I recently bookmarked Wikipedia at my local library. They have brand new terminals with TFT screens. The resolution is fairly low.
Sadly, the main page of Wikipedia suffers from several big problems
* it's overloaded. There is too much going on and no clear indication of what can be ignored and what must be read * the page title comes nearly halfway down the screen. The newcomer just sees a lot of "scary" links and form elements before any sort of content.
Compared to, say, a Certain Non-Free Encyclopedia Beginning With B... well, we suck. Show them both to the average library-visitor who just wants to look something up -- he'll go for the Britt.
Someone posted a really nice new layout some time ago -- what's the status on that? Does it need more work before it's ready? I'm happy to help, I have some free time at the moment. My only problem, still, is getting CVS access. (anyone have the link?)
I think we need to consider moving most of the top bar stuff down to the sidebar. (for example, like the streamlining I did here: http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/ )
Of course, the fact that the language links are at the top is a key argument in favour of keeping the status quo regarding the multilingual portal. (ie, peopel who don't read english see their language immediately). And so the Domino rally of committee debate rolls on...
-- tarquin
tarquin-
- it's overloaded. There is too much going on and no clear indication of
what can be ignored and what must be read
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a wiki. As such, we have to find the right balance between making Wikipedia easy to read for non-contributors, and making it easy to use for contributors. I think our current balance is pretty good already. Britannica.com does not have to inform its readers that they can participate, and it does not have to provide the tools (navigational structure) for doing so. It is also English only. If Britannica was like Wikipedia, it would probably look a lot like us ;-)
I like UnrealWiki's design, but I do not like the way the wiki elements of it are fairly hidden at the bottom of each page. This would be unacceptable for Wikipedia IMHO.
One thing we should do is make the interlanguage link bar smaller, maybe also reduce the font size of all navigational elements. But I do not think any radical changes are in order. Your library should get higher resolution screens, though. Complex webpages always tend to look somewhat sucky on low resolutions.
Compared to, say, a Certain Non-Free Encyclopedia Beginning With B... well, we suck.
I do not agree. I could write a whole essay about the suckage factors on Britannica's frontpage.
1) text as images 2) fixed width design 3) unzoomable mini illustrations 4) "buy stuff" links all over the place 5) too many full sentences instead of short, descriptive links 6) redundancy: "browse" shows what's already on the frontpage 7) very few links directly to articles
... 312) no "edit this page" link ;-)
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
tarquin-
- it's overloaded. There is too much going on and no clear indication of
what can be ignored and what must be read
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a wiki. As such, we have to find the right balance between making Wikipedia easy to read for non-contributors, and making it easy to use for contributors. I think our current balance is pretty good already.
we already have the ability to choose different skins. so the default skin could maybe be "lighter". my main concern is the height stuff before the title, and also the fact that it looks very messy. by all means let's keep the current skin available as an option!
Britannica.com does not have to inform its readers that they can participate, and it does not have to provide the tools (navigational structure) for doing so. It is also English only. If Britannica was like Wikipedia, it would probably look a lot like us ;-)
I like UnrealWiki's design, but I do not like the way the wiki elements of it are fairly hidden at the bottom of each page. This would be unacceptable for Wikipedia IMHO.
Agreed -- that's a left-over from the UseModWIki design.
Are you referring to this:
http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html
Yup! Actually, I'd forgotten you'd put the language links down the side already.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 10:44:41PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
Someone posted a really nice new layout some time ago -- what's the status on that? Does it need more work before it's ready? I'm happy to help, I have some free time at the moment. My only problem, still, is getting CVS access. (anyone have the link?)
Are you referring to this: http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html
I still like it a lot, but I think it is more geared towards the average editor, and not the average reader. Still, I'd love to see it on the Wikipedia site. :)
Nick-
Are you referring to this: http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html
I still like it a lot, but I think it is more geared towards the average editor, and not the average reader. Still, I'd love to see it on the Wikipedia site. :)
I do like it, but
* the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links (delete, protect) are added. With lots of interlanguage links at the bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't scrollable. * there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good for editors, but not good as a standard. * it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.
Regards,
Erik
If you like minimal, try my "Tech" skin at http://test.wikipedia.org
Still "in the works", though, and depends on CSS and JavaScript.
Magnus
Erik Moeller wrote:
Nick-
Are you referring to this: http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html
I still like it a lot, but I think it is more geared towards the average editor, and not the average reader. Still, I'd love to see it on the Wikipedia site. :)
I do like it, but
- the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links
like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links (delete, protect) are added. With lots of interlanguage links at the bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't scrollable.
- there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good
for editors, but not good as a standard.
- it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
I do like it, but
- the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links
like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links (delete, protect) are added.
but the average reader doesn't need or want those links! and placed at the top of the screen they confuse.
With lots of interlanguage links at the bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't scrollable.
yes, we will probably have to drop the "fixed" sidebar in this skin
- there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good
for editors, but not good as a standard.
easily fixed! (I particularly like the sunflower logo proposed in another thread)
- it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.
you mean things like Lynx? How do other sites handle this problem?
I'm open to suggestions. But we really need to rethink our design. I know that all of us here on this list are used to the current page layout, so we see right through its problems. But think like a luser for a moment: there is nothing that guides the eye. The are straggly blocks of links that come at you from all sides. I showed the site to the library staff and their eyes just glazed over with that "too much scary text" look people get. We are talking about people who panic at the sight of a Microsoft Word dialog box here. This is (sadly) the average net user.
Remember who we've said before that we need to attract editors from other backgrounds, such as literature, history, art -- people who are probably not tech-wise? This is a hurdle we need to lower.
tarquin wrote:
I'm open to suggestions. But we really need to rethink our design. I know that all of us here on this list are used to the current page layout, so we see right through its problems. But think like a luser for a moment: there is nothing that guides the eye. The are straggly blocks of links that come at you from all sides. I showed the site to the library staff and their eyes just glazed over with that "too much scary text" look people get. We are talking about people who panic at the sight of a Microsoft Word dialog box here. This is (sadly) the average net user.
Remember who we've said before that we need to attract editors from other backgrounds, such as literature, history, art -- people who are probably not tech-wise? This is a hurdle we need to lower.
This just seen on the village pump:
I get the impression that the input to the encyclopedia is rather
unbalanced: lots on computer stuff (surprise!), science, pop music, sci-fi/fantasy, bits of geog/hist. The impression is that the typical user is a young male with computer qualifications and stereotypically geeky interests (jimfbleak http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimfbleak)
I figure I'm getting little response because the developers are swamped with database and optimization problems. I have the capabilities to work on our stylesheets and layout myself. But I can't get access to our CVS because I can't set up SSH on Windows. Is there someone who can help me? Has anyone here successfully set up Wikipedia CVS & SSH access on windows? This is an important issue, and I am prepared to work on it.
-- tarquin
tarquin-
I figure I'm getting little response because the developers are swamped with database and optimization problems. I have the capabilities to work on our stylesheets and layout myself. But I can't get access to our CVS because I can't set up SSH on Windows. Is there someone who can help me? Has anyone here successfully set up Wikipedia CVS & SSH access on windows?
My first recommendation is to make some room on your harddisk and set up a Linux partition for dual boot. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours even if you are unfamiliar with Linux.
My second recommendation is to read this: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=766&group_id=1
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
My first recommendation is to make some room on your harddisk and set up a Linux partition for dual boot. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours even if you are unfamiliar with Linux.
I'm planning on doing this, but I don't know if my ISP will play...
My second recommendation is to read this: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=766&group_id=1
Wow! This is EXACTLY what I needed. (and I *had* looked on Sourceforge for help previously) I've just generated a key pair, hopefully I'll be able to log in and actually contribute!
thanks :-)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:34:00PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
This just seen on the village pump:
I get the impression that the input to the encyclopedia is rather
unbalanced: lots on computer stuff (surprise!), science, pop music, sci-fi/fantasy, bits of geog/hist. The impression is that the typical user is a young male with computer qualifications and stereotypically geeky interests (jimfbleak http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimfbleak)
Oh no, we are perfectly balanced, it's non-free 'pedias that contain too little about computer stuff, science, pop music and sci-fi/fantasy, and surprisingly lot about some boring and not very relevant topics.
Seriously, our content is more useful per article on average, so I don't think it lacks balance.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Oh no, we are perfectly balanced, it's non-free 'pedias that contain too little about computer stuff, science, pop music and sci-fi/fantasy, and surprisingly lot about some boring and not very relevant topics.
:-)
The issue of balance among topics is indeed interesting. I think the wiki mechanism that anybody can add information is the perfect guarantee for relevance. But the balance will reflect the interests of those who *write*, not those who only *read*.
I digitized an old Swedish encyclopedia ("Nordisk familjebok", http://runeberg.org/nf/) and it is clear that the 1st edition (1876-1899) contains a lot more of ancient Greek and Roman mythology and history (stuff known by people who took Latin and Greek in school) and the 2nd edition (1904-1926) focuses more on inventions, technology and contemporary politics (stuff known to people who took French, German, and English in school).
I think you should be able to trace similar trends if you compare different editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Larousse, Brockhaus, or other encyclopediae. So it should be natural that Wikipedia reflects the interests of those living in the 21st century and who are familiar with computers.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:34:00PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
I figure I'm getting little response because the developers are swamped with database and optimization problems. I have the capabilities to work on our stylesheets and layout myself. But I can't get access to our CVS because I can't set up SSH on Windows. Is there someone who can help me? Has anyone here successfully set up Wikipedia CVS & SSH access on windows? This is an important issue, and I am prepared to work on it.
Really, your best bet is going to be installing Cygwin (www.cygwin.com). That will give you all the traditional GNU tools and whatnot on Windows. I do a lot of my development that way. Be sure to check out www.twoevils.org/html/files.php for how to setup an awesome terminal. :)
Up until now, the use of files and pictures in contributions has been a bit obscure. People don't upload too much compared to how much they edit. Another problem has been the fact that people, admins, editors, and even Jimbo don't _completely_ understand fair use, and other applicable laws. Idealy, we need a lawyer, even better though, we need public domain images.
I want to propose that Wikipedia post a request for ammateur/proffessional photographers to take pictures and contribute their high resolution versions to the Wikipedia, placing them underpublic domain. We could run a contest sort of and have prizes for people who contribute many (valid and useful) images. I would be willing to host the high quality versions in my server, as well as the tracking program, upload script and cron'd tarball's of both the HQ, and lower resolution versions at the end of the night to facilitate importing into Wikipedia. I would also make a mirror of the images in my private fotki account, providing free high-bandwidth access to the download of the originals in case my server is unreachable at any point. I'm also willing to volunteer write the point system etc. and to a certain extent sponsor the prizes.
I have a company, I make novelty t-shirts and stickers, I would be willing to give away this stuff for free, and donate a small ammount of cash, and hopefully other people would too. I would leave it to someone who is more trusted in the Wikipedia community to be a "treasurer" of sorts since I would not expect people to trust me with money, since my name is not too prominent in the Wikipedia community. With sufficient support we could probably get independent thir parties to donate other things for use as prizes, like for example, we could get a subscription-only website to donate a 1 month subscription or something similar.
The system in my mind would work sort of like the livejournal "growpot" system. We try to raise some initial money and prizes and we make a list of pictures that we would like. Based on different criteria we could assign them a token ammount of points that they are worth, and have the points be points be redeamable for the prizes or cash, which could be easily paid via paypal or such, with an option to donate these credits back to the contest, for those of us who consider the joy of knowing we contributed a sufficient reward.
In case Wikipedia does not wish to be involved in this directly, I would like to propose the idea as sort of a side project, with (hopefully) some of the more involved members helping out. I really consider this to be a promising idea for creating a wider base of organized public domain images suitable for use in projects like Wikipedia.
This seems like a tough task, but the great part about this, is that images do not need a language, a picture of a horse can be used in any "horse" article, in any language. So, if I can gather a sufficient ammount of support from the community, I'd be willing to start on the programing work needed for this task. so please reply with any ideas, suggestions, problems I have not forseen, or your support.
Lightning Will
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org