Wikipedia Redefined

Post by DanBC » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:12 AM UTC

thinkingisfun wrote: post #164

eps wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "Imagine Google's landing page being chokeful of "content" including, most notably, the featured articles of random nature." In the case of Google that is easy, since they have no content. Wikipedia does, and displays it (and yes, content, not "content", I have no idea what you thought you were doing there, but I saw it) -- along with a search field. So where is the problem? > "People come, they consume and they le…

Post by DanBC » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:18 AM UTC

te_chris wrote: post #157

primigenus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great observation is that having access to the content provided by Wikipedia is a delight in and of itself. That's a fantastic starting point for investigating, then, how you can enhance that experience with great design. These guys did that with this brief. It's not the right answer, but it does raise some interesting questions. How do you design a more delightful Wikipedia without damaging the content? Because su…

That's the problem with designers, they always want to "enhance X with great design", ignorant of the fact that the object of their OCD desire for "great design" (in this case the world's most popular web service) obviously has great design already, as it's the most popular website in the world.

Post by chris_wot » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:31 AM UTC

Torn wrote: post #243

kellishaver wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lost me at "Jmagine" ....

Ugh thanks for pointing that out -- I read the whole article and was assuming 'Jts' was some technology I'd not heard of yet.

Post by chris_wot » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:46 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #253

te_chris wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with designers, they always want to "enhance X with great design", ignorant of the fact that the object of their OCD desire for "great design" (in this case the world's most popular web service) obviously has great design already, as it's the most popular website in the world.

> obviously has great design already, as it's the most popular website in the world. Amazon has (sorry for anyone who works there) hideous design. HIDEOUS. It is a very popular website. There are dozens of examples of websites with bad design that are popular. Many web-forums have thousands, tens of thousands, of users yet are really hard to use.

Post by chris_wot » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:37 AM UTC

fusiongyro wrote: post #8

Overall, I think it's gorgeous, especially the page layout stuff. I don't like the logos especially, but having a "branded house" approach makes a lot of sense for uniting the disparate sites.