This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know about anyone else but I greatly prefer the 'search' button to the 'go' button. Why does the top search bar only have one?
The Go button is stuffed up... if I get some time tonight I will fix it up (using Epiphany (web browser) on a 1600x1200 screen)
Perhaps I am nitpicking but is it a good idea to have two functionally identical search boxes on the main page? Does that enhance its "usability"?
I do like the addition of the number of pages above the search box though. Does that dynamically update? Jasongetsdown 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the search box at the top, easier to find, and agree that the second search box (the original one over to the left) probably isn't needed any more. Dave Bergt, Houston, TX
I like the yellow highlighting for new users sakes. Would it be possible to give the default search form (on the left) a similar yellow highlighting, on just the main page, and then remove the one from at top? -- Quiddity 03:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see a problem with having the search box in both places: I feel the main page search needs a more obvious location (the yellow area), and it still needs to keep the standard search box that each user sees on every page. This may be a way to "introduce" users to the interface they see around the site. -- Aubray1741 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Despite my initial doubts, I am very impressed with this redesign. It is more intuitive than the current design. On the other hand, there are some issues I'd like to clarify/clear up.
Otherwise, I am very impressed. Well done!
[[Sam Korn]] 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks great, I'm impressed, about time. - ElAmericano | talk 08:45, Sunday, August 4, 2024 ( UTC)
It looks good I like it 00:59, 3 November @005 (UTC) Caleb Napier
I really like this new, improved version, however the right sidebar seems to cramp in on the main text if the page is not taking up the full width of my screen. Is there no where else to put that stuff? Or maybe this just means people shouldn't put so much darned junk on the main page? :) - JustinWick 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The extra column will probably look great larger resolutions, but on 800x600 it makes for a very cluttered look and the search bar overlaps into the new right column. -- MarSch 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. The Featured Picture could do to be bigger. It's not too noticeable for the one on the page at the moment, but for a lot of pictures having it at that size would make it next to useless. Would it be possible to put that in one of the other columns and have either Sister Projects or Other Languages going down the side?
2. I don't like having two font sizes on the Featured Article - it just doesn't look right. Also (and I'll concede this should possibly be directed somewhere else) I think it would be better to have one brief self contained paragraph outlining the topic rather than just re-printing the start of the article.
3. The bottom sections (Sister Projects and Other Languages) are in a different style to the rest of the page. I'm not sure if it would look better if they weren't, but I just thought I'd mention it.
4. Generally I think it looks much nicer than the current main page and doesn't seem to lose anything important. Good show!
-- Cherry blossom tree 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What if the 'Featured Picture' was at the top right (above Browse Wikipedia)? Just a suggestion. -- Robby 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
i agree that the feaured picture should be bigger and more prominent. how about under the featured article and above did you know? you could add an extra cell and fill it with the featured picture danhash 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyway of getting the whitespace between featured article and did you know to line up with the white space between in the news and on this day? You wouldn't have to limit the space of the box, just line it up and place the overlap in "blue" or "green" space. Also you could line up all the bottom of the boxes with the Browse box-- Rayc 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I love the layout and the featured picture(lucky the balloon isnt hydrogen/hot air hybrid) and the did you know...Thanks-Pokedude
I have said this before, but I'll say it again: I believe we absolutely should not make the "Wikipedia" in "Welcome to Wikipedia" link to the Wikipedia article. It makes zero sense in the grand scheme of things.
Reasons include:
People have disagreed before, but I believe it's for the best, just to make things as simple as possible, with as few links as we can get away with. Thanks, Tom- 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well said Tom, I couldn't agree more. It makes no sense if you think of it from a user perspective. It's pointless and confusing.
Perhaps the whole Welcome to Wikipedia statement could be pipelinked to a page specificly for newcomers, rather than just the article defining Wikipedia. As was stated above, Wikipedia:Introduction (or something similar) would be of much more use to a freshly confused newcomer. While it may be partially counter-intuitive for a newbie to see "Welcome to Wikipedia" as a hyperlink and click on it; I think it would serve more purpose than leaving it as static text and serve more purpose than linking directly to just the Wikipedia article. Pylon 17:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is kind of strange to have a link to look up wikipedia, in the wikipedia, you should have to search it, not be linked to it form the homepage. Oddities like this can give newcomers the wrong impression of wikipedia, making it seem trivial.
Some of Wikipedia's sister projects are *huge* endevours and large sites of their own. However, there is, as of yet, no page that makes them a main focus. People comming to wikipedia should see that there are large projects like wikimedia, wiktionary, wikibooks, etc. I think that all of (or at least the most useful) sister projects should appear prominantly at the top of the page so that people can easily visit them. Also, it would be extremely useful (but only perhaps slighly cumbersome) to have a search bar for some of the sister sites right next to their name. - Fresheneesz
I think the sister projects links would look a lot better if they were each in a box with a light background color and 1px border. they look kind of sloppy now, plus it would make them stand out a bit more and look cleaner. danhash 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I would start with slightly smaller changes -- don't change color or div-layout unnecessarily, and focus on the content.
In particular :
I would remove all the color backgrounds. An outline is enough. The human eye is very good at picking up a just noticable difference. The bold black headline, the grid layout, white space between boxes, and a box outline, provide plenty of indication that each section is not connected to the other. The colors are distracting and not useful.
Just my viewpoint, but personally I don't feel the side-by-side Sister projects and Other languages works with the rest of the page's layout - I feel it would be better to have these sections as they are in the old version, one on top of the other. Other than that, this is a very nice design. -- Sum0 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks like right edge of the the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box should be horizontally aligned with the "In the news" and "On this day..." boxes. Is there a reason for the current spacing layout? - ElAmericano 05:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it could be improved significantly. In particular:
1. It makes no sense to have such a small thumbnailed Picture of the Day in the southeast corner, when there is all that white space to the left of it. Slide one of the boxes on the right half of the page (e.g. In the News) down below the "Did You Know" box, move "On this day" up to replace it, slide the picture of the day under that, and enlarge the picture. Or something similar. Make the picture more prominent.
2. I strongly feel the "In The News" section should be given much less prominence, even to the point of just providing a link to Wikinews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. At most, just 2-4 headlines, and a link to Wikinews; no images. And position the box down in the page, not up.
3. More prominence to the Featured Article, including its image.
4. Too much white space between "Sister Projects" and "Other Languages"
5. No need for two search boxes. If they can't find one, something's wrong.
Jeeb 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this really belongs here,but seeing as the new main page draft also uses it (countries,etc..)I will put my comments here.
To be frank I don't like them as a front-end UI,they are ugly and not very clear to the average user because of their msdos like appearance.The encyclopedia has some very nice lists which would be a better navigational tool.If people clicked on "countries" they should get "list of countries",which is a very nice starting point.
The same applies for the portals which aren't very user friendly either,from the geography portal I should at the very least be one click away from the "list of countries" article.This is of course just one example.
In short a topdown approach with lists would be much clearer and nicer as the front-end UI navigation.(Anon)
Personally, I prefer the current one better---this is just way too crowded, and (ironically) unusable---FAR TOO MANY links in FAR TOO LITTLE space.-- Sykil 12:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree: way too crowded.. -- Eleassar my talk 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
* Header as per proposed minus the search box (I agree with comments about drawing more attention to that on the left) * Prominent full width featured article * Multi-role section which displays all the other information currently displayed on the proposed page, but only one section at a time, selected through a "menu" link.
This would reduce the cramping, releases the page from the influence of the particular items currently viewed as necessary on the page, and enables more quick links to be added in the future. Jim Dec 14 (13:00 GMT)
I agree: way to much stuff. Most of this stuff can be a link to another page. If I had a lower resolution monitor this would be a mess.-- Gbleem 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The position of the featured picture is very odd. Why not just do it like before, and use the DYK box for the featured pic on weekends? - Kookykman| (t) (c)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include date/time somewhere, because "today's featured article" confuses some people; see this post to the helpdesk-mailinglist. Gerrit C U T E D H 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The date is a very important consideration. Currently on the east coast of Australia, where I live, half of Wednesday the 7th is gone and the main page still shows On This Day as Tuesday the 6th. If there must be error because of time zones, let the error be in favour of being early, not late. Please set the time/date for the beginning of the time zones. Remember, less than 5% of the world's population lives in the USA. Alpheus 23:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
New Layout Is Excellent Very, very nice. It has an intuitive format and gives access to more areas of interest than before. Nice work. Much appreciated. Thanks - Jack
Sorry for the enthusiasm. I think the draft idea is great as it is. When is it going to be implemented? -- Kitch 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I love it, it really does a better job of giving the Main Page a purpose on Wikipedia beyond the necessity of having simply an "index" page like every other site on the web. It is much friendlier for those completely unfamiliar with Wikimedia and is a breath of fresh air for return visitors. If this is implemented I will have to seriously consider making it my homepage. (renders nicely on K-meleon .9, 1024x768 monitor). --- For all of those with issues about Sister Projects, giving these projects extra status is not the purpose of the Main Page. Why not redesign [1]? --- Warofwrath , 27 November 2005
Overall it's a great design. Everyone is going to have their comments on what to tweak and what they'd rather see, but you won't be able to please everyone. I think on the whole this is a good forward step for Wikipedia. Even if more modifications and tweaks need to be done to it in the future, it's certainly an excellent starting point to move forward with. Keep it up! =) Pylon 21:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not make the page look more 3D like? -- Member 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps like the new design implemeted at Sourceforge. -- Member 21:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Some comments
I understand that people feel that the current page is too cluttered and will cause information overload in most users. However, I would prefer even more information. What is the possibility of having two main pages - a simple and a super one?
Good job! - sYndicate talk 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It's very nice. More compact than the earlier layout. But where is the 'Over 1000 articles' language list in the "Other Languages" section?? Jam2k 07:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
........I guess I'm one of the people who does not like the new layout.....
Unfortunatley, the biggest loser in the redesign is "Today's Featured Article," which now gets only a small amount of space. I'd suggest that this is a mistake:
I'd suggest putting the "Browse" stuff at the bottom of the left-hand column, and continuing to accord plenty of space to the Featued Article, which is always the best thing I see when I visit the frontpage, and which consistantly provides an exciting look into Wikipedia at its best. -- ThaddeusFrye 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Small point but the search box doesn't highlight when selected. -- hydnjo talk 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is to move the "Browse Wikipedia" column to the bottom-left of the page and move the "picture-of-the-day" up to replace it next to "Today's headlines".
In other words, keep all the unchanging links in the first (left-most column).
--Luis Fernandes Nov 23, 2005
Would it be possible to extend the capability of the Main Page by adding an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) link to:
As a minimum it would be great to have the anniversaries in RSS format.
Main Page RSS links would have the advantage of making Wikipedia even more accessible to the public when not browsing directly.
Unless there is another way of doing it?--
Steve Marquis
11:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please help. The draft looks ugly in some points, at least with Opera. It's ok with FireFox. - TesterX 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Three items:
It's ugly - too "busy" - and we don't need two search boxes. Nowhere near as good as the existing page. Dan100 ( Talk) 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The featured picture is in a very strange place. It has to go somewhere.-- Ewok Slayer --( U | T | C) 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
22 July 2024 |
|
The good:
Problems;
Veej 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The new design makes the main page far too cluttered, especially those who use a larger-than-default text size. A one or two step increase causes the three column layout to degrade far more quickly than the two column layout. Additionally, lower resolutions will recieve similar problems. A bunch of narrow coulumns of text does not generally increase "Usability".
Tom-, I guess you didn't like my color scheme, since you moved my changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Unforgettableid. :) Anyway, the reason why I don't like the huge pink and blue boxes that are used on the Main Page now is because colored backgrounds are usually used to highlight small amounts of text, not 15 square inches of text. Also, I feel that having such large areas of color of almost exact opposite hues on the color wheel clash against each other, similar to purple and yellow. How about limiting the amount of color, e.g. by doing what was done on the Estonian main page and by using different colors, like pale blue and pale green, that are more similar to each other? :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, how did you like my smaller changes, e.g. to the search box? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's difficult to recognize the encyclopedia image on the search box background as an encyclopedia, since the image is so faded out. Perhaps it'd be better to use that image in a darker form in the logo space in the top-left corner, above the Main Page...Recent Events...Random Article links on the left? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
From reading comments from everyone, I agree with moving the browse column to the left nav space and making the featured picture more prominent.
1. A lot of people have commented about the main page being too crowded with three columns. By using the available space on the left nav bar for the browse categories, we can eliminate the third column. In my opinion, I think "Browse wikipedia" should go below the 'navigation' and 'search box' and above the 'toolbox'. The 'Useful links' could be added to the toolbox, in some way.
2. The featured picture should be prominent, perhaps below the Featured article. I think pictures greatly add to the visual appeal of Wikipedia and enhance article text, and the main page should reflect that with the featured picture. The size and shape of the featured picture box varies greatly from that used by "Today's featured article" , "In the news" , and other features. We could use the same size box for featured picture, dividing it into two subcolumns. The left subcolumn can have "Featured picture", "Title", and we could add "the caption text". The image can go in the right subcolumn.
To illustrate these ideas, I have mocked-up the design in photoshop (see right). --- Aude 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have modified Image:Wikidraft_kmf164.jpg (see above), to incorporate more user comments and attempting to find some consensus. The image is created using Photoshop, rather than with HTML/wiki coding.
This design (see right) follows incorporates the following changes:
--- Aude 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see the languages with 1,000+ edits reintroduced. One of the things I always enjoyed was the multilingual nature of Wikipedia--it would be good for these smaller but established wikipedias to be able to have native speakers notice that Wikipedia is available in their language as soon as they hit the main page. The Jade Knight 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I find it always difficult to know to which article a picture belongs on the main page. Even though the articles say picture I have to go over all the lines to find the corresponding article. So either use a picture only for the first article so it's clear from the beginning for all pictures to which article they relate or mark articles that feature a picture on the main page with a different color. Maybe I'm not alone who doesn't know what's on the picture and wants to find out but without the hassle to go over all the mentioned articles in a box. I think people see the pictures first before they read. I hope someone's reading this here and comments on it :-) -- Bernd 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to put a "make this your homepage" link on the main page for less technical users who don't know how to make Wikipedia their homepage. Many major websites include this sort of link on their homepage and Wikipedia, being one of the top visited pages on the whole internet, should also because many people probably want to make it their hompage. P-unit 05:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The design is good but why are there two search bars on the main page? It is good to have more information on the front page but be careful not to add too much or it will be difficult to read and not aesthetically pleasing (Not that I'm the expert when it comes to web designing).-- 88.106.236.168 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please overlook my ignorance and tell me how to make Wikipedia my homepage? It would be much appreciated.-- 88.106.236.168 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this design, I like the four colors that easily differentiate those areas, but my favorite part about it is how prominent the sister projects are, because I find myself using those a lot also.
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you don't have to fiddle about with a username and password before you can access (or even edit)the pages. I hope the site does not become too member-inclusive and makes some things open to members only. (But it's a great site)-- 88.106.236.168 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The primary links for each blurb (news, featured article) are bold, but this there are usually so many other links that it can still be confusing what a person is supposed to click on to get at the actual primary focus of the blurb. The featured article has a "full article" link, but, especially when there are multiple consecutive linked items (one of which being the primary and bolded), I still end up sometimes clicking on something I didn't want to click on--I'm used to there only actually being one link, and being able to just carelessly click somewhere near what I want. At the possible expense of writing clarity, could primary links always be presented at the immediate start of blurbs, or, less preferably, have a "full article"-type link at the end of each blurb? Or use some other method of more clearly presenting the link? I think this is especially important for the news articles, and, to a lesser extent, Did You Know. FireWorks 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt anyone uses that stuff, people just search these days. It takes a lot of room and is quite ugly... Dan100 ( Talk) 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually like the new design, but think that it should be only two coloums, (nobody uses the browse option anyhow). Also I think the picture should be more visable, and I wonder why wikipedia is in bold, but i dont think this will go through anyways
Looking at the source HTML, I noticed ALT tags missing for some images such as <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/Hotairballooninflation.jpg/140px-Hotairballooninflation.jpg" alt="" width="140" height="105" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Hotairballooninflation.jpg" />. This may present accessibility issues. Instead, there should be a short caption in the ALT tag for screenreaders.
Also, as mentioned by User:Jeffthejiff on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#Less_wikilinks broken anchor, having the browse box code at the top of the source code, above the main body, is also problematic for screenreaders. The browse box will be read before "Welcome to Wikipedia ...". --- Aude 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi I just saw your idea to improve the main page, and think it's great. Everything you have done will make wikipedia way better. I don't know HTML or alot about templates, so I can't say much from an experts perspective, but I do have a sugestions.
Do you guys agree with me? Tobyk777 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Please change the byline from "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." Seriously how long has Wikipedia been around and only now you're circling the wagons? Heptapod 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the new main page should also show other featured items other than the featured article and featured pictured. Just look at all the other featured content there is.
Tarret 14:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree we need all featured items. Tobyk777 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the cursor should be in the Search box when you open the page. I don't know whether that is possible.
I'm using: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know about anyone else but I greatly prefer the 'search' button to the 'go' button. Why does the top search bar only have one?
The Go button is stuffed up... if I get some time tonight I will fix it up (using Epiphany (web browser) on a 1600x1200 screen)
Perhaps I am nitpicking but is it a good idea to have two functionally identical search boxes on the main page? Does that enhance its "usability"?
I do like the addition of the number of pages above the search box though. Does that dynamically update? Jasongetsdown 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the search box at the top, easier to find, and agree that the second search box (the original one over to the left) probably isn't needed any more. Dave Bergt, Houston, TX
I like the yellow highlighting for new users sakes. Would it be possible to give the default search form (on the left) a similar yellow highlighting, on just the main page, and then remove the one from at top? -- Quiddity 03:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see a problem with having the search box in both places: I feel the main page search needs a more obvious location (the yellow area), and it still needs to keep the standard search box that each user sees on every page. This may be a way to "introduce" users to the interface they see around the site. -- Aubray1741 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Despite my initial doubts, I am very impressed with this redesign. It is more intuitive than the current design. On the other hand, there are some issues I'd like to clarify/clear up.
Otherwise, I am very impressed. Well done!
[[Sam Korn]] 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks great, I'm impressed, about time. - ElAmericano | talk 08:45, Sunday, August 4, 2024 ( UTC)
It looks good I like it 00:59, 3 November @005 (UTC) Caleb Napier
I really like this new, improved version, however the right sidebar seems to cramp in on the main text if the page is not taking up the full width of my screen. Is there no where else to put that stuff? Or maybe this just means people shouldn't put so much darned junk on the main page? :) - JustinWick 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The extra column will probably look great larger resolutions, but on 800x600 it makes for a very cluttered look and the search bar overlaps into the new right column. -- MarSch 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. The Featured Picture could do to be bigger. It's not too noticeable for the one on the page at the moment, but for a lot of pictures having it at that size would make it next to useless. Would it be possible to put that in one of the other columns and have either Sister Projects or Other Languages going down the side?
2. I don't like having two font sizes on the Featured Article - it just doesn't look right. Also (and I'll concede this should possibly be directed somewhere else) I think it would be better to have one brief self contained paragraph outlining the topic rather than just re-printing the start of the article.
3. The bottom sections (Sister Projects and Other Languages) are in a different style to the rest of the page. I'm not sure if it would look better if they weren't, but I just thought I'd mention it.
4. Generally I think it looks much nicer than the current main page and doesn't seem to lose anything important. Good show!
-- Cherry blossom tree 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What if the 'Featured Picture' was at the top right (above Browse Wikipedia)? Just a suggestion. -- Robby 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
i agree that the feaured picture should be bigger and more prominent. how about under the featured article and above did you know? you could add an extra cell and fill it with the featured picture danhash 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyway of getting the whitespace between featured article and did you know to line up with the white space between in the news and on this day? You wouldn't have to limit the space of the box, just line it up and place the overlap in "blue" or "green" space. Also you could line up all the bottom of the boxes with the Browse box-- Rayc 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I love the layout and the featured picture(lucky the balloon isnt hydrogen/hot air hybrid) and the did you know...Thanks-Pokedude
I have said this before, but I'll say it again: I believe we absolutely should not make the "Wikipedia" in "Welcome to Wikipedia" link to the Wikipedia article. It makes zero sense in the grand scheme of things.
Reasons include:
People have disagreed before, but I believe it's for the best, just to make things as simple as possible, with as few links as we can get away with. Thanks, Tom- 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well said Tom, I couldn't agree more. It makes no sense if you think of it from a user perspective. It's pointless and confusing.
Perhaps the whole Welcome to Wikipedia statement could be pipelinked to a page specificly for newcomers, rather than just the article defining Wikipedia. As was stated above, Wikipedia:Introduction (or something similar) would be of much more use to a freshly confused newcomer. While it may be partially counter-intuitive for a newbie to see "Welcome to Wikipedia" as a hyperlink and click on it; I think it would serve more purpose than leaving it as static text and serve more purpose than linking directly to just the Wikipedia article. Pylon 17:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is kind of strange to have a link to look up wikipedia, in the wikipedia, you should have to search it, not be linked to it form the homepage. Oddities like this can give newcomers the wrong impression of wikipedia, making it seem trivial.
Some of Wikipedia's sister projects are *huge* endevours and large sites of their own. However, there is, as of yet, no page that makes them a main focus. People comming to wikipedia should see that there are large projects like wikimedia, wiktionary, wikibooks, etc. I think that all of (or at least the most useful) sister projects should appear prominantly at the top of the page so that people can easily visit them. Also, it would be extremely useful (but only perhaps slighly cumbersome) to have a search bar for some of the sister sites right next to their name. - Fresheneesz
I think the sister projects links would look a lot better if they were each in a box with a light background color and 1px border. they look kind of sloppy now, plus it would make them stand out a bit more and look cleaner. danhash 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I would start with slightly smaller changes -- don't change color or div-layout unnecessarily, and focus on the content.
In particular :
I would remove all the color backgrounds. An outline is enough. The human eye is very good at picking up a just noticable difference. The bold black headline, the grid layout, white space between boxes, and a box outline, provide plenty of indication that each section is not connected to the other. The colors are distracting and not useful.
Just my viewpoint, but personally I don't feel the side-by-side Sister projects and Other languages works with the rest of the page's layout - I feel it would be better to have these sections as they are in the old version, one on top of the other. Other than that, this is a very nice design. -- Sum0 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks like right edge of the the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box should be horizontally aligned with the "In the news" and "On this day..." boxes. Is there a reason for the current spacing layout? - ElAmericano 05:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it could be improved significantly. In particular:
1. It makes no sense to have such a small thumbnailed Picture of the Day in the southeast corner, when there is all that white space to the left of it. Slide one of the boxes on the right half of the page (e.g. In the News) down below the "Did You Know" box, move "On this day" up to replace it, slide the picture of the day under that, and enlarge the picture. Or something similar. Make the picture more prominent.
2. I strongly feel the "In The News" section should be given much less prominence, even to the point of just providing a link to Wikinews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. At most, just 2-4 headlines, and a link to Wikinews; no images. And position the box down in the page, not up.
3. More prominence to the Featured Article, including its image.
4. Too much white space between "Sister Projects" and "Other Languages"
5. No need for two search boxes. If they can't find one, something's wrong.
Jeeb 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this really belongs here,but seeing as the new main page draft also uses it (countries,etc..)I will put my comments here.
To be frank I don't like them as a front-end UI,they are ugly and not very clear to the average user because of their msdos like appearance.The encyclopedia has some very nice lists which would be a better navigational tool.If people clicked on "countries" they should get "list of countries",which is a very nice starting point.
The same applies for the portals which aren't very user friendly either,from the geography portal I should at the very least be one click away from the "list of countries" article.This is of course just one example.
In short a topdown approach with lists would be much clearer and nicer as the front-end UI navigation.(Anon)
Personally, I prefer the current one better---this is just way too crowded, and (ironically) unusable---FAR TOO MANY links in FAR TOO LITTLE space.-- Sykil 12:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree: way too crowded.. -- Eleassar my talk 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
* Header as per proposed minus the search box (I agree with comments about drawing more attention to that on the left) * Prominent full width featured article * Multi-role section which displays all the other information currently displayed on the proposed page, but only one section at a time, selected through a "menu" link.
This would reduce the cramping, releases the page from the influence of the particular items currently viewed as necessary on the page, and enables more quick links to be added in the future. Jim Dec 14 (13:00 GMT)
I agree: way to much stuff. Most of this stuff can be a link to another page. If I had a lower resolution monitor this would be a mess.-- Gbleem 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The position of the featured picture is very odd. Why not just do it like before, and use the DYK box for the featured pic on weekends? - Kookykman| (t) (c)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include date/time somewhere, because "today's featured article" confuses some people; see this post to the helpdesk-mailinglist. Gerrit C U T E D H 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The date is a very important consideration. Currently on the east coast of Australia, where I live, half of Wednesday the 7th is gone and the main page still shows On This Day as Tuesday the 6th. If there must be error because of time zones, let the error be in favour of being early, not late. Please set the time/date for the beginning of the time zones. Remember, less than 5% of the world's population lives in the USA. Alpheus 23:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
New Layout Is Excellent Very, very nice. It has an intuitive format and gives access to more areas of interest than before. Nice work. Much appreciated. Thanks - Jack
Sorry for the enthusiasm. I think the draft idea is great as it is. When is it going to be implemented? -- Kitch 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I love it, it really does a better job of giving the Main Page a purpose on Wikipedia beyond the necessity of having simply an "index" page like every other site on the web. It is much friendlier for those completely unfamiliar with Wikimedia and is a breath of fresh air for return visitors. If this is implemented I will have to seriously consider making it my homepage. (renders nicely on K-meleon .9, 1024x768 monitor). --- For all of those with issues about Sister Projects, giving these projects extra status is not the purpose of the Main Page. Why not redesign [1]? --- Warofwrath , 27 November 2005
Overall it's a great design. Everyone is going to have their comments on what to tweak and what they'd rather see, but you won't be able to please everyone. I think on the whole this is a good forward step for Wikipedia. Even if more modifications and tweaks need to be done to it in the future, it's certainly an excellent starting point to move forward with. Keep it up! =) Pylon 21:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not make the page look more 3D like? -- Member 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps like the new design implemeted at Sourceforge. -- Member 21:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Some comments
I understand that people feel that the current page is too cluttered and will cause information overload in most users. However, I would prefer even more information. What is the possibility of having two main pages - a simple and a super one?
Good job! - sYndicate talk 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It's very nice. More compact than the earlier layout. But where is the 'Over 1000 articles' language list in the "Other Languages" section?? Jam2k 07:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
........I guess I'm one of the people who does not like the new layout.....
Unfortunatley, the biggest loser in the redesign is "Today's Featured Article," which now gets only a small amount of space. I'd suggest that this is a mistake:
I'd suggest putting the "Browse" stuff at the bottom of the left-hand column, and continuing to accord plenty of space to the Featued Article, which is always the best thing I see when I visit the frontpage, and which consistantly provides an exciting look into Wikipedia at its best. -- ThaddeusFrye 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Small point but the search box doesn't highlight when selected. -- hydnjo talk 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is to move the "Browse Wikipedia" column to the bottom-left of the page and move the "picture-of-the-day" up to replace it next to "Today's headlines".
In other words, keep all the unchanging links in the first (left-most column).
--Luis Fernandes Nov 23, 2005
Would it be possible to extend the capability of the Main Page by adding an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) link to:
As a minimum it would be great to have the anniversaries in RSS format.
Main Page RSS links would have the advantage of making Wikipedia even more accessible to the public when not browsing directly.
Unless there is another way of doing it?--
Steve Marquis
11:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please help. The draft looks ugly in some points, at least with Opera. It's ok with FireFox. - TesterX 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Three items:
It's ugly - too "busy" - and we don't need two search boxes. Nowhere near as good as the existing page. Dan100 ( Talk) 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The featured picture is in a very strange place. It has to go somewhere.-- Ewok Slayer --( U | T | C) 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
22 July 2024 |
|
The good:
Problems;
Veej 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The new design makes the main page far too cluttered, especially those who use a larger-than-default text size. A one or two step increase causes the three column layout to degrade far more quickly than the two column layout. Additionally, lower resolutions will recieve similar problems. A bunch of narrow coulumns of text does not generally increase "Usability".
Tom-, I guess you didn't like my color scheme, since you moved my changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Unforgettableid. :) Anyway, the reason why I don't like the huge pink and blue boxes that are used on the Main Page now is because colored backgrounds are usually used to highlight small amounts of text, not 15 square inches of text. Also, I feel that having such large areas of color of almost exact opposite hues on the color wheel clash against each other, similar to purple and yellow. How about limiting the amount of color, e.g. by doing what was done on the Estonian main page and by using different colors, like pale blue and pale green, that are more similar to each other? :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, how did you like my smaller changes, e.g. to the search box? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's difficult to recognize the encyclopedia image on the search box background as an encyclopedia, since the image is so faded out. Perhaps it'd be better to use that image in a darker form in the logo space in the top-left corner, above the Main Page...Recent Events...Random Article links on the left? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
From reading comments from everyone, I agree with moving the browse column to the left nav space and making the featured picture more prominent.
1. A lot of people have commented about the main page being too crowded with three columns. By using the available space on the left nav bar for the browse categories, we can eliminate the third column. In my opinion, I think "Browse wikipedia" should go below the 'navigation' and 'search box' and above the 'toolbox'. The 'Useful links' could be added to the toolbox, in some way.
2. The featured picture should be prominent, perhaps below the Featured article. I think pictures greatly add to the visual appeal of Wikipedia and enhance article text, and the main page should reflect that with the featured picture. The size and shape of the featured picture box varies greatly from that used by "Today's featured article" , "In the news" , and other features. We could use the same size box for featured picture, dividing it into two subcolumns. The left subcolumn can have "Featured picture", "Title", and we could add "the caption text". The image can go in the right subcolumn.
To illustrate these ideas, I have mocked-up the design in photoshop (see right). --- Aude 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have modified Image:Wikidraft_kmf164.jpg (see above), to incorporate more user comments and attempting to find some consensus. The image is created using Photoshop, rather than with HTML/wiki coding.
This design (see right) follows incorporates the following changes:
--- Aude 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see the languages with 1,000+ edits reintroduced. One of the things I always enjoyed was the multilingual nature of Wikipedia--it would be good for these smaller but established wikipedias to be able to have native speakers notice that Wikipedia is available in their language as soon as they hit the main page. The Jade Knight 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I find it always difficult to know to which article a picture belongs on the main page. Even though the articles say picture I have to go over all the lines to find the corresponding article. So either use a picture only for the first article so it's clear from the beginning for all pictures to which article they relate or mark articles that feature a picture on the main page with a different color. Maybe I'm not alone who doesn't know what's on the picture and wants to find out but without the hassle to go over all the mentioned articles in a box. I think people see the pictures first before they read. I hope someone's reading this here and comments on it :-) -- Bernd 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to put a "make this your homepage" link on the main page for less technical users who don't know how to make Wikipedia their homepage. Many major websites include this sort of link on their homepage and Wikipedia, being one of the top visited pages on the whole internet, should also because many people probably want to make it their hompage. P-unit 05:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The design is good but why are there two search bars on the main page? It is good to have more information on the front page but be careful not to add too much or it will be difficult to read and not aesthetically pleasing (Not that I'm the expert when it comes to web designing).-- 88.106.236.168 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please overlook my ignorance and tell me how to make Wikipedia my homepage? It would be much appreciated.-- 88.106.236.168 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this design, I like the four colors that easily differentiate those areas, but my favorite part about it is how prominent the sister projects are, because I find myself using those a lot also.
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you don't have to fiddle about with a username and password before you can access (or even edit)the pages. I hope the site does not become too member-inclusive and makes some things open to members only. (But it's a great site)-- 88.106.236.168 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The primary links for each blurb (news, featured article) are bold, but this there are usually so many other links that it can still be confusing what a person is supposed to click on to get at the actual primary focus of the blurb. The featured article has a "full article" link, but, especially when there are multiple consecutive linked items (one of which being the primary and bolded), I still end up sometimes clicking on something I didn't want to click on--I'm used to there only actually being one link, and being able to just carelessly click somewhere near what I want. At the possible expense of writing clarity, could primary links always be presented at the immediate start of blurbs, or, less preferably, have a "full article"-type link at the end of each blurb? Or use some other method of more clearly presenting the link? I think this is especially important for the news articles, and, to a lesser extent, Did You Know. FireWorks 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt anyone uses that stuff, people just search these days. It takes a lot of room and is quite ugly... Dan100 ( Talk) 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually like the new design, but think that it should be only two coloums, (nobody uses the browse option anyhow). Also I think the picture should be more visable, and I wonder why wikipedia is in bold, but i dont think this will go through anyways
Looking at the source HTML, I noticed ALT tags missing for some images such as <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/Hotairballooninflation.jpg/140px-Hotairballooninflation.jpg" alt="" width="140" height="105" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Hotairballooninflation.jpg" />. This may present accessibility issues. Instead, there should be a short caption in the ALT tag for screenreaders.
Also, as mentioned by User:Jeffthejiff on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#Less_wikilinks broken anchor, having the browse box code at the top of the source code, above the main body, is also problematic for screenreaders. The browse box will be read before "Welcome to Wikipedia ...". --- Aude 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi I just saw your idea to improve the main page, and think it's great. Everything you have done will make wikipedia way better. I don't know HTML or alot about templates, so I can't say much from an experts perspective, but I do have a sugestions.
Do you guys agree with me? Tobyk777 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Please change the byline from "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." Seriously how long has Wikipedia been around and only now you're circling the wagons? Heptapod 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the new main page should also show other featured items other than the featured article and featured pictured. Just look at all the other featured content there is.
Tarret 14:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree we need all featured items. Tobyk777 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the cursor should be in the Search box when you open the page. I don't know whether that is possible.
I'm using: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5