Interesting proposals, but like Andy Rutledge's NYT re-design (http://andyrutledge.com/news-redux.php) limited by the practicalities of implementing them. I don't think the Wikimedia foundation has the resources to do any kind of major re-design, at least not quickly.
Wikipedia Redefined
31–40 of 305 posts
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#32This redesign assumes that Wikipedia needed simplification. I think that if the brand and experience needed simplification, people wouldn't use it or would be more vocal about changing it.
The designers clearly have some layout and visual acumen, but this redesign doesn't fully grasp the magnitude of Wikipedia. Every layout is modular, and every pixel has to be fully thought out. The result here looks more like the-new-Digg than it should.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#33Proposed 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.)
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#34I don't know where they got the idea that a serif 'W' is the most recognisable 'W' on the net (as Wikipedia). I first thought of Waterstones (a UK bookstore chain), and then Wordpress.
Even after that, how does it then make sense to actually change it to something else, thus removing what identity there once was? It's not like the replacement (with the Adobe-esque abbreviations that are meaningless to people who don't already know them) is an actual improvement.
Otherwise, I don't really get the purpose of it. Wikipedia's not there to look fancy or show off designer skills, and I'd argue that anything that isn't pure content is just completely unnecessary for it.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#35Too much space is taken up by navigation in this scheme. There's a reason Wikipedia's design is dominated by text.
This all the way. If you are trying to design a web page with usability in mind, the most important thing to do is make sure on the default 16:9 or 16:10 screen everyone is using that the content dominates the page with the least navigation overhead as possible. That is the main reason why I prefer sites that use vertical sidebars to horziontal top of the page navigation frames that take up 1/3 the initial load.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#36Agree or disagree with their design decisions, I do hope they are right that "the discussion begins". Does anybody know of internal/official Wikimedia efforts/discussions wrt redesigns?
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#37You'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…
Anecdotally, the overwhelming majority of people who I've observed using Wikipedia go to www.wikipedia.com and then select "English".
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#38You'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…
> Also the capital "I" in the font they're using is killing me.
This is the main thing I remember after reading what seemed like an otherwise interesting study.
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#39Its awful. It reminds me of the Gmail redesign. I hate these simplified, 2d websites.
Why do you have to ruin every website?
Re: Wikipedia Redefined
#40[deleted]