181–190 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I've never in my life went to wikipedia without following a link from a Google search. I don't think I've ever seen the Wikipedia home page.
Really? I use a custom search engine in my browsers so I can search directly from the address bar since I know I want Wikipedia results and don't want to sift through other junk.
Proposed Wikipedia logo: http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/img/4.png Actual WordPress logo: http://s.wordpress.org/about/images/logos/wordpress-logo-sta... (It's not just that both are W's -- they also chose a typeface with a similar distinctive swoosh.)
You'd probably want any redesign of Wikipedia to start with the understanding that the front page of the English Wikipedia isn't WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, it's EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, and that that page is dominated by content --- most notably the WP Featured Articles, which are a core part of the Wikipedia community. Draw the pretty colored lines after you grok the concept. It goes downhill for me as they try to get more technic…
> Draw the pretty colored lines after you grok the concept. There is nothing to grok. Imagine Google's landing page being chokeful of "content" including, most notably, the featured articles of random nature. Your comment inadvertently demonstrates the problem with Wikipedia as it exists now. A vast majority of its users has nothing to do with its community. People come, they consume and they leave. Sad, but that's l…
If you use Wikipedia only as a search engine, you are missing out.
J'm really not hot on the rebrandjng of everything as "wX". Thjs js almost as unjnspjred as Adobe's CS-era brandjng. Jn fact J wouldn't be surprjsed jf jt turned out that whoever made thjs page js a fan of that abomjnatjon.
Oh and thjs gets even better: you know how thjs "redesjgn" seems to be all about makjng Wjkjpedja's multjple languages completely obscured? The people who djd thjs are from Ljthuanja. WHAT. http://newisnew.lt
The biggest problem I have with this sort of thing -- actually probably the whole field(s) of UI/UX design -- is that there is no actual prototype but it seems like they are implying that the programmers didn't include any of those features because they didn't think of them, and that now the real work for the 'redesign' has been done. As if the hard part was making a bunch of pictures. So this whole thing really irri…
Yeah, it really bothered me that the WYSIWYG editor and interactive map features were sold under the guise of a rebranding. The interactive map feature itself would have monumental complexity. Good ideas are a dime a dozen...this is one I've had before. But it's not like "oh, ok let's change some CSS and bingo! An interactive map!". It's probably in the order of years of manpower to do a decent job of this feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last image of the US Map caught my eye. San Diego is not located directly below San Francisco. Come on guys, show a little bit of effort here and take 5 seconds to look at a map. http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/img/45.png I understand it's a mock-up, but it just shows carelessness. If I can notice it, it's just one less reason for me to care.
I also like how there's no city marked in Louisiana. Of course, to their credit, there really is no civilization in Louisiana anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Wikipedia already uses a "W" as its favicon in every locale (even for languages with non-Latin scripts, like Japanese and Arabic): http://ja.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico http://ar.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico
New is New's idea is just to trash the well-recognisable wikipedia W, and replace it with a new one, with no good reason. And trash the icons for the various Wikimedia projects.
Is there every a "reason" to create new logo's or icons? Other than someone feels a new for a new or fresh look...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New is New's idea is just to trash the well-recognisable wikipedia W, and replace it with a new one, with no good reason. And trash the icons for the various Wikimedia projects.
people who get paid for coming up with new icons and logo's are going to create new logos and icons.. it's what they do. Is there every a "reason" to create new logo's or icons? Other than someone feels a new for a new or fresh look...
Or sometimes companies rebrand completely, sometimes because of a shift of focus. (A company I know about shifted from discrete software to B2B software and changed its branding in the process)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to scrape, Wikipedia has full dumps for the articles available for download: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Eng...
Yeah I am aware, but wikipedia changes daily. There would have to be a pretty impressive feature set built on top before many would consider using an out of date wikipedia when they can easily see the latest version.