Meta-Wiki and/or mediawiki.org.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
Yes, interesting. I asked them about whether they intend to keep it "teling us" instead of "discussing it" (no email list but an email), and mentioned some thoughts of mine, which I share here:
- the design fails without javascript [why javascript often bad or non-applicable is a long thread itself]
- it (often) wastes screen space
- "wiki" is ***NOT*** wikipedia, nor is it wikimedia, nor is it a brand or a trademark or a name of one entity. it's like saying "webpage"
- it did not seem to touch one of the most important part deserving more professional attention: typography.
Trying to respond to your "wiki is not..." statement from this awful gmail mobile website...
While technically correct, from the user's pov, which is the one the websites's creators have, wiki is often used as a synonim for wikipedia. I hear more often „did you search on wiki?” than „did you search wikipedia?”. I find this distinction is nowadays a little pedantic.
Strainu
2012/8/8, Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
Yes, interesting. I asked them about whether they intend to keep it "teling us" instead of "discussing it" (no email list but an email), and mentioned some thoughts of mine, which I share here:
- the design fails without javascript [why javascript often bad or
non-applicable is a long thread itself]
it (often) wastes screen space
"wiki" is ***NOT*** wikipedia, nor is it wikimedia, nor is it a
brand or a trademark or a name of one entity. it's like saying "webpage"
- it did not seem to touch one of the most important part deserving
more professional attention: typography.
-- byte-byte, grin
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
No one will argue these days that the WMF is short of money, so this is a good opportunity for it to deploy some of that funding for a real impact. The main page on the English Wikipedia is an ideal starting point for a conscious effort at design evolution throughout Wikimedia. The Foundation should solicit and pay for several design firms to submit efforts to the main page contest, which is in dire need of some talented input. The community can still select between them, let's just make sure they have a number of great options.
2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
TL;DR: * It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs. * It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except some proposed reader-centric features.
Now, the longer version.
The beginning is just horrible:
* They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read. It may be useful somewhere, but not here. * They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same, but they should still do their homework properly. * They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW. * They create logos for sister projects from their English names and once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters without a good reason to begin with.
Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is completely different from what editors call "history". They should have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers (99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.
Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning, disregarding the very basic design principle that different things should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more sense.)
Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard yet again that there are other languages.
So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to be.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
On 8 August 2012 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more sense.)
That would be an *excellent* thing to do in MediaWiki in general.
- d.
Things I would change, I think that all pages have to have the main objective of the Movement, and a comprehension of the project is part of something bigger.
And this proposed segmentation is archaic, there are several items that fit into more than one segment, and knowledge should not be typified.
I think if you change the platform at this level, there are things that could be better integrated, as have a news clipping of WikiNews in Wikipedia articles, double click on selected words, or a certain word when selected would open a toolbox for Wiktionary...
In all, there are many cool ideas that can be used.
Perfectly sound remarks, Amir. I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements. One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take "WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no problem, use them. The letter type could be a better one, indeed. "History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic growth would be great. Kind regards Ziko
2012/8/8 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
TL;DR:
- It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs.
- It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except
some proposed reader-centric features.
Now, the longer version.
The beginning is just horrible:
- They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact
that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read. It may be useful somewhere, but not here.
- They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the
one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same, but they should still do their homework properly.
- They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the
main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW.
- They create logos for sister projects from their English names and
once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters without a good reason to begin with.
Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is completely different from what editors call "history". They should have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers (99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.
Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning, disregarding the very basic design principle that different things should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more sense.)
Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard yet again that there are other languages.
So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to be.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Labas!
My 2 cents:
Overall the team at http://www.newisnew.lt/lt have some very good ideas to share, however:
If you are colorblind, the rainbow thing wont make any sense, and I strongly dislike the idea of burying smaller languages under a mouse. I think that Lithuanians (this re-design has been proposed by a Lithuanian firm) might be able to understand my dislike of that idea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban). Also the W as a logo is EXTREMELY Euro-centric. In my opinion the puzzle globe, while it's busy, is a healthier representation of what the project is and represents. It's busy like a European coat-of-arms is busy: you won't understand it until you spend some time understanding the complexity of the symbols and their relationships to each other.
The designers should post mock-ups of their work here if they are serious about making a change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlwrote:
Perfectly sound remarks, Amir. I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements. One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take "WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no problem, use them. The letter type could be a better one, indeed. "History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic growth would be great. Kind regards Ziko
2012/8/8 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
TL;DR:
- It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for typography, logo design, and understanding the client's needs.
- It's not so useful as design ideas for the actual Wikipedia, except
some proposed reader-centric features.
Now, the longer version.
The beginning is just horrible:
- They picked a font in which the capital I looks like a J. The fact
that the capital J there is longer doesn't help at all. It's not an original typographic solution. It's just weird, ugly and hard to read. It may be useful somewhere, but not here.
- They want to redesign the Wikipedia logo, but they start from the
one that was retired two years ago. So yes, the ideas are the same, but they should still do their homework properly.
- They want to kill all the scripts except Latin from the logo. On the
main page they want to make the big languages even bigger on the main page and to make small languages even smaller. Imperialism FTW.
- They create logos for sister projects from their English names and
once more disregard the notion that there are other languages in the world. And that it's rarely a good idea to design logos from letters without a good reason to begin with.
Somewhat better ideas begin in the middle. What they call "history" is completely different from what editors call "history". They should have called it "reading list" or "what I read" or something. It requires an account, which is not so relevant to most people in the current setup. That said, their idea of history can be useful. If nothing else, it's a good reminder that MediaWiki's technical innovations are mostly aimed at the editors (1%) and not the readers (99%). The "Quote" button that they propose is not a bad idea either.
Then they get to editing. Basically, they don't propose anything very different from what the Visual Editor is going to be. In fact, the current testing version of the Visual Editor is already quite close to that. And they use "history" again, with a different meaning, disregarding the very basic design principle that different things should have different names. (Come to think of it, using "history" the way we use it today is not a great idea either. It's easy to confuse it with the subject of History. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more sense.)
Towards the end they discuss the "portal of Wikipedia", by which they actually mean the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, and disregard yet again that there are other languages.
So OK, it brings up a few areas where we can improve, but the solution as they propose it is not viable. I'm not sure that they meant it to be.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/
Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 8/8/12 6:07 PM, Victor Grigas wrote:
Labas!
The designers should post mock-ups of their work here if they are serious about making a change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal
And that is after we pay them lots of money to do the redesign for "us" ;)
-Sarah
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nlwrote:
Perfectly sound remarks, Amir. I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements. One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take "WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your language it is a VM or something else, in "local" characters no problem, use them. The letter type could be a better one, indeed. "History": It's amazing how little those terms are unified among the Wikipedia language versions. A big renaming after 10 years of organic growth would be great. Kind regards Ziko
Steven Walling's started an essay on Wikipedia redesigns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org