Jump to content

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eitch (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 18 August 2008 (my proposal was misfiled). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Following a discussion on Talk:Main Page, a competition for redesigning the Main Page has been proposed. The Main Page was last redesigned in March of 2006 (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page) and some editors would like to solicit ideas for a potential redesign.

Some reasons why a change might be a good idea:

  • The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader.
  • It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy)
  • It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles.
  • The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position.
  • Links to better-used pages should be added.
  • There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles.

Wikipedians can submit proposals using a subpage of this page, for example Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Username, then adding it to the relevant section below based using {{subst:MPRP|subpagename}}. After an as yet undetermined period of time, some method will be developed so that the community may determine which is the best design and whether it should replace the current design. At this point, the process is in a very preliminary phase. Please discuss on the talk page.

Any designs that are identical to the current design aren't needed, as there will be an option to vote for the current design.


Note:Do not create sub pages from your proposals. Instead, create them in your userspace (e.g. User:Example/POTD).

Quick links
Tweaks of the current page

AMK152
Calibas
Ishikawa Minoru
Jackl
Lights
MZMcBride

Based on the current page

5theye
88wolfmaster
Alexfusco5
Aquillyne
Artyom
Blackhole77
CrazyChemGuy
Eitch
Electrical Experiment
Electrical Experiment (2)
Five Fifteen
Onecanadasquarebishopsgate
Red Thunder
RyRy
Ryan
Ryan Postlethwaite
Scottydude
Scottydude (2)
SusanLesch
SusanLesch 2
Tlogmer
Wintran
Zrs 12
Xenus

Significantly different

CRGreathouse
ChyranandChloe
Dudemanfellabra
Five Fifteen 2
Gnangarra
Hazelorb
Ikzing
LaraLove
Mangler13
Miserlou
Nat/Alpha
Nat/Beta
Nat/Gamma
Polishname
Pro bug catcher
Soxred93
Trevor MacInnis
WBOSITG
Wintran 2
Wintran 3
Wintran 4
Alvaro_qc

Full redesigns

EricV89
Futurebird
Pretzels
RichardF
RichardF2
Scolaire
Tabbed
TakuyaMurata
Kollision
Kpalion

Submissions

Tweaks of the current page

These designs have the same general layout of the current main page, but with different styling:

AMK152

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Calibas

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ishikawa Minoru

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Jackl

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Lights

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

MZMcBride

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

  • Emphasises written text over gratuitous shiny and colorful graphical elements, thereby both conveying the spirit of the project and better fulfilling its function by omitting a never-recurring and thus unuseful color scheme.

Cons:

  • Bland colour scheme

Comments:

  • But why make it attention grabbing? Let's let the reader decide, they will read and follow their intellectual interest. Also, the color distinction currently used, while not particularly harmful in any way (as opposed to, say, image icons in the titlebars and all such glittery stuff), signify nothing of use to the reader. 78.34.138.100 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) = user:Everyme[reply]

Based on the current page

These designs are similar to the current page, but with significant differences, such as content rearranged:

Juliancolton

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Contrast in this piece is quite stunning. --Zblewski (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two search boxes if we choose this one. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highfields

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

5theye

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

88wolfmaster

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: *Looks ugly with all that white space under POTD at 800 x 600. MER-C 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Suggest moving some content under the sister projects and moving the projects to the bottom. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexfusco5

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Aquillyne

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Artyom

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. POTD is marginal. MER-C 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out to me. I had to remove the "Community portal" link from under the Welcome message, as it is already linked in the left navigation panel. Would've been even better if we could move the "Site news" link from there to the left nav - I have never seen/used it before, but found it pretty useful.  ARTYOM  01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POTD still looks like a fairly tight squeeze - could you try it with a wider image such as this one? MER-C 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I put that image in the POTD and set its width to 300px. I guess we could go with that width, doesn't look bad at 800x600 resolution.  ARTYOM  02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: There are now two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhole77

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Excessively large header causes significant horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600 and takes up the whole screen. POTD looks silly at this resolution. MER-C 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyChemGuy

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Eitch

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Hereford

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: There are two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford (2)

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Five Fifteen

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate

NOTE: I have updated the design slightly on 18th July, all comments made on screen settings before the 18th July may no longer apply. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Fixed. My comment below still stands. MER-C 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • I find those color boxes look *really* tacky. TFA and OTD are surrounded by heaps of dead space at 1280 x 960, the dark blue blob should be centered and read less like a promotional. The bullets are indistinguishable against the blue background. MER-C 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Thunder

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • I don't agree with having sounds in the header. Firstly, our OggHandler doesn't make it obvious what those little grey buttons do or that Java is required for it to function properly. Firefox users would get a nasty hanging surprise when they click on them because OJI is teh suxxor (I'm not sure about the new interface). And besides, not everyone has Java (configured/enabled) for internet browsing. MER-C 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the fact that FLs are (finally) being put on the main page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyRy

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ryan

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ryan Postlethwaite

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Why is it that all the main sections have an image next to it, except WP:DYK? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottydude

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Scottydude (2)

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

SusanLesch

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • Search bar overlays user links ("my talk, my preferences, ...") and parts of the tabs at 800 x 600. It also is non-functional, but I suspect it is a placeholder. MER-C 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

SusanLesch 2

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Tlogmer

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Wintran

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Zrs 12

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

  • POTD too small, caption takes up more space than the picture. Can be fixed by having the picture over the caption with increased resolution, but there may be problems with panoramas. MER-C 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Xenus

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Significantly different

These designs are somewhat similar to the current page, but with major differences, such as additional content:

AndonicO

CRGreathouse

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • The borders between the top four elements should be horizontally aligned, which would eliminate dead space beneath TFA at 1280 x 960. Swap GA and POTD - POTD needs the space more than GA. Icon for featured list needs changing. I'd also swap sounds and lists. MER-C 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChyranandChloe

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Dudemanfellabra

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Five Fifteen 2

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Gnangarra

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros: Multiple TFA's

Cons: concern over 3 column section, at 800x600 resolution or less

This one isn't too bad at 800 x 600, although the line wrapping on the first TFA is ugly. MER-C 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Hazelorb

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ikzing

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Dead space under "On this day" at 1280 x 960 but can be fixed by shunting sounds and lists up and expanding POTD to width=100%. I'd advise against sounds because there's only 18 featured sounds and that number isn't going to change particularly quickly. MER-C 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSmack

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

LaraLove

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Mangler13

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Miserlou

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • For the typical reader, "highlighted" is synonymous with "featured", which can lead to problems. There's a lot of dead space under "on this day" at 1280 x 960, but this can be nuked by shrinking the over-sized portal icons. I don't particularly like POTD being right at the bottom, but then again I'm extremely partial in this area. MER-C 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nat/Alpha

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Nat/Beta

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • While the three column layout doesn't break outright, it does get quite ugly at 800 x 600 - the columns go out of whack because POTD is too small. I suspect a panorama might just push it over the edge into a horizontally scrolling abyss. There's also significant dead space. MER-C 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nat/Gamma

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

  • Lots of wasted space in the "Portals"/"Sister Projects" sections. At 1440×900, about 1/6 of total space (or 1/5 of usable space) is blank. According to User:MER-C (below), there is also dead space at 800×600. We shouldn't crowd all available space, but there seems to be a lot of importance given to the stuff on the right. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There's some weirdness at the bottom of the right hand column. At 800 x 600 there's also some dead space in that column. Can you provide another POTD so we can assess how this design fares with wide images? MER-C 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polishname

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • In 800 x 600, the second column is only a couple of inches wide and the first is marginal, probably because POTD is too small. Fine in 1280 x 960. MER-C 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Pro bug catcher

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • "A multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia..." is a sentence fragment. That said, I have no other gripes. Definitely a contender, well done. MER-C 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • There's the potential here for some suckage on lower resolutions when POTD throws up a wide image. How does this design handle such images? MER-C 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor MacInnis

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • POTD (July 15) crappiness at 1280 x 960, and it isn't even a panorama. POTD template needs a redesign to always have caption under text, but even then it's too small. MER-C 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

WBOSITG

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Featured portals are that important? POTD is way too small, the caption currently takes up more space than the picture. Dead space in the lower right corner at 1280 x 960 can be eliminated by moving FPo down, splitting the right column under OTD and filling the gap with POTD. (And no, I wouldn't use a point and shoot camera as the icon for POTD.) MER-C 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer in order: Yes, they are - they are one of the most overlooked areas of Wikipedia and displaying them prominently should spark interest in this area. I simply used the POTD template currently used on the Main Page - a new layout would be needed to make the caption less prominent. I will promptly fix the remaining two issues. Thank you for your input into my design. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - 20% of all portals being featured != overlooked. Going back on topic, the dead space problem is fixed. One more issue - I had a look at it in 800 x 600 and there was horizontal scrolling, which was introduced in this diff. MER-C 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we only have 500 portals - we could use many more. They are a great way to display information on one subject graphically. I'll try to get rid of the horizontal scrolling. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wintran 2

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Very insufficient space for POTD implies this is a non-starter. The small size is self-defeating - they're *featured* pictures hence we want to see the details without squinting. And besides, panoramas won't fit. MER-C 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also unsustainable because the FP promotion rate is between 1 and 2 per day. Please don't burn me out. MER-C 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. The point was to include featured pictures from a few days before as thumbnails below the current featured picture, so the update rate would remain the same. However, I believe the POTD section to be the weakest part in my design, and the one I gave the least time, so please don't pay too much attention to it, or tell me how you'd like me to improve it. I'll give it some work when I get more time. - Wintran (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid it's a severe problem, there was horizontal scrolling (not good) at 800 x 600 and if that was fixed then POTD width would be very marginal. I think the current way of displaying POTD works best - the ones that don't allocate 100% width to POTD tend to break. I recommend you set your display to 800 x 600 and have a poke around with your designs. MER-C 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wintran 3

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Wintran 4

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: 1280 x 800 (checked by JoeSmack Talk)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Alvaro_qc


Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • The style here is generally inconsistent, especially between the two columns. Rounded rectangles in right column are unclosed, which looks bad. POTD is marginal. There exists significant dead space under "other languages" at 800 x 600. MER-C 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done the dead space and the POTD, About the "rounded rectangles", I like how they look. Alvaro qc (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've only changed the problem - now the picture is smaller than the caption. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it has the exact size so it will fit perfectly in 800x600 resolution, and I don't think so it is too small, it has the same size as the POTD of french, italian, portuguese and spanish wikipedias. Alvaro qc (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


MindstormsKid

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Full redesigns

These designs are almost completely different from the current page layout:

EricV89

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Futurebird

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Should be a great candidate for a minimalist design intended for dial-up/fraudband/mobile users, but the casual user might find it a bit boring. There's also a large amount of dead space under "sister projects" that padding DYK cannot hope to cover at 1280 x 960, which can be eliminated by shortening the interwiki list or adding something else. MER-C 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Grim Reaper

Design deleted

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Seems incomplete. Addition of the interwiki list will cause lots of dead space at the bottom of the page. As it stands, there's some more white space to the right of TFA at 1280 x 960, but this can be fixed. MER-C 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzels

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: Coded in percentages - adjustable width and text size. Pretzelschatters 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • I like the "advanced search" link, but it's a pity the feature is so crappy. DYK is only one line, are you going rotate these randomly? POTD is a shade too small, it needs width=100% for wide images. I'd swap TFA and the ITN/OTD amalgram and rename "areas of study" to something else ("portals", perhaps?). MER-C 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed Areas of Study"" to "Topic Portals" - it's important we don't assume non-wikipedians will know what a Wikipedia portal is.
  • Many people have said POTD needs to be 100% for panoramas - if you look back at the featured picture archive, there are next to no panoramas so it would be foolish to misdesign the Main Page soley for their sake.
  • The idea of the DYK is that it changes every day, as consensus was that many of DYK's facts were obscure and uninteresting. This way we should be able to find one good fact p/day.
  • Re swapping Best of Wikipedia and the Today section: the featured articles' subjects are likely to be of no interest to many users. A selection of news points, however, are more likely to have wide appeal. Also, the Best of Wikipedia box is very text-heavy and quite a lump to read, as opposed to Today, which is bullet points with a large graphic. Thanks for your points! Pretzelschatters 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POTD breaks at 800 x 600, that's why it's too small. MER-C 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment "if you look back at the featured picture archive, there are next to no panoramas ... so it would be foolish to misdesign the Main Page soley for their sake": Even one featured panorama image such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and that may be enough to break the design on your current proposal, especially on an 800x600. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Panoramas can be thumbnailed, or a middle section selected. We have to remember this is just a promotion of a picture, not the actual picture page. Anyhow, less than 1% of internet users use 800 x 600, and the layout doesn't break, the image just gets neatly cropped. Pretzelschatters 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This is [...] a promotion of a picture" therefore you should show the entire picture. You also have vastly underestimated the amount of users on 800 x 600, see my comment under AndonicO above. A 20% crop on a typical 4:3 picture due to design constraints is unacceptable, and reducing the thumbnail size causes the caption to be larger than the picture and/or making people with higher resolutions squint to see the detail. MER-C 08:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RichardF

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

RichardF2

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Scolaire

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

I would be grateful if anybody can fix this - I have no technical savvy. Scolaire (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious way to do it would be to shorten the search box - a width of 50 means one can fit 50 instances of the letter n in there and search queries that long are rare. MER-C 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done that. And changed portals from three columns to two. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: the inner border cuts across the search button, which can be fixed by making the relevant div bigger. MER-C 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't speak the lingo. How do you make the relevant div bigger? Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this. You're good to go. MER-C 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Tabbed

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

TakuyaMurata

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Kollision

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: In the default layout, the minimum horizontal resolution is ~680px. In the No sidebar layout, the minimum horizontal resolution is ~580px. There is also a dual column layout feature which users with higher resolutions can select.

Pros: See talk page for detailed walkthrough of proposal. - kollision (talk)

  • Hide or close individual elements
  • Several choices of layouts
  • Friendlier to newcomers
  • Portals
  • Bigger search bar
  • Encyclopedia and Project side by side - kollision (talk)

Cons:

  • Requires Javascript and Cookies turned on for advanced features. Default layout will always work perfectly fine though. - kollision (talk)
    You need JavaScript and cookies to log in anyway, so this isn't really a problem. What is a problem, however, is that in POTD the caption is much larger than the picture. MER-C 11:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... the search box goes all weird at 800 x 600. MER-C 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Kpalion

  • Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Kpalion
    The page consists of three tabs labeled with the parts of Wikipedia's welcome slogan: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The first, "Welcome to Wikipedia" looks most familiar – it retains the main features of the current Main Page: Today's FA, ITN, DYK, OTD and POTD plus links to other featured content. The second, perhaps most important, tab, "The free encyclopedia", explains that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and offers various ways of finding information in WP. It's the most static sub-page save for the random featured portal. This is deliberate: the goal is to make searching and browsing as easy as possible. Finally, the third tab, "That anyone can edit", is about WP as a community of contributors. It's purpose it not only to attract newcomers, but to be useful for long-time editors as well.
    I didn't pay as much attention to aesthetics as to functionalty, but I used the one of already proposed schemes which I liked most. I thinks it's elegantly simple, readable, doesn't use a whole palette of bland pastel colors like the current design does, and the only flashy element is the Wikipedia Ad on the third tab. I used templates created by two other users: Kevin baas and RichardF. See User:Kpalion/2008 main page redesign proposal for a complete structure of the proposed design. — Kpalion(talk) 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ric36

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • No real content in the first screen at 800 x 600 (you have to scroll down), general borkage around POTD, JPEG artifacts visible in the banner. And the people who responded to the survey disagree with you relating to (Motto|Tip) of the Day. MER-C 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

These are not actual designs, but design plans, suggestions, or unfinished designs:

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal&oldid=232707608"