Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


wikipedia at zog

Aug 7, 2012, 2:47 PM

Post #1 of 43 (1319 views)
Permalink
[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


huskyr at gmail

Aug 7, 2012, 3:42 PM

Post #2 of 43 (1286 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] zog> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


z at mzmcbride

Aug 7, 2012, 3:55 PM

Post #3 of 43 (1289 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Aug 7, 2012, 4:44 PM

Post #4 of 43 (1287 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] mzmcbride> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


the.ed17 at gmail

Aug 7, 2012, 11:26 PM

Post #5 of 43 (1284 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] mzmcbride> 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 [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


grinapo at gmail

Aug 8, 2012, 12:53 AM

Post #6 of 43 (1280 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia [at] zog> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


amir.aharoni at mail

Aug 8, 2012, 1:06 AM

Post #7 of 43 (1279 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia [at] zog>
>
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Aug 8, 2012, 1:09 AM

Post #8 of 43 (1280 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] mzmcbride> 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 [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Aug 8, 2012, 1:47 AM

Post #9 of 43 (1277 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

On 8 August 2012 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni [at] mail> 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.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


rodrigo.argenton at gmail

Aug 8, 2012, 8:40 AM

Post #10 of 43 (1266 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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.

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argenton [at] gmail
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


vandijk at wmnederland

Aug 8, 2012, 2:12 PM

Post #11 of 43 (1265 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] mail>:
> 2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia [at] zog>
>>
>> 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 [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


vgrigas at wikimedia

Aug 8, 2012, 6:07 PM

Post #12 of 43 (1263 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] wmnederland>wrote:

> 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 [at] mail>:
> > 2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia [at] zog>
> >>
> >> 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 [at] lists
> > 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller
Wikimedia Foundation
vgrigas [at] wikimedia
+1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773
149 New Montgomery Street 6th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sarah.stierch at gmail

Aug 8, 2012, 6:10 PM

Post #13 of 43 (1262 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] wmnederland>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today
<https://donate.wikimedia.org/><<
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 9:07 AM

Post #14 of 43 (1262 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

Steven Walling's started an essay on Wikipedia redesigns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 11:03 AM

Post #15 of 43 (1260 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] zog>
> 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 [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 11:10 AM

Post #16 of 43 (1260 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> 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.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jamesofur at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 11:35 AM

Post #17 of 43 (1260 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> 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 [at] gmail
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 12:16 PM

Post #18 of 43 (1257 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> 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 [at] gmail
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 3:17 PM

Post #19 of 43 (1252 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> > On 9 August 2012 19:03, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> 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 [at] gmail
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


richard at farmbrough

Aug 16, 2012, 2:56 AM

Post #20 of 43 (1183 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Aug 16, 2012, 3:43 AM

Post #21 of 43 (1184 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


davidrichfield at gmail

Aug 16, 2012, 9:52 AM

Post #22 of 43 (1181 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Richard Farmbrough
<richard [at] farmbrough> 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).

--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nawrich at gmail

Aug 16, 2012, 3:23 PM

Post #23 of 43 (1174 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


monomium at gmail

Aug 16, 2012, 5:03 PM

Post #24 of 43 (1176 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


denny.vrandecic at wikimedia

Aug 17, 2012, 2:55 AM

Post #25 of 43 (1168 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such [In reply to]

<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 [at] gmail>:
> 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 [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.