Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This page is an excellent ideas!
I wonder if the licensing/copyright issue of redesigns should be noted? I'm not sure all designers are familiar with or appreciate Wikimedia's licensing model. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for writing this page! Regarding the recent design study http://www.wikipediaredefined.com , this has got quite some attention on the german internet. A german wikipedian has used it as an inspiration to build a user style (he has asked people to test it [2] and was featured in a videocast [3]). I think the most interesting thing about those redesign ideas is what we learn about readers and infrequent users (and designers): They have no idea they can already change the style (after login) and they hardly ever use the left side toolbar and therefor don't miss it. Compare
The most interesting or substantial comments I read on the Wikipedia Redefined idea:
The other thing to be learned: People love to discuss eyecandy and this is to a large extent bikeshedding, not really helpful in terms of usability of Wikipedia. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 11:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Does a minimal version really well, IMO. Minus points: mystery-meat nav logos; no other languages - David Gerard ( talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See meta:Wikipedia redefined. An earlier design idea by Magnus is File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png, see explanations here: [4] and here: [5]. Great things, have a look! -- Atlasowa ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Although the content seems relatively balanced, the use of "unsolicited" as the term of choice lends a rather negative flavor to the topic. While I completely understand that objectively "unsolicited" is not a negative term it has strong connotations (at least in American usage) of being unappreciated or inconsiderate, such as the common use in "unsolicited advice" to refer to advice that is essentially forced upon an unwilling recipient. Just bringing it up for conversation, especially since I suspect this page will be getting a few more hits than usual for a while because of Wikipedia Redesigned. Brlodi ( talk) 19:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
A blog post about the problem with Wikipedia redesigns - David Gerard ( talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The "problematic" section is pretty passive-aggressive/not very constructive - basically it says "no" without any suggestions of how to get to "yes" (if you're a designer) or much good discussion of why Magic Hasn't Happened (if you're a regular reader). I might suggest reframing it by splitting it into:
I may try to give a pass at that at some point, but leaving it here for discussion in the meantime. LuisVilla ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, are you a paying client? If not, nobody has to defend their point to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.203.247 ( talk) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
See also mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This page is an excellent ideas!
I wonder if the licensing/copyright issue of redesigns should be noted? I'm not sure all designers are familiar with or appreciate Wikimedia's licensing model. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for writing this page! Regarding the recent design study http://www.wikipediaredefined.com , this has got quite some attention on the german internet. A german wikipedian has used it as an inspiration to build a user style (he has asked people to test it [2] and was featured in a videocast [3]). I think the most interesting thing about those redesign ideas is what we learn about readers and infrequent users (and designers): They have no idea they can already change the style (after login) and they hardly ever use the left side toolbar and therefor don't miss it. Compare
The most interesting or substantial comments I read on the Wikipedia Redefined idea:
The other thing to be learned: People love to discuss eyecandy and this is to a large extent bikeshedding, not really helpful in terms of usability of Wikipedia. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 11:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Does a minimal version really well, IMO. Minus points: mystery-meat nav logos; no other languages - David Gerard ( talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See meta:Wikipedia redefined. An earlier design idea by Magnus is File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png, see explanations here: [4] and here: [5]. Great things, have a look! -- Atlasowa ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Although the content seems relatively balanced, the use of "unsolicited" as the term of choice lends a rather negative flavor to the topic. While I completely understand that objectively "unsolicited" is not a negative term it has strong connotations (at least in American usage) of being unappreciated or inconsiderate, such as the common use in "unsolicited advice" to refer to advice that is essentially forced upon an unwilling recipient. Just bringing it up for conversation, especially since I suspect this page will be getting a few more hits than usual for a while because of Wikipedia Redesigned. Brlodi ( talk) 19:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
A blog post about the problem with Wikipedia redesigns - David Gerard ( talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The "problematic" section is pretty passive-aggressive/not very constructive - basically it says "no" without any suggestions of how to get to "yes" (if you're a designer) or much good discussion of why Magic Hasn't Happened (if you're a regular reader). I might suggest reframing it by splitting it into:
I may try to give a pass at that at some point, but leaving it here for discussion in the meantime. LuisVilla ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, are you a paying client? If not, nobody has to defend their point to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.203.247 ( talk) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
See also mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)