I think that saying it is "a new default skin" is not the way to go. Rather, first implement it as an alternative skin, and only then start seeing whether people want it as the default skin.

Andre Engels

No. Our default skin is terrible. We have to implement something which is easily usable by the masses who read Wikipedia. Let's work on a good clean, cross-platform and -browser design which does not turn newcomers away. Our current Phase3 skin can remain as an option. Any registered user is free to set their own skin -- so registered users who prefer Phase3 skin can simply change their preferences!

Richard Grevers wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:17:19 +0100, tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com gave utterance to the following:

...

Our default skin is terrible.

What precisely is terrible about it? IMO...

• It leaves the user in control of font family and size, which is very

good.

• It is white-on-black, which is too contrasty for optimal reading for

me - bad.

• When not logged in, do we really need the redundancy of certain

links which are on the left as well as at top and bottom? (I would suggest left and bottom only, putting the article higher, the biggest problem being the width of the special pages selectbox.

I have already said what is terrible about it. I don't want to repeat myself. Read the archive.

I *had* thought that we needed to rethink our skin system from scratch. If everybody else is happy to keep making tweaks and not address the main problems, fine.

I've just wasted my weekend working on designs, but never mind.

Erik Moeller wrote:

tarquin-

...

I've just wasted my weekend working on designs, but never mind.

Whether you have wasted your weekend depends on

• whether someone else implements your skin, or
• whether we come up with a new skin system that is based on page

templates instead of code/HTML mix, so that you can do it yourself. Personally, I don't consider that a development priority, and it's unlikely that it will happen anytime soon.

My idea for a roadmap was this:

1. Create a new default skin that is more friendly to newcomers & casual readers. (Maybe even alter eveyone's preferences so people on Phase3 skin stay on Phase3 skin.) I don't think that what registered users like is as important as what is sound design and clear for unregistered users. Check my earlier post on "Lusers' eyes glaze over when faced with Wikipedia pages". 2. I can cope with PHP well enough to program this under the current skin system. 2b. Tweak the Phase3 skin so it's a little better. 3. (long term) Work on a template system 4. recode existing skins as templates and add new ones

In the meantime, please could someone answer my question: I have CVS access. How do I put things on the text server?

Erik Moeller wrote:

tarquin-

...

1. Create a new default skin

Well, you may have noticed that even minor changes to the skin meet with quite strong resistance and have to be defended individually. Realistically, you will have to defend your new skin, and it will probably end up being voted on, before it is made the new default.

Well so far I've been happy to read people's comments and criticisms and make changes. (see the comment pages on Meta). I'm quite prepared to do that -- go through many cycles of development, comments, development, comments. I *did* say early that my intention was that we'd keep Phase3 skin as one of the user preferences. But we *badly* need a more n00b-friendly skin. (For example: I have been trying to get Wikipedia bookmarked in all libraries across my area, but the way it looks at the moment, most people just find it too confusing -- people have to remember: lusers start reading at the top left and keep going. At the moment, they think our site is called "Main Page http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page | Recent changes http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges | Edit this page http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=edit | Page history http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=history")

However, if this turns into Yet Another Vote In Which Nothing Gets Decided, then I think my time is better spent .... hmmm... playing Solitaire.

Instead of many skins competing for votes, I would rather have a small core of designers work on one project, and get feedback from wikipedians at large to gradually reach something we're happy with. (I don't recall we voted on Magnus' PHP script, or Lee's Phase 3. ;) )

...

In the meantime, please could someone answer my question: I have CVS access. How do I put things on the text server?

Just commit it to the unstable branch (it's the default branch) and it will get in with the next update. Please don't commit unfinished stuff.

Thanks.

Tomasz-

Could we please stop voting ? The only vote so far, about article counters, resulted in total disaster when we lost quite meaningful counting system to something that explicitely includes every stub.

It counted stubs before as well. Virtually every stub has a comma. Furthermore, the old method broke several non-English counts, which is why we changed it. Many people simply disagree that stubs should not be counted, so they have voted accordingly. The new method only counts stubs that are wikified. You are free to disapprove of the result, but you are a small minority.

Regards,

Erik

Tomasz-

Given that number of "articles" jumped some 20% with new counters, your statement is outright false.

6.43% on en:, actually, and that doesn't count the new articles that were created between May 14 and May 25. The new count system simply gets more articles which are not in prose format but which do contain links, such as lists.

"Old method" was to use different counter for CJK wikipedias, don't you remember ?

What I remember is that people on some Wikipedias inserted commas into articles to have them counted.

But then, English Wikipedia has already history of counterfeiting stats, with Rambot.

That, again, is a matter of opinion. You will have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with yours.

Regards,

Erik