Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Redesign Concept

wikipedia.gkvasnikov.com

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#11
The heavily-graphical "grid" front page assumes that the best Wikipedia articles have curated, attractive graphics to place in the grid. As a rule, they do not. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and there are no editors or in-house designers to keep articles fashionably decked out. Not only that, but Wikipedia is at a disadvantage w/r/t/ graphics: the site tries to be scrupulous about copyrights, and can't appropriate random images or, for that matter, pay licensing fees for them.

Similarly, some of the layouts of the tiles in the front-page grid appear to have carefully chosen typography. Who's doing that work?

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#12

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. It hasn’t been changed or redefined during the last 10 years. The web and its technologies has developed further and so have its users. And why should it be changed? Wikipedia's design is one of the prime examples of "simple, clean, effective", in my mind. Frankly, the only good idea I see here is an integrated WYSIWYG wiki markup editor. That might work, al…

>Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. It hasn’t been changed or redefined during the last 10 years.

Actually, Wikipedia switched to a new theme a few years ago.

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#14
post #4

I'm stuggling to put into words how much I dislike designs like this - superheavy javascript sites that work like ass on my netbook, full of empty space and icons instead of text (so I have to hover over the icons to find out what they do - where's the sense in this??) and customized "UI" functionality that make me forever unsure what my clicks will produce. Wikipedia has a plain but very pleasant interface and this…

Could not agree more

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#15
I don't understand why designers refuse to pay attention to typographic guidelines. 95 characters per line is not very readable. To be fair, Wikipedia already suffers from this problem. Between 100-character lines and sans-serif body copy, Wikipedia's current typography is abysmal.

Otherwise this concept is fine. I'd love to see Wikipedia reset in Meta Serif or Tisa at 66-72 characters-per-line.

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#16
Wikipedia just redesigned, actually, but it was a mere refonting which most users barely even noticed (the most noticeable change was that the headers were converted from sans-serif to serif). There was a slightly-more-ambitious redesign that emphasized white space (like this one), but the foundation threw out nearly all of the changes because users didn't like them.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-wikipedia-...

http://associationsnow.com/2014/04/wikipedia-redesign-barely...

I'm not saying unsolicited redesigns like this don't have value, but there's a decent reason why an unsolicited redesign like this will never go over with its audience: Wikipedia is the ultimate design-by-committee product, and the users have a lot of say as a result.

Also, Wikipedia has to hit a wider body of users, from dumbphones to outdated browsers. That's a problem with redesigns like this in general: They're not thinking in these terms because they're designing for the high end. Wikipedia is a site that needs to prioritize the low end because it's run by a nonprofit foundation whose goal is to spread information, not just create a snazzy user experience.

It goes against everything we know about product design, and I agree it could look nicer, but the current design approach works for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#17
The problem of re-designing something as popular Wikipedia (especially something useful that has not changed in 10 years!) is that regardless of the result (i.e. better or worse), you will face _fierce_ opposition. Humans are very sensitive to anything that changes their mental model of how they think something should work.

Think about radically updating some of these to see what I mean:

- Facebook Newsfeed

- HNs homepage

- Vim interface

- Google Search Page

- Craigslist homepage

- Your favorite web mail client

- Your favorite Smartphone main screen

- Reddit homepage

You can come up with the most amazing forward-thinking improvement, and somebody without a doubt will send you so much hate that you'll think it is that person's only goal to wipe out your family line.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it just means that we have to be aware of that section of the population and come up with a strategy that either does 1) a slow migration for the people with old mental model, 2) provides an alternative "classic" view, or 3) completely ignores that section of the population since they may represent a very small minority. I tend to go for 1,2,3 in that order, but of course this can vary differently depending on the project.

Nice job with the re-design by the way :)

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#18
post #15

I don't understand why designers refuse to pay attention to typographic guidelines. 95 characters per line is not very readable. To be fair, Wikipedia already suffers from this problem. Between 100-character lines and sans-serif body copy, Wikipedia's current typography is abysmal. Otherwise this concept is fine. I'd love to see Wikipedia reset in Meta Serif or Tisa at 66-72 characters-per-line.

You'd be surprised how many times I have to fire up the Dev Tools on websites just to have a sane line-length.

Re: Wikipedia Redesign Concept

#19
post #17

The problem of re-designing something as popular Wikipedia (especially something useful that has not changed in 10 years!) is that regardless of the result (i.e. better or worse), you will face _fierce_ opposition. Humans are very sensitive to anything that changes their mental model of how they think something should work. Think about radically updating some of these to see what I mean: - Facebook Newsfeed - HNs hom…

You also have to justify that it's necessary, which this page did not.

Rather, it seemed like they were doing a redesign for the hell of it. Out of some belief that if something hasn't changed in X time, it should. It tries to justify itself using itself.

We've been using the Harvard architecture for decades now. Should we change it? It's been some time, after all.

Post reply on HN