Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/tally archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Page Redesign Draft Four -- How do you like this one? (7 January 2006)[edit]

Draft 4 is done and is ready for your critiques. Let's get a show of hands below. Thank you! Go for it! 16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I Prefer current Main Page (comments welcome):[edit]

  • Essentially the same as the current version, but a bit too bright for me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a fan of the "Welcome" banner. The solid-colored headers for "Featured article" and "In the news" (etc) look sloppier than the current scheme. -- 10:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Horrible choice of colour (cyan) and ugly borders. The heading is better, but the rest is not right, sorry. violet/riga (t) 13:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Flcelloguy. the wub "?!" 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Far too teal for my tastes. It hurts my eyes. Other than the electric color scheme, I agree with Flcelloguy that it closesly resembles the current page. I do like the welcome banner. Moriane 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the welcome banner, hate the cyan headings. I feel that the boxes around 'other languages' etc are unnecessary. I prefer the colouring to the main boxes on the current main page.  Run!  18:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I Prefer the re-design (comments welcome):[edit]

  • Ready for implementation. Retains the simplicity of the current main page, with a bit of clean-up. Go for it! 16:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A small tweak? I concur with the comments favoring the Italian design. I suggest the round buttons and icons be added to the re-design & then I'll be all over it. Her Pegship 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, out of choice between this and the original, I'd choose this, however, I don't think the change goes far enough, I'd rather have a more drastic change. (Jamandell (d69) 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

Main Page Redesign Draft Three -- your feedback is needed! (5 January 2006)[edit]

Draft 3 is ready for your inspection. I'm in the process of adding further requests from the last round of feedback into the next draft, but I figured you'd want to see what had been completed so far, so here it is. I hope you like it! Please provide your opinion on whether to adopt, forget, or further modify this proposed replacement for the Main Page. Thank you! Go for it! 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefer the re-design as is:[edit]

Prefer current Main Page:[edit]

  • I don't quite get why do you want to change the main page anyway but if you say that the only thing that doesn't change is change, then so be it. I like the current main page because it is just simple. I didn't like the "crayon" color scheme this draft has. If you really want to change the main page then there are several things I would like to see modified in the draft. First of all, yellow box which contains "welcome to wikipedia" text is not very attractive and i didn't like the faded images of the magnifier and the book on it. Secondly, as someone else has stated i didn't like the unfixed boxes because as she/he has stated, it is not quite beautiful to see the width and lenght of the boxes change everyday. i guess there are the main two points i would add, but still I would prefer the curren main page. --Quinlan Vos 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The re-design is more busy than the current main page- simplifying the main page what I understood the re-design to be all about. The only think I like about the design is the yellow Wikipedia box at the top of the page.--nixie 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is really no improvement here. I see this redesign is under WikiProject Usability but the only change to usability are the alphabetized the categories shoved to the bottom. The rest is just an unneeded facelift with a poor attempt to sandwich the featured picture into it. A good try, and also nice job on keeping compatibility with IE5, but its still not a needed or significant improvement from the current page. 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the simplicity and neatness of the current main page. The new version has nearly the same features, in a messier format. Ouuplas 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Our current main page is fine, we don't need a Web 2.0 for Wikipedia. Also the boxes are weird. Ashibaka tock 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The new main page renders poorly with WinXP/120DPI/1024x768/IE6, even with small text. Unless that can be fixed I'll prefere the orginal main page. Anss123 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The new main page draft has some good ideas but the overall look is more complicated than the current main page. Specifically I think it has too many colors and different length lines. Also, the double border around the picture makes it very hard for the eye to focus on where things begin and end. I do very much like the top "Wikipedia" banner on the draft though, perhaps the current main page with that banner added would be a good start of a new draft. —siroχo 07:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • All in all, it looks too complicated, and the boxes will change size every day depending on the amount of text inside them, which is never a good thing. I too agree that it has problems with rendering on lower res (the right hand side magnifying glass goes offscreen); however, if we were to take anything away from this design and place into the current main page, maybe spruce up the "Welcome to Wikipedia" part with some colour. enochlau (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some very good ideas here, but the borders not lining up just looks ugly and unprofessional to me. There are also too many colours and the borders are too thick.violet/riga (t) 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I too hate the borders that don't line up and the fluorescent colours, and the colour scheme is better in the current version. The only think I really like with the project version is the top banner which is quite esthetical though still simple. Rdavout 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi I dont have time to read up on the various points of view but this doesnt work for me. I find the coloured borders a bit jarring, and for me, I think they interfere with the readability of the text. But I tend to be a bit on the conservative side with my interface preferences (I sill dont know why microsoft had to change Windows 3.11);-) --Sf 14:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the colored Wiki header at the top of the page, but overall I think that the current design is more readable and more professional-looking. Moriane 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It lacks elegance.--cj | talk 15:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current main page is great; this design is too flashy and pushes some elements to the bottom, where they shouldn't be. (And I know I didn't read the discussion, but what's with the tip of the day?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefer the re-design, but with some further modifications (please specify):[edit]

  • The picture of the day not taking up the full width it can is somewhat annoying. Also, the "Art | Culture | ..." looks rather out of place and scrunched... Also, the Picture of the Day extends quite far down if you are using 1600x1200 (perhaps lower resolutions too)... There is much too much white space... Also, a bit of AJAX integration would be spiffy (but perhaps that is asking too much)... Maybe a logged-in user could customize how they want their homepage to be displayed (what box goes where)... That may be something for a future version... The "On This Day" could possibly be merged with the "Did you know..." On the final version you probably don't want a "purge the server cache" link on the page... Lest you have a ton of Anonymous users pressing that and causing unnecessary load on the page... Perhaps we should take a look at the French Main Page? I like the icons and color scheme.. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the new design, but it's a bit inconsistent. I like the idea of boxes, but i think they should be fixed heights, no matter how much text they contain; mainly becase then, the idea of consistency in design is achieved. I think it looks a bit wierd when the size of a box changes every day; it gives me a headache with such sites that do it. So, fixed height boxes that align with eachother correctly; and make the pic of the day in a box the same as the featured article box, not the template. Spum 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My preference is to maintain "selected anniversaries" and "in the news" as they are on the present (real) main page, and rotate DYK with POTD, or simply replace it with POTD permanently. In fact, change nothing but the aesthetics. — Dan | talk 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
File:Smarties (Candy).jpg
Sorry, but the bright, pastel colors in the main page draft remind me of Smarties or Easter M&M's —--Aude

I prefer many aspects of the original draft by Tom or the second draft, as well as the current Main page:

  1. I still like the second search box in the original draft, in the top yellow header.
  2. The borders are too thick; they were better before.
  3. I think the all the various boxes use too many colors (too bright and pastel). The rest of Wikipedia uses mainly gray colors. All these many bright colors are too contrasting to the rest of the site. All these colors make me think of Let's reduce the number of colors used on the main page, and make the colors less saturated.
  4. Switch the position of "In the news" and the featured picture, so that ITN is at the top.
  5. I don't know how popular DYK is, but I think the concept of it (drawing facts from new articles) is getting old and less useful. Wikipedia is approaching 1 million articles, so already has an article on most topics. The new articles are on increasingly obscure topics, with increasingly obscure facts. I realize that DYK is a way to encourage people to contribute, but maybe we can come up with an alternative way of doing that. I wouldn't miss it at all if we just replaced it with the Featured picture.
—--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the picture of the day have two separate colored borders around it? And they're different sizes? This seems like some kind of error to me .. I can't imagine it being done intentionally. Also, I think too many colors are in use. It looks like a flock of Easter bunnies. Not every box needs to have its own unique color. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Both your concerns can and should be addressed (I've done both in a draft mockup on my user page: User:Kmf164/Main page draft). —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes made according to your requests, and answers to the rest:[edit]

  • picture of the day moved to the top.
  • reduced the white space.
  • since this redesign is almost done, AJAX is beyond this project's scope. Maybe on the next redesign.
  • main page customization beyond the scope of this project -- a user can customize it and place it on his user page though.
  • purge button will be removed before we go front and center.
  • inspected French main page. It's very much like the format of our "Browse Triumvirate" (term coined by User:Fplay): Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, Wikipedia:Browse by overview, which we provide access to via the browsebar. French version is a hodgepodge of the latter two pages. Placing something like this on the (top of) the Main Page would sacrifice it's Portal-like design, while clicking on the browse bar is easier than scrolling down to see it if we were to put it at the bottom of the page.
  • added border to picture, to show what spacing around it will be like. Unfortunately, the picture comes with a preformatted border, whether you import the template or the picture page. I've put in a request for an expert from the POTD (picture of the day) project, so hopefully they can help with this formatting glitch.
  • the POTD varies in size, and this too is preformatted, so we'll have to ask the expert when he or she gets here if there is anything we can do to standardize box or column height.
  • meanwhile I'm putting out a request to a page-markup expert to see about getting the bottom edge of the 2nd row of boxes to line up.
  • I'm looking into fixed-height boxes.

If you have any other ideas, please let me know. Go for it! 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick show of hands (26 December 2005)[edit]

Due to the high percentage of discussion participants who voted against the redesign in the last tally, some significant changes have been made to the proposed layout. So it's time to get another show of hands, and see what everyone thinks. Go for it! 14:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer modified re-design (with Table of Contents, and Portal bar):[edit]

[ TOC above WELCOME as has been implemented on Main page. ]
Very good caps and small caps Portal bar immediately above main page content, as redesigned. It uses the same space as the old portal bar, which was invisible; the extra oomph and better placement make it obvious. Template change could be immediate.
The top of the page is much cleaner. Metarhyme 17:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer current Main Page:[edit]

Run! 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the main page the way it is sorry.... Spawn Man 03:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefer the modified re-design, but with some further modifications (please specify):[edit]

  • The TOC has just been adopted on the Main Page browsebar, and I think should be kept that way; which means the boxed version of the TOC on the redesign draft should go bye bye. I removed the redundant search box -- the number of articles in Wikipedia should go above the existing search box in the menu. And if there's a way to suppress the page-title (it shows up in the main namespace as "Main Page", with a line below it and the subtext "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia") let's get rid of it -- it is completely redundant. Go for it! 04:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Go for it! as far as the TOC is concerned. I don't like the boxed version. Other than that, I prefer the new design -- Gurch 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Three problems:
    • Where's the Picture of the day? How about putting that where the TOC box is?
    • While I can see (and appreciate) the effort that Go for it! has put into List of reference tables (a.k.a. Almanac), and the other links, each TOC linked page varies greatly in quality. They do not match my expectations that the words (Almanac, Glossaries, Site News) conjure up. I think the TOC space should instead be used for the Picture of the day, and put the TOC elsewhere.
    • Where did the (top right) search box go? I particularly liked that aspect of Tom's design. ---Aude 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some problems:

  1. The pastel background colors on the boxes are too "strong", for lack of a better word. Especially with the contrast of the various primary colors. It looks like a children's nursery. The colors should be toned down or more closely matched.
  2. What happened to the featured picture?! You can't take that out!
  3. It's still not clear that the "Featured article" is only an excerpt. There should be some sort of link that says, "Read the full article here".
  4. The total height of the two boxes on the left and on the right is not equal. There's an ugly space between the "In the news" box and the top of "On this day..." box.
  5. (This is my personal opinion) - There should be some sort of "Featured Portal" feature. It could be very small, with just a link and a single sentence description. I just don't think that Portals are getting the recognition on Wikipedia that they deserve.
  6. The list of categories by letter (A...Z) at the bottom of the page seems unnecessary. Categories are frightening and confusing things to novice users and shouldn't be given such exposure.

Other than those problems, I do think that the redesigned page is better than the old one. In fact, even despite these problems, I think it's better than the old one; I just think it'd be good if the problems could be fixed before the new one goes live. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I preferr this new design but it could do with some modifications, picture of the day definitely needs to be incorperated in some way, and I do not like the gap down the middle of the page. Also all of the sections should be the same height as the one next to it to make a sense of uniformity. Also the Table of Contents should be moved somewhere else as it is so in the way. Also I do not think it is a goood idea to put in the category thingy ma bob as even though categories are useful they would be hard to search through by someone new to Wikipedia. --Lcarsdata 12:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be better off if all of the 'Pic of the Day', 'In the news' etc. were all automated like it currently is rather than admins constantly changing the content of the Main Page- SSR600 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefer old redesign, or maybe something else entirely[edit]

  • Don't like this at all - I prefer the "old" "new" draft over this:
I want the extra search bar - who cares if it's redundant! The central way to access WP (or any similarly-sized web site) is through search, and the search box (or just the "Go," that's fine) must be placed prominently. If you're really that concerned about the redundancy, than remove the search box on the bar at left. I'm sure that's impossible and all that - but whatever effort necessary to make an exception for just one page is worth it. Or, if it's really impossible, have two search boxes.
Another technical thing that I'd have no idea how to do - and is a bit presumptuous of me to ask for, seeing as how it might not be possible under the current scheme - is that the boxes should line up - the bottom of the featured pictures with the bottom of the In the News. Again, I don't know how to do that, and it may require huge changes, but its downright unprofessional-looking for the boxes not to line up.
The colors - this is easier to change, but the colors are way too "strong," as was noted above. The purple in the FA dominates to a huge extent - granted, the eye should go there before it goes elsewhere, but it overloads the page. The old red=FA, light blue=News, dark blue=bottom left, purple=bottom right is much better.
There is too much empty space up top (in the yellow bar) that pales in comparison to the too-much text below (particularly the FA). I'd cut the FA at some point and make the lower half that appears on the page a smaller font size. Increased spacing in places would help as well.
The way the "On this day" part is located, one could scrap it all, throw it in the trash, with little loss. That's primarily because the boxes above it don't line up, so it feels out of place, unconnected with the rest. Again, a solution would be to make the boxes at the bottom line up.
Finally, I want to say this - if getting a superior version of the Main Page means getting a totally unique page entirely - i.e., no wiki stuff/technical conventions/whatever, merely coding the page so that it looks like any other page - then I say go ahead. I'm not particularly literate in these areas, so I don't know what this involves - but if it means using CSS or something (if Wikipedia doesn't already use CSS - I don't understand this stuff), then go ahead. If it means coding the page in an entirely separate manner from the rest of WP, then go ahead. The Main Page is a super-portal; give it super-powers. lol ;) (That came out spontaneously, I swear.) Zafiroblue05 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also liked the second search box Brian | (Talk) 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speaking of design, I am sorry to tell you that the english wikipedia is way behind the others.
The Italian Wikipedia has almost everything in the right place.
  • Advanced use of CSS.
  • Rounded corners
  • Nice and appealing images that describe each category
  • Much more organised community portal
  • Clear looks and intelligent use of colours
I personally think we should include ALL these points and ameliorate them to create something even better.
Federico Pistono 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick show of hands (5 December 2005)[edit]

I know wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it's hard to get a general idea from this talk page, so let's have a quick show of hands (or tildes, as the case may be) Run! 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (This vote was taken when the suggested redesign included a category list rather than a Table of Contents, and had no Portal bar).

Prefer suggested re-design[edit]

  1. Brian | (Talk) 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Zafiroblue05 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. JustinWick 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC) *much better*
  4. Gregoe86 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Underneath-it-All 23:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Peggy Brennan 11:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Tom- 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Bad carpet 15:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. danhash 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Aubray1741 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Tarret 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. ViolinGirl 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I like it!
  13. 13-days 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Banana04131
  15. ztocchi
  16. Qwerty88
  17. PoptartKing
  18. Bannus 14:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Eric 16:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Tchalvak 05:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC) The new emphasis should not simply be upon usability. This new model, while an improvement, is ignoring the need for a strong introduction to how to work wikipedia, in favor of just relying upon a search. I'd say the layout should reflect an emphasis along the lines of: search>introduction>articles of the day>etc. Still, better the redesign than the status quo with the search marginalized.
  21. Krackpipe 10:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer current Main Page[edit]

  1. Run! 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jasongetsdown 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. zenohockey 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. DTR 18:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Canaen 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. User:Gamedragon1990 11 December 2005
  7. Ashibaka tock 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. MechBrowman 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Zocky 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) The good points of this redesign (the top bar, better looking boxes, news and anniversaries on the same side) are simply not enough. Apart from the visually problematic third column, the decision to avoid tables at all costs means that there is no way to align the boxes properly. While I understand that tables are a problem for certain clients, I don't see why we can't have Main page (no tables) for the tiny minority who use those clients, and take advantage of features available in all standard compliant browsers to have a nice main page. Zocky 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Eleassar 02:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Quinlan Vos 13:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) I prefer the original one because I love Wikipedia the way it is but still colors are much better in the old one. I didn't like the new one's colors although it is more user-friendly.
  12. Ac1983fan 16:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Asacan 19:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. JamesHoadley 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC) No, I did like the redesign, but the current layout is still fine. If a search box out of the sidebar is needed, put it on the current design where this redesign has it. Also, I'd suggest giving the coloured boxes subtle circular or linear gradients rather than solid colours.
    1. I think we should change the colored boxes to have colored top bars only, preferably rounded like on et:Main Page. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Battle Ape 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer suggested re-design, with some modifications[edit]

Prefer suggested re-design, without the third, right-hand column. Simplify the browse bar and place elsewhere. (I can't vote for either option, but propose this third choice.) ---Aude 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. --Aude 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. P-unit04:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (With a lot of modification, though, including fixing the colors, fix the crowding, some more. Marginally better than current Main Page)
  3. RedHotHeat 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I like it but one thing I would strongly reccommend (not cause it's strongly needed, just would be very useful) would be to have maybe a section listing one article from: NPOV violations, cleanups, stubs etc., in order to help cleanups. This could be changed whenever the last article in that space has been fixed (from whatever was wrong with it).
  4. SirNuke 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Looks better then the current main page, but way too crowed. Maybe take 25% of the text off. Also the fact that the four main boxes do not line up is bothersome to me. Removing the side bar would help a lot.
  5. kpwa_gok 2:14 CST Dec. 15 - Although it has increased functionality, it looks a bit drab. I would switch the "browse" with the "picture."
  6. SidewinderXP2 Talk to Me! 15 dec 2005 7:53 PM (CEST). Sorry, but I dont like it at all, mayby we should look at the Dutch main page, that one is very nice. Here
  7. The Fox Man Of Fire 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Alex 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Agree with SirNuke.
  11. Fredrik | tc 19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) I would agree that it is too crowded; also, the colors could be improved (the yellow clashes with the rest). But a redesign is needed, and this one is generally on the right track.
  12. Nippoo 11:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC) I think that the bottom of the bottom two tables (tables? No, that's not right. Dividers, whatever) should align together at all costs, unlike how they are now (slightly misaligned).