What is that font? “I” and “J” have same glyph!
Wikipedia Redefined
281–290 of 305 posts
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#282I can't take designers seriously when they use a font with that such an unreadable "I", and input boxes big enough to park a truck in. Get the basics right when you make proposals that are supposed to represent your skills and vision. There are too many cute ideas in this redesign like the upside-down "w" for "meta" and the LSD spiderweb logo.
Do the colours indicate language or specific wiki? Can't have both, sorry.
The designers have huge problems with proportion both typographically and in their whitespace. Even if they are just mock-ups, they can use some more care.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#283Where is the Wikimedia theme/skin described in this showcase?
It doesn't exist. They just made some fancy images.
Ah, then they have no idea if what they are describing is even remotely possible given the constraints imposed by Wikimedia.
Making a theme/skin for Wikimedia is quite a task, actually.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#284Oh dear... New! is a fairly... new.. advertising agency from my country, Lithuania. They are trying to become better known, so this is without a doubt a targeted publicity stunt ("Look how well it worked for Dustin Curtis to redesign American Airlines! I guess we can do something similar!") And as that, it's pretty bad. Not only did they showed poor design (in a sense of "how it works") skills, but also left a bad im…
How well it worked for Dustin Curtis? He got a guy fired http://www.dustincurtis.com/incompetence.html for his post.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#285I've added thousands of words to Wiki (mostly on pop culture) as one of its few female editors and I think it needs a friendlier interface to draw a wider cadre of contributors.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#286Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just that - they redefine the word "history", which is a core component of the site for article revisions. And they changed where the contents are placed (do you know how many holy wars this started?!?!), they wipe to the community chosen logos, they change the templating system of the English main page (with one that is poorly laid out - check out the featured picture of the day section!), they associate number…
> Not just that - they redefine the word "history" Despite the historical use of "history" on WikiPedia, I'd rather it be called "Revisions." Revisions is much clearer as a concept. > Not sure how well they thought this out. They seem o have taken their own design brief, bu not consulted with Wikipedians! I'm not a Wikipedian (I assume that's what contributors refer to themselves as?), but I'd welcome some more perso…
"Revision" is also a more honest admittance that edits are often revisionist history.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#288You'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…
> It does not have, as its primary goal, the delight of random web users. But it could. And that's really the point of this exercise: showing one way that it could additionally delight users, on top of providing the critical functionality it already does. Delighting users is one step up[1] from what Wikipedia does right now. Yes, they're doing something of fundamental importance to the human race. But does that mean…
Can a multi-lingual interface actually convey the emotions you would like it to? I think you're asking a very interesting question.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#289I think they copied the W from the label on the can of cashews I am currently munching.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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…
> I mean, yes, by all means get involved and help improve it. I don't think you understand just how toxic some parts of the community are.
> I don't think you understand just how toxic some parts of the community are.
Oh, I do.. which is why I know you're talking about editors, not coders/designers, i.e. the ones it actually concerns.
But even if it was true for all of Wikipedia -- so? What is making some mockups and a (kinda pompous IMHO) domain name going to achieve in that case? Even less.
This is a bunch of designers talking to a bunch of designers, on a page I can hardly read because the letters are so huge and the horizontally so restricted. It's either a clever joke, or can be summed up with "ouch".