Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Redefined

wikipediaredefined.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 305 posts

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#91

Post by jerf »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #28
taylorfausak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say the same thing. The font is FF Schulbuch Süd Web Pro, and it looks like this: http://imgur.com/Uvft4 . I can't fathom why it's designed like that. (Link to FontShop: http://www.fontshop.com/fonts/singles/fontfont/ff_schulbuch_... )

This is how I was taught cursive writing in school: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:La-ges.jpg I am German (as is the name of the font) and I could read the article without being distracted.

For comparison, a great deal of us in the US, if not most of us, were taught this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cursive.svg

And I hear this is fast on its way out, with cursive English script simply dying, with no replacement.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#92

Post by flixic »

Oh 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 impression as a studio.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#93

Post by runjake »

I see some Wikipedia people commenting, so I'll mention I MUCH prefer the existing Wikipedia over this design. It's simple and it loads quickly.

I find this design gaudy and the gradient bars reminds me of mid-2000s ASP.net design style, which I have a particular adversion to.

Just because a design has been around awhile doesn't mean it requires an overhaul.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#94

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

mbrubeck wrote: post #71
saraid216 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And don't get me started on the proposed Wikipedia logo. It looks like the Wikia fractal with way less nodes. I found it offensive that they felt the English 'W' was the only one worth featuring in the logo.

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.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#95

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

kristianc wrote: post #15

The front page of Wikipedia works remarkably well for discovery - go to en.wikipedia.org on any given day, and you are guaranteed to learn something new. Deciding that users want to see your overbearing minimalism and your 'sound-great-in-concept-meetings-but-shit-on-paper' designs instead of you know, actual information on the front page of an encyclopaedia strikes me as an astonishing act of hubris. The one piece o…

Why the Swiss? They speak French, Italian and German.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#98

Post by naner »

tptacek wrote: post #27

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…

One of my favorite articles I always share when someone does an unsolicited redesign without putting the requisite analysis into it:

http://www.ryanholiday.net/this-is-what-real-analysis-looks-...

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#99

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

SwellJoe wrote: post #69
dimitar wrote: post #39

Its awful. It reminds me of the Gmail redesign. I hate these simplified, 2d websites. Why do you have to ruin every website?

I like the new GMail, and the new post-4.0 Android 2D UIs. I don't like most of these suggested changes for WikiPedia, however.

You mean wikipedia?

I mean, wP?

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#100

Post by awef »

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #44
estel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, the overwhelming majority of people who I've observed using Wikipedia go to www.wikipedia.com and then select "English".

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.

Indeed, I can't say I recall its appearance at all.
Post reply on HN