Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 5#IE Display Problems

There was some version confusion, which resulted in responses to the wrong version, but Draft 5 is back up and ready for critiquing. Please check the history of the draft to make sure you are commenting on the right version (in case someone else changes it - look for my namestamp). Thank you. Go for it! 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The voting round is over. Here is what Wikipedians had to say about Draft 5:

• Well, I prefer a redesign. I think we're getting close, and I like how this version is trying to go for that style, but I've gone a little furthur. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired). I think it color is a very important part of the main page, and needs to be used. Also, the number of articles does not need to be linked to twice in the same box. Remove the one below the intro text and leave the one above the search box (which I also think is a must stay item).- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• That wasn't the draft I posted that you commented on - it was edited. The draft I posted did not have the article count twice; and it had some new design elements, new colors, etc. Go for it! 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• I like the colors in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired), though I also like keeping the current colors (for a less drastic/bold redesign). Either way, I think the boxes still need to line up at the bottom. I know it's possible to take care of that problem. I'd be interested in knowing what others think of Trevor's suggestion. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• I also prefer the subdued colors on the "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired)" draft versus the really bold green and blue on the main draft page. Sue Anne 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't mind the redesigned page. The subdued colors are nice, but I don't mind the louder colors. myselfalso 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

round corners have just arrived! Thanks to --Aude who found the code! - Go for it! 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• I Prefer the redesign - Thanks Kmf. Go for it! 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's getting better, but still got a long way to go. The blue is too bold. but the real problem with the top bars is the thickness - they're way too thick, overloading everything. The top box looks a little jumbled: KMF's design has the same content but does it better, putting the "Welcome to" farther left (maybe a little too far left) and splitting the yellow bar and the categories. The current draft has a big empty yellow space at the left of the top bar - it needs to be a little farther left. Also, will the picture of the day make the front page? Zafiroblue05 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's somehow gone from bad to good in a short amount of time which is very nice to see. I like the brightness of it all, though some will obviously hate it. I prefer this to the KMF's design and Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired) linked above as they seems a bit cluttered. What I would do is add links to WP:FA or suchother pages from the images to the left of each header (if this is possible, I'm not sure how to bypass the image linking). I'd also, as has been discussed on the main page talk add a (more...) link at the end of the featured article. I know that's probably just something to add to each FA page but I'm sure some sort of coded link option exists too. Sorry if I'm repeating things that have already been said. Generally I like it (at last). Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• You are right that the "more..." must come with each FA piped in. Go for it! 06:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I thought so, though wondered if there wasn't a way to make the daily feautred article get its own redirecting page so that there could be a general link to the (full) feautred article. Sort of a variable that gets assigned daily automatically. We could then link to that um... with the (more). I now realise that this is far too complicated for something so minor, and possibly impossible anyway. Moving on then, the WP:FA link I referred to above should've actually been WP:WIAFA. I got the two confused and there's already a link to the former. The images just have "click me! click me!" written all over them to me so it would be nice if they could be pointed to something useful (if this is possible and if copywrite policy allows it). Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:*I like this new page. It looks rather nice, and more organized than the current page. It is bright, which I believe has been commented on by a lot of people, but overall I give it a 9/10. (I recall giving a 7/10 on the previous one.) Link9er 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::I support the italian-inspired, it looks nicer and clearer. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm impressed. The overall look is more pleasing than the current main page and I like the added emphasis to the portal and project links. PoptartKing 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I support the new design. It looks much cleaner and neater than the current one. A great job done to the revision. --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the colours look unprofessionally bold. Also, those icons look awful with a white background. If they cannot be made transparent or something (drop shadow?) they should not be used. However, the redesign is clearly moving in the right direction and I'm sure it will represent a significant improvement over the current main page. Raoul2 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Support despite the flaws. I like this, but I'll point out a few things (including minor knitpicks that I'd fix myself if there wasn't a message not to edit the page):

1. The sky blue clashes with the pastel yellow and green. Why not get rid of the blue AND the green (though the green fits better) and use the shades of blue and red on the current main page revision?
2. The ugly whitespace surrounding the images is a problem with IE. I. Using Firefox, do not see something like [http://lifeisunfair.org/ie_view.png this] (credit to User:David Levy).
3. This is rather obvious, but we'll need to "unsubst:" the templates so they update properly.
4. Get rid of the "in other languages" links. We already have that in the body of the page and it creates an ugly whitespace (for me at least, veiwing with a large screen).
5. "A random category" -> "Random category"
6. "Welcome to Wikipedia" -> "Welcome to Wikipedia" or "Welcome to Wikipedia"
7. Move the sister projects to be centered, rather than alligned left. If you feel nice, do that on help:Contents, too.
8. Use this icon for the featured pic.
9. Use the Featured star for today's FA.
10. Swap the Portals and the stuff in italics at the top.

Most if not all of these are easy to fix, so I still support this. Go for it! (ha ha ha)--HereToHelp (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• This looks very good, it presents information well, and the general layout is better than the main page, but the green and blue are much too loud, and we certainly don't need icons next to every heading-- they're hard to make out anyway. I think [http://wellstyled.com/tools/colorscheme2/index-en.html dark pastels] might be good for the headings. By the way, the search bar runs off the page on my browser, and it's a duplicate of the search bar already on the side. Also, what's up with [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/MP-open-book.png] hanging out in the background? It looks like it's going to sneak up from behind and stab me. Ashibaka tock 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• The current main page is much better. Clean, well organized, not broken. I'm suprised its even up for redesign. An issue with the redesign is the top bar on the redesign doesn't fit on my screen. MechBrowman 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll try to fix these problems in the next draft. Thanks for the heads up. Go for it! 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• I like how clean and neat the front page looks now. It makes it look dignified and important. All these loud colors, soft fonts and, rounded edges makes Wikipedia look like Myspace or Livejournal. There is elegants to simplicity and, the current main page really shows it. --The_stuart 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• There is very little reason to change the main page. It looks fine as it is. Clearly a great deal of time has likely been spent on the drafts, and that needs to be respected. However, the colors do not match the rest of the site, and the additional search button proposed is extremely redundant. The colors are also way too bright; looks amateurish. Much contribution and time has gone into Wikipedia and its popularity has grown with the existing main page. No reason to change. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". --Mikecnn 12:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• My problems with this page are made clear below. Basically, I think the current main page has a far better colour scheme and microstructure. --Oldak Quill 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. The only change to the Main Page that I would support is the replacement of the welcome banner.  Run!  19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Smarties (Candy).jpgI agree about it looking too loud. The moment I clicked the link, my head jerked away from the screen. Stick with the current main page.
• Yes too loud. Smarties downsized from draft 4 talk added here. I also agree with Run! about changing the top template - portals on the bottom of it please. 207.172.134.175 09:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with our current main page. The blue and green are way too loud, the yellow background behind the header is fugly, and it just FEELS less professional. Rob 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• The current page is nice, simple, and professional. Ouuplas 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well, there is nothing left for me to say, yet I want to repeat them to point out that it's a quite an important point. This new color scheme does not look professional. The current one is much better. I'm not sure about the efficiency about the places of the things but first thing that iritated me was that blue and yellow. --Quinlan Vos 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sevear case of KISS failer.Geni 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• It looks terrible. Current page is much easier on the eyes. --Grocer 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I'd say that the main page should fit the style... and no where else on wikipedia do we see rounded corners... consistency is good in an encyclopedia! 24.209.246.109 17:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

:There are now square corners. As for the round vs. square debate, I like square because the round is a little pixelated and it would require so much work just for an aesthetic change.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, per Rob, Ouuplas, Geni, Grocer, and many others. Don't fix what is not broken. Sdedeo (tips) 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• I also prefer the current frontpage, it is clear, and why fix what isn't broken? Naelphin 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• User:Kmf164/Main page draft

Colors. I think the current draft and it's colors (particularly the blue) are too bold, though the green color is more acceptable. I would prefer keeping the current main page colors, as that would make the new design less drastic a change from the present version.

Browse bar. I also like the original browse bar from Tom-'s original draft, with "Welcome to Wikipedia..." not centered, but towards the left and the search box. More recent comments here suggested making the links to the community portal, help desk, etc. more prominent. I suggest eliminating some items in "Almanac · Categories · FAQs · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Site news · Index" and adding links to the help desk, community portal, as well as for donations (as is on the current main page). I also suggest this "browsebarmain" be separate (white bkgd) from the yellow box.

Icons. I like using the icons from the Italian Wikipedia, though think "Today's featured article" and the "Featured picture" need different/new icons.

Other languages. Another suggestion was adding the "other languages" to the left column (as on all other articles). I had some feedback on that (keep the "other languages") on the bottom, though inconclusive on whether to have other languages also on the left.

:I don't know if giving my opinion in this part is the right place. Whatever. The interest in giving the "other languages" on the left column is to make a kind of pattern for which will be followed by all the pages on Wikipedia. If we change it on one page - even if it's the "Main Page" - I think it wouldn't give the reflex to people to look at the left on the window to check for a foreign language version of the article. A problem remains, of course : do we have to keep "other languages" on the bottom ? I think this isn't a problem and that we can keep the two things together : the column in order to show the pattern of Wikipedia ; the bottom indication to show new people that there are other languages wikipedias in the world. What do you think of that ? (sorry for the IP address : I only registered on french wikipedia :o) ) 81.56.64.150 12:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Community portal. I like that aspect of Draft#5, though I was just on the Spanish main page and liked what I saw in "Participa en Wikipedia".

Anyway, rather than just trying to describe my suggestions, after Draft #2, I copied it to my user space and worked with it, incorporating suggestions from this talk page, and other discussions over the past several months, as well as work from Tom- and Go for it!. My suggested redesign is less drastic a change from the current main page, which many people prefer, yet incorporates user suggestions.

Further suggestions for my redesign proposal are welcome, and I'm open to incorporating them. Please let me know what you think of my suggestion, any particular elements you like from it and would like to be incorporated into the new design. Or do you still prefer the current Main page? What about the current main page do you like? Or from other language Wikipedia main pages? If you dislike my proposal, that's fine with me. Or if you like certain elements, that you suggest Go for it! include, that's fine with me. Or whatever.

—--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:The draft was altered, and therefore comments were made on the wrong draft. Sorry for the confusion. It has been restored to its intended configuration. Thank you Infinity0 for fixing the spacing problem I asked you about -- I sure couldn't figure it out. Go for it! 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::I just modified my comments to reflect this fact. Thanks for alerting me to this. I think the main draft is getting closer to what we need. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:I like what you did with the top bar a lot (though I think the Welcome To and the search box should be a little closer together, each of them closer to the center - there's too much blank space in the middle. Zafiroblue05 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think the search bar is great too. But, we need to make the links to portals and catagories at least twice the size they are. Everything else on the page isn't nearly as important as the search catatgories, and portals. Those 3 things are the way people are able to come to wikipedia, and find the info they want. People don't come for news, or anaversiries, they come for the info they need. I propose the enlargement of the the links at the top. Tobyk777 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

__TOC__

There was much demand in the last round of discussions for "linkage". So I've added a box to highlight the Wikipedia Community.

Some of you are much more familiar with where all the best hang-outs are, so if you'd like to improve the list of community pages, please do so. Here's the link: Template:Wikipedia community (main page). Go for it! 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to get space between the 2 main columns without adding margins on the far sides (via the cell padding variable at the top of the column table). Can anyone fix this? (That is, remove the padding on the sides, while keeping the space between the 2 columns)? Thanks. 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks Infinity for solving that problem I was having. The sides match up perfectly now. Go for it! 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we really need to step back here. It seems to me that each successive draft is getting worse. Much more discussion and many more varied proposals need developing first. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. On this talk page (yesterday) - now archived, I had mentioned the idea of putting "other languages" on the left (as with other article). I was interested in feedback to the suggestion. Let's leave these proposals (Trevor's, mine, the current draft, and the current main page) up and allow for more feedback. I'm open to whatever the community prefers and suggestions, but it's hard to keep track of suggestions when the comments are archived. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• How do we put the other languages on the left? Isn't that a programming thing? Go for it! 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's easy, just add de: (etc.) instead of the language template. violet/riga (t) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• The draft I posted was altered, causing you to comment on the wrong draft. Please check the draft's history before commenting. Thanks. Go for it! 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks but I know which version I was commenting on. violet/riga (t) 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. I worked a long time on that one. How is it worse than Draft 4? Your feedback will certainly help. Go for it! 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the work you're putting into this. My problems with the current version include:
• #The colours are too primary and strong - they should be toned down
• #The borders are not all fixed (the bottom of the main two are missing)
• #The header background disappear frequently (IE bug)
• #The icons don't work with the backgrounds, partly because of their size and because of the background colour
• #There are too many links in the header and they are not all obvious what they are
• #The On This Day bullet points are too far to the left
• These are obviously just my opinion, and some are easily fixed. I also dislike the sister and interwiki links, but I don't mind about that too much. As I said below I think a more radical redesign is required. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the above comment of how we should leave a few different styles up for comparison. Perhaps a list and screenshots? Anyways, I have a few tweaks for my version if someone could help. I'd like to round the corners, add a show/hide option to the other languages, fix the templates so the orange doesn't take over, and perhaps change the orange footer to green or something. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We should do a detailed study into the Main Pages of other languages. The Dutch one, I think, is far better than any design proposed here so far, and there are many others that do it better. We really need to think about what is important on the Main Page rather than just reorganising what we have right now. violet/riga (t) 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Other languages, with discussion on that talk page. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just going through the other languages, in order to add links to the left column (as w/ other articles) to my draft. I don't care for all the icons on the Dutch main page, however I like the Spanish main page. They have "Explore Wikipedia", "Categories", "Participate in Wikipedia" - I like that one, "Wikipedia in other languages" all in the left column; In the right column, they have "Today's featured article", "Did you know?", and "On this day" "In the news". They don't have "In the news""On this day" which I do like, nor do they have "featured picture". —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, my bad spanish translation. They do have "In the news" and don't have "On this day". I just corrected my comments. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, the Spanish one is very professional. The icons are actually helpful there, too. Ashibaka tock 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft 5 was altered, causing a bunch of people to comment on an unintended version. I've restored Draft 5. Please take a look. Go for it! 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I still would like the "rounded corner" look on the title bars for the boxes/columns. And since we have so much white space in the left bar, how about moving something like "Sister projects" over there? I also PARTICULARLY like the "browse categories" list. Her Pegship 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed on rounded being purty. I'll also echo the comment from further up the page that while the green is fine, the blue is probably a bit too intense. Is there any reason why we're sticking with the left stack in one colour and right in the other pattern, though? I'd personally prefer to see each of Itn, TFA, DYK and so on with their own colour. The Tom 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Go for it! for figuring out how to shift stuff into the left bar.04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Italian wiki main page in internet explorer.jpg

:We're looking into the rounded corners as an option. I assume you both (and others that have commented) all use Firefox, Opera, or other Mozilla/Gecko compatible browsers. I've been looking into how the Italian Wikipedia does the rounded corners, and they use a

Hey all. One thing that's been a source of on-again off-again controversy at Template talk:In the news has been the appropriate means to deal with obituaries. Many of us are in favour of a cut-and-dried set of rules so that we don't get bogged down into endless debates about whether death x has been notable enough to get onto the front page. Officially, we mirror the "no obits" rule in use on Current events, which I personally find a sensible standard, but some users have rightfully pointed out that this has been overlooked on the occasion of numerous deaths, particularly when they have been high-profile Americans (cf Peter Jennings, Rosa Parks).

One compromise solution that has been proposed is to stick in a small space for the latest one or two high-profile additions to Recent deaths onto the front page. I mocked this up for the current layout here, but the thought has struck me that it might be worth running by you lot, too, with it possibly getting implemented whenever you roll out a new version of the front page. Anyone with any cracking layout ideas? The Tom 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I see with Firefox, 800x600 settings on a 15" monitor --Ancheta Wis 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Draft5 2006 01 08.jpg

Is awful - top search box overlaps welcome banner. --hydnjo talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think the "Welcome to Wikipedia" can be left-aligned (with some padding). That would help somewhat with the overlap issue. Also, in your screenshot, the number of browse categories looks to be too many. I suggest getting rid of "Art" and "Philosophy" — those two aren't on the current main page. Thanks for the comment. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:*OK now :-) hydnjo talk 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What I've noticed over the past few drafts, is that for every person who wants it one way, there's another who wants it exactly the opposite way. Check the archives. Go for it! 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The div method of source coding is wreaking havoc with various users' browsers. We may have to use a more stable type of code, like table encoding. See Portal:Cricket and Portal:Philosophy for 2 very stable pages. The current Main Page seems to be pretty damn stable too. Go for it! 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to --Aude for locating the code for this. Unfortunately, it only works in Mozilla-based browsers (like Firefox), but fortunately the majority of users seem to be using Firefox these days. Go for it! 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:~80% of web users use IE. violet/riga (t) 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::You're right that the majority of web users in general still use IE. These are people we want contributing to Wikipedia, (such as, people forced to use IE at work, grandpa who knows alot about something, but maybe isn't the most technically savvy, or whatever other reason). It might be feasible to still have rounded corners, using bkgd images rather than .css. Though, (as with the Italian wikipedia), the rounded corners wouldn't necessarily carry over to pages past the main page. I'd advise against such inconsistency across the website. However, if the consensus is against me and still wants rounded corners, than maybe we can work on it. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with --Aude, you can't just marginalize 80% of web users. Plus, after so many people complaining that there were too many IE only pages, whats the point of adding Mozilla Gecko only pages? --Moki80 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'm using Firefox and I hate them. I'm really sorry... as a web designer I know how much effort it is to implement these kinds of things, but it just doesn't work here. I suppose that the main problem is that en:Wikipedia is not round. Even Wikipedias with the rounded tab style like fr aren't really round. As already mentioned we then have the compatibility issue. Consistency between IE and Fx is more important in terms of familiarity of Main_Page than any sort of nice design. Firefox itself shows some anti-aliasing problems. As well as these drawbacks I don't think elements like these are important to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is content-centric and these corners immediately distracted me from the content; the css also detracts from the predominantly semantic markup of Wikipedia, adds weight to one of the most viewed articles, not an ideal for mobile users etc. So I'm sorry but I strongly recommend the round corners go.

:In other news, the last time I checked the progress of the draft we had the other languages and other wm projects side by side; I thought that worked particularly well... what happened to it? BigBlueFish 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::I agree :) porges 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:::You do know, that if the user looks at the page on IE, it'll just show up as a box. Also, this doesnt work for non-mozilla browsers! The magical Spum-dandy 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Rounded corners are not used anywhere else on Wikipedia. This design is inconsistent, too cute, and unhelpful to older browsers. See also WikiProject Rectangular Corners. Ashibaka tock 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think WikiProject Rectangular Corners is a bit excessive, as I think the issue can be handled here. I think I made clear above the problems with rounded-corners (browser compatibility problems, inconsistency from the main page to the rest of Wikipedia, which has no round corners, too drastic/bold a change from the current main page). For these reasons, I agree with you that round corners shouldn't be used. Though, I think it was worth trying it in this draft, as there were numerous positive comments about the Italian main page. As for the portals and other pages, I have suggested User:Go for it! hold off on the round corners until broad consensus (if and when) is reached that Wikipedia should use round corners. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 03:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to go on record as stating that I strongly dislike the rounded corners. Firstly, they're ugly. (Each one actually is a jagged series of straight lines.) But more importantly, I vehemently oppose the use of code that deliberately generates major visual differences depending upon which browser someone is using. We should be striving to create as uniform an appearance as possible, not throwing in gimmicky elements that—for the users that see them—distract from the encyclopedic content and contradict longstanding (and perfectly acceptable) style conventions. —David Levy 15:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: User:Porge/Main_Page porges 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

: I am not a fan of the colors being used... does not go good with the overall "theme" of the site. --^BuGs^ 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that in an encyclopedia, the catagories, portals, A-Z, and other navigational link curretnly at the top should be way bigger. People don't go to an encyclopedia, for news, or triva, or pictures, or anything else, as much as they information. The links at the top are by far the most important thing on the page, and must be enlarged from their tiny state. Tobyk777 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Draft5 2006 01 10.jpg

Here is the latest look in Firefox 800x600. You have fixed the problem shown above, even when resizing the browser. Looks good. --Ancheta Wis 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I know there are more important things to be worrying about, but the curvature on the green & blue sections looks horrendous.

Nononono. If you're going to use images to create rounded corners, use the method shown [http://70.251.132.40 here]. (If that no longer works, try [http://xvisionx.com this link].) In that example, images are used to create inverted curves (that is, white bg, transparent curve) which makes it look *much* cleaner... drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just REMOVE the curvature on the ones that aren't on the top. That would look nice.. And the colors seem too bright. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 11:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much like this section. hydnjo talk 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything missing you'd like to add to this section, please feel free to do so. Go for it! 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the colours are much too bright in draft five. Please change them so they are subtle like they are on the current main page. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Choalbaton 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this draft has a number of problems at the moment, mainly in terms of colour. Not only are the colours too bold but they clash completely. The subtlty of the sidebar and background certain doesn't match the kindergarten green/blue shades, and the pastely yellow at the top looks completely out of place.

The asymmetry of the boxes (vertically and horizontally) makes it look odd - the existance of the sidebar doesn't help with this. The two lower boxes should start at the same point - this is particularly important if the boxes are going to have coloured title bars. I think it'd probably look better if the two were the same width.

The current main page is great because the colour scheme is consistant and quite understated/subtle. It matches the colour scheme that runs through the entire Wikipedia. Obviously some of the issues I've pointed out with the draft also apply to the main page.

Finally, I believe this project to be fundamentally flawed. What is most usable to one user is not suited to another. The optimal solution would be to give users a preference as to which page they land on when they type http://en.wikipedia.org/ into their browser. This may be the current main page, an alternative main page suited for the visually impaired, or even a portal. --Oldak Quill 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current colors are too bright. Something much more faded would be easier on the eye, yet still highlight the section. Her Pegship 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with anyone who likes it, because the current one is really bland. When are they planning on putting it up?205.202.240.104calvinsupergenius

Is there really a need to have more than one search box on the main page?

While y'all are screwin' messin' around (no insult intended) with getting the Main Page exactly right, a couple of real good things have come out of this project. So, how about adding almanac and glossaries right now. Just add them to the {{Main Page intro}} template and then all can have one click accessibility to a couple of neat places in the meantime (so to speak). ;-) hydnjo talk 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what you should so is ensure that the boxes all line up like they do at the moment. Like i say, the text for news changes every day, so the boxes will go up and down like a visualiser on a music player. Simply put some padding at the bottom, or between the article top, then it'll line up, and stay the same all the time (consistency, again) The magical Spum-dandy 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

An important question to ask is who is the audience for the main page? I'm thinking it's more likely people that come to look for information on a topic, read articles, maybe edit some, and might be anons./IP. Though, I also think a lot of these people come in through google to an article page. People that come to the main page might not have a specific idea of what information they want, but more likely to browse? And as a contributor, I do look at the main page from time to time, to see what the featured article is and the featured picture on the weekend. I'm also interested in ITN and what articles are linked on the main page, that might need work. However, my main entry point to Wikipedia is my Watchlist or one of my vandalism watchlists.

I've been poking around Wikipedia to find out statistics on "entry pages" to Wikipedia. How many people enter Wikipedia through the main page? Maybe break this down by anons/IPs, editors (maybe by # of edits, or when they registered, or something), and admins? I think this is an important consideration for how prominent the browse categories, the community portal/help pages, etc. should be. While I've found some interesting results at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm], I haven't yet found anything on "entry pages" to Wikipedia. Maybe these stats are restricted to admins-only or I'm not sure? Does anyone know where/how to find this information? At least, maybe a straw poll here, on what's your main entry point to Wikipedia? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many users set Wikipedia's main page as their home page on their browser. Or have the main page on their tool bar for quick access. These might account for the majority of hits on the main page. Go for it! 15:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

:That's another good question. Maybe a straw poll will give us a general idea of how many users have the main page set as the browser's home page? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back, with the redesign process and get a better sense of who the users of the main page are, and how users enter Wikipedia. Ultimately, it would be useful to track down site statistics on "entry pages" to Wikipedia? e.g. watchlist, main page, article page via google search? I realize this poll isn't represntative, as it's just people who find this draft talk page. Maybe there's a better place for such a survey? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the redesign is rather good. I prefer this redesign to the previous design because it adds more colour and attraction to wikipedia.

Draig goch20 14:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer to come through the Main Page. Even though I rarely actually use it  Run!  18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I always use the Main Page and skim the page for a second, then I click the watchlist but I like to see the main page first to see if the featured article is something interesting. I like the "today in the past" kind of box. --Quinlan Vos 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Main Page, it presents new articles and recent news, and lot of other interesting information. --Moki80 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I come through the main page, glance at the news and feature titles, then click on Portals, or Help, or my User Page to get to the main navigation browsebar, which in turn leads almost everywhere. --Go for it! 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Through Main Page to see TFA and then on to watchlist.--cj | talk 10:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• I used to go through my watchlist, but now I use the MP becuase I can scan over the news, see what's featured, etc.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have the main page in my favorites, to see the FA, ITN, etc.; after arriving at the main page I will view my watchlist, etc. HollyAm 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Main Page, then Watchlist/UserTalk/Signpost. -- Marcika 16:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Main Page via a bookmark --^BuGs^ 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Main Page to look at news box. --24.26.178.224 06:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• My watchlist is the primary way I arrive at Wikipedia, though sometimes I first go to one of my vandalism watchlists. After I go through recent changes, I might look at the Main page to see what the featured article is or what's linked to the main page (on ITN). I also will use the main page to go browse for something. --Aude 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I go to my watchlist first, then the Main Page to see what's featured. Her Pegship 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• I always go to my watchlist first. I have a button for it on my toolbar. I rarely go to the main page when I need to get to something else specific. I usually only go to the main page when I'm bored and clicking around. -- Schaefer 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Watchlist first. Only go to main page to see what's featured. Kaldari 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• When using my own computer I always go to my watchlist first, then I usually go to the main page to check In the News since it is updated sooner than the BBC News website for breaking news. When using a different computer I tend to go through the main page first. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Ashibaka - sort of a ghetto watchlist. Then I click the Main Page. Ashibaka tock 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=User%3AVioletriga%2Fcontribs Contribution changes] violet/riga (t) 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Run!  18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Of course! --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• One of three (firefox) -- User:Grenavitar from school as 128.175.87.74 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Mais oui! And on toolbar for quick access, with search shortcuts. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• My browser home page has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Aude 16:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• It isn't but my mainpage is my blogger which has bunch of links at the side in which the wikipedia is the first. --Quinlan Vos 20:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto Quinlan Vos. Her Pegship 05:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, I use something else. HollyAm 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, "about:blank" is. -- Marcika 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Run!  18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Her Pegship 05:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, twice: once for the English main page, and another for the multi-language master page. Go for it! 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• appzter 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Marcika 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Of course, see above. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have the main page bookmarked anywhere, though my watchlist is bookmarked in my toolbar. --Aude 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't bookmark anything, yet if I did Wiki would be the first one.
• Same as Kmf164, I have a bookmark of my watch list in the toolbar. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for my poor English. I'm sorry for asking this question on this discussion but I want to design a portal with a white background coulor on the German Wikipedia site. Nobody knows how you have changed the background coulor to white at your drafts. Usually the background colour is defined by the software and can only be changed in personal sylesheets (user/monobook.css). Is there a way to override the default settings? I hope somebody can help us. Thanks --De.Doit 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a couple of flaws in the page's appearance when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. The top banner doesn't quite reach as far to the left and right as the two columns below it, and the book image is cut off before it reaches the top. [http://lifeisunfair.org/ie_problems.png Here's a screen capture.] —David Levy 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that everything on this redesign is in a pastel box. Take a note from the current Main Page: not everything needs to be pastel-boxified. Ashibaka tock 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This draft is no longer actively proposed. Please see the discussion below for my current attempt. —David Levy 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I assembled a revised draft of the page. Please let me know what you think. (If the book and magnifying glass images fail to appear, follow these instructions to clear your browser's cache.) —David Levy 10:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The colors are much better, but it's still got those cutesy icons. We don't need icons on the Main Page. Since they are links people will click on them and get all confused. And everything is in a pastel box still. You could take the Community and Other Languages sections out of their boxes, and it would look better. (Also the top section, which is getting too crowded with those background images. Who decided the top section needs a lame search box anyway?) Ashibaka tock 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• FYI: The icons can be made into appropriate links. violet/riga (t) 16:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• But the page looks so much better with them gone. See: User:Ashibaka/Main Ashibaka tock 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• I was working under the assumption that the images would be used, but the page really does look much better without them. You also have eliminated most of the display bugs in Internet Explorer. As far as I can tell, the only remaining problem in IE (which I just noticed) is that the bottom segments of the box borders are missing. Other than that, your version looks terrific in all of my browsers. —David Levy 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created another draft (based upon Ashibaka's). This time, my goal was to add some of our conventional styling into the mix. I also fixed the last remaining IE bug of which I'm aware (mentioned above).

Does anyone have an opinion on the swapped sections ("Did you know..." and "On this day...")? This seems more logical to me, and I'll explain why:

1. "Today's featured article" and "Did you know..." make a nice pairing; the former features one of our most polished articles, while the latter features brand new articles that ideally will receive the same treatment.
2. "In the news" and "On this day..." also go well together; the former features current newsworthy events, while the latter features past newsworthy events.
3. "Today's featured article" and "On this day..." usually are the two longest sections, so it's better to place them in separate columns (for greater balance).
4. On weekends, the "Did you know..." slot belongs to "Today's featured picture." It makes sense for that to go directly below "Today's featured article."

—David Levy 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I liked that you got away from the idea that Wikipedia's Main Page should look like a "I'm learning while I'm having fun! Why don't you join me" kind of advertisement. I don't like those fancy things on the biggest free encylopedia. Same thing applies for the color scheme. I realize, I repeat, repeat and repeat myself over and over again but so do the drafts. I want simplicity and the current main page does it for me. --Quinlan Vos 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• still fails the KISS principle.Geni 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::What, in particular, is less simple about this draft? To me, it seems cleaner and easier to read than the current main page. Any comments regarding the individual changes would be sincerely appreciated. —David Levy 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a much improved version of the revamp. I'm not a big fan of the yellow though. MechBrowman 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for your feedback! That's supposed to be gold, but it probably looks yellower on some displays than it does on mine. It certainly can be changed to a different color, and I'm going to give green a try. —David Levy 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I've changed the gold/yellow to green. —David Levy 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmm, the green could be shaded down a little if you like. See the [http://wellstyled.com/tools/colorscheme2/index-en.html color scheme generator] above (try dark pastels). Ashibaka tock 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Its much better with the green, but i still don't think theres a reason to change the main page MechBrowman 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I really enjoy this draft. It is much cleaner and more toned down than the versions I have looked at. I agree with all the comments here as well. As far as the KISS principle that Quinlan Vos referred to, I'd like to offer this bit of advice. Look at the page in every browser you can find incluiding command line, and see how it looks. Being the free encyclopedia,it should look good and inviting in all of them.

• Change that green to red like it is on he real main page, tweak it a little...and I think you have something.--:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::The reason I keep saying to use the red is that many people are used to the old colors. I'm personally indifferent, but if people are going to object to this redesign on these petty grounds I say we might as well cater to them and be done with it. But before we go and change image backgrounds (they looked fine in the superior Firefox) let's see how much a green vs. red really is worth. I won't mess with it if no one else does, and I'm not opposed to having images for the main page with the backgrounds, but put them someplace specific, where they won't interfere with the regular images.--:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::That's precisely what I've done. (The original images remain unchanged.) And yes, I agree that Firefox is superior, but we haven't converted the masses just yet. ;)

:::Actually, those images really should be removed entirely. I don't hate them, but I agree with the users who believe that the page looks better without them. I seriously doubt that we're ever going to arrive at a consensus until the icons are gone. —David Levy 05:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Me likey. It's not a huge change, and it makes room for the portals. Rob 12:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The color scheme is far too bold in the latest draft. What happened to the softer, more appealing design? - ElAmericano | talk 17:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed. The header and left column colours are particularly garish.--cj | talk 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hear, hear. The bright colors are quite hideous. — Dan | talk 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:I still can't get what's wrong with the current color scheme. --Quinlan Vos 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on Draft Six. I've licked the problem of misaligned headings and column-ends, though there aren't enough changes yet to justify posting the draft for feedback. I took a break to revamp the Help page, and let some feedback accumulate here. Okay, milder colors. But can I change the pink???? --Go for it! 23:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'm new to this project, so I don't know how this is supposed to work. Is this a collaborative effort, or are you creating "official" drafts on your own (incorporating the feedback that you deem valid)?

:It's abundantly clear that no radical departure from the current main page is going to garner consensus, so I suggest that you forget about the icons and redundant search box. —David Levy 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not exactly sure about the icons or search box, but what about using the main page colors we already have? Use the border for the haeders and the colors for the boxes. the color scheme is: #ffc9c9 and #fff3f3 (dark and light red, respectively). for blue, it's #c6c9ff (dark) and #f0f0ff" (light).--HereToHelp (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::My current draft incorporates shades of green and blue of roughly the same intensity. I dislike the pink box, because that coloring has become strongly associated with various {{tl|POV}}-related templates (and the negative connotation thereof). The current blue box leans toward purple, and I think that it should approximate the coloring of the [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikinews] logo. —David Levy 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think we need to take a step back and consider what the point is of redesign (as part of WikiProject Usability). If we could gather more statistics and information on how people use the main page, search and/or browse the site. How can we make it easier to find information? The other main goal is to encourage people to contribute. Is there anyway we can do that better? Much more than colors and icons, we need to consider the functionality and usability of the site. From looking at the other language pages, I think the Spanish main page has a nice balance of elements on the main page. And the way they do the headings is nice too. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:The Spanish Wikipedia's main page headings are fairly similar to the ones in Ashibaka's and my current drafts; each is a darker shade of the box's background color. In my opinion, this creates clearer demarcation between the sections, thereby making the page easier to read. —David Levy 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::What the Spanish main page does is have a section for "browsing/finding information", "participate in Wikipedia", along with "Featured article", "In the News", etc. that keeps the main page fresh and interesting for everyone. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize this has been requested before, but nobody seems to have taken it into real consideration. I believe that the main page should have a look a lot like the current Portal:Browse page does, just a bit simplified and with other content for the news, "Did you know?", etc. While many Wikipedia readers are Wiki-nuts, there are some people who come on here just to find information on a broad topic, and, while there is a search function, it's not always easy to guess the name of the article you're seeking. As of now, the only resemblance our Main Page has to this is a few small links at the top.

P.S.: One site that implements this idea quite well now is the Italian Main Page. appzter 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than having one person hog all the page-layout fun, we're holding an open session of editing between voting rounds. (See notice at top of page). I know how some of you have been dying to get your hands dirty on this project! So, now's your chance.

And by the way, THANK YOU! to all those who helped me on the Help Page redesign blitz. I hope we have as much fun on this one. --Go for it! 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Help page,

:Main Page,

:in redesigning both, I'll engage–

:that's the fun of a sage adage. --:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the split into four boxes. In my opinion,, the page looks much better with two boxes, even though the headings don't line up. This is how the current main page is configured.

The four boxes make the page look very busy, and such a setup completely defeats the purpose of having one color for the left and another for the right. —David Levy 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Then we can take avantage of this: use four colors!--:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::That would make the layout look even busier (and uglier). Keep in mind that numerous users have expressed a preference to keep the main page simple. —David Levy 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to reiterate that I wholeheartedly support the removal of the icons. Aside from my personal opinion that the page looks much better without them, it's obvious from the above comments that many people strongly oppose their inclusion. —David Levy 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:no icons marginally improves load time - better for disadvantaged DUN users. Metarhyme 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

With or without the icons, I think the headings look bad with colors still too bold and saturated, and the heading text proportionally too large. I suggest either the heading style (like the Spanish wikipedia) or stick to the style used on the current main page. When I get some time, I can work on improving the headings (if enough of you agree with me). --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... personally, I would prefer just plain text, or enlarged text from the logo. This reminds me of a children's movie or something. Ashibaka tock 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• God-king - how about shrinking from 3 to 2 hundred pix as I just did here? Metarhyme 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think thnat curretnly the Hebrew WP [http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99] has the best mainpage. It incorperates everything that our mainpage has and Portal:Browse into one, perfectly formatted page. It think that we should make our page look alot like this. What do you guys think? Tobyk777 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Which itself is pretty much the same as the Dutch one, which I love. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Appealing, non-intrusive. - ElAmericano | talk 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We can try that. I have a basic knowledge of Hebrew so I'll cover what's on there (although it uses a lot of pictures that anyone could dicepher):On the left, going down, is TFA, DYK, TDIH, holidays (part of TDIH on our page), and then ITN. Instead of a Top 8 or Top 10, they have many top level categories arranged like Portal:Browse on our language, with the category below it (above is the article). I recomend we get images for our Top 10 Portals and do something like what I have below. Anyway, there's the sister projects are beneath it; I don't know what the thing with the @ is. As for the language links, they're on the side but don't add wierd whitespace, so it's obviously selected languages. We could put ours in in a box, or put langs with 10k articles or more on the side. below is my draft for one of the Top 10 (it would be centered):

75px

Technology

Portal • Category

Comments?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For an example: look at the [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil French Main Page].--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea the french one does it perfectly too. But in the Hebrew one, the browse, and other features are next to each other. In the French one, the other features are below the catagories. They both both way better than ours, but I like Hebrew better. Tobyk777 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Assuming everyone likes it (that's the hard part), we can make the rest of the Top 10 links following the above example. then we allign the four classic templates to the left, each with it's own color, and then have room for the ten icons on the right (we can even reverse that if it gets us consensus). The rest goes under that, unchanged, unless we want to put the major language links on the side and kill the rest. I tried to make a model in my userspace but it didn't work (I'm no expert at HTML).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More of those Top 10 things:

I just slapped a needs-fixing-if-not-swiftly-reverted box around "Community" adapting colors I swiped from the Spanish wikipedia for it. This could get out of hand, go for it! Metarhyme 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a hide/show function for the smaller language links. Thoughts? violet/riga (t) 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Assuming that this doesn't interfere with browser compatibility, it seems like a good idea to me. —David Levy 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only fair that I explain myself:

1. I agree with Ashibaka's original assessment; that logo looks straight out of Disneyland. Under the previous setup, we sacrifice the Wikipedia link (at least, in its obvious form), and it's impossible to append "that anyone can edit" in a proportional fashion (because different people use different text sizes). Under Metarhyme's setup, we sacrifice both links. Substance is more important than style, people!
2. As several users have commented, we don't need a redundant search box. We're never going to arrive at a consensus if we keep restoring elements that many Wikipedians have complained about.
3. The above wasted too much space. In my case, instead of being able to view all four features without scrolling, only the first two were visible. Someone else might have seen zero instead of two.
4. Whether you love the icons or hate them, it's clear that the opposition to their inclusion is strong. Again, we're striving for consensus, so the most controversial stuff has to go.
5. Placing the "community" section in a box reduces the page's uniformity and creates display problems in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

—David Levy 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:I agree completely with most of those points. Exceptions: the search box does not seem repitive, although I concur that striving for something everyone likes is a good idea. Could we point the newcomers to the search box on the left? Also, the icons: what's wrong with them? We fixed the problem with the backgrounds. The licensing is fine. Is it just that it looks unprofessional? Well, I agree that the bottom box is bad. Shouldn't the style of the Main Page reflect what people will find inside? It's the opposite of judging a book by it's cover: we don't want to imply that we have fancy formatting on every page—although, yes, most things look better on the surface.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::The existing search box seems perfectly obvious to me, and we would be doing a disservice by placing a second search box in a different location. (Some people might be confused when it fails to appear on subsequent pages.) The search link that you added seems harmless enough, but I don't know why anyone would want to visit a separate search page.

::I don't hate the icons, but I do feel that the page looks cleaner and more professional without them. Irrespective of my opinion or yours, many people have expressed opposition to their inclusion.

::And yes, I added the conventional styling to the bottom to more closely match the rest of the encyclopedia. —David Levy 21:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Check out the size of the top before I shrank it! I agree that familiar and functional is better than wild and not working. I'd kind of like to see the portal links caps and small caps in instead of caps and lower case. Metarhyme 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::The "caps and small caps" styling matches the Wikipedia logo. Without the logo, does it make sense to include this? —David Levy 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::As a subtle increase in emphasis it would be helpful to new users. It looked good in a previous draft. I responded to a newbie's main page talk item which said that there ought to be links for portals, which were there, so I think that there's very limited perception on first encounter with this page. Metarhyme 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Okay, I see your point. I've restored the styling. —David Levy 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::Personally I don't like the backgrounds behind the titles without the icons. violet/riga (t) 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the icons, too, buti if that's going to kill the consensus, get rid of them.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aftter all, those icons play a role in other language Main Pages [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principale] [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil] --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:In my opinion, those pages look less professional. —David Levy 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::Is proffesionalism what we want? Do we want bleak lack and white pages of unwelcoming text? Or do we want to create an enviroment that welcomes newcomers and makes them want to use this source and contribute to it?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Some Nuvulo images are a little childish, and we should try and avoid coming across in that way. The ones that were shown on the page were fine. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree that the icons themselves are fine, but there seems to be a significant amount of opposition to the inclusion of any icons in this context. I personally believe that the page looks better without them. —David Levy 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't perceive the icon-free version as less welcoming. —David Levy 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't percieve it as more welcoming, but whatever. it's silly to argue over this. Either we make major changes "More like Hebrew", above) or we upload what we have and be done with it. I say put them in, but if I can win some favor with the consensus that we'll need for any major changes, I'll pick my battles.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. We've been discussing whether we should have that, and this, and that for a long time and I really admire the people's efforts on this. I was just going to comment on a recent change that is made, but then I realized that I had to take a step back and see what's our mission and where we got so far. I assume that we all are trying to modify the main page so that it is - both physically and effectively - more appealing than the current one. So what I did was, I opened the current main page and current draft at the same time. Of course the first thing that struck to me was the colors. I won't get into the "which color is nicer" thing again so I'm leaving that out. Another thing was the headline; the draft has it a little bit bolder but everything else is the same. Another thing is the fact that the places of the boxes are quite different. Then I scrolled down and saw the first thing that really changed something. It was really nice that this draft had a community box. This was all. There are some other minor things of course but that's not my main point so I won't list them all. My overall feeling was that almost all of the changes were physical and didn't modify the main page's effectiveness a lot. Then I asked myself the question: if everything about its effectiveness is going to be same why are we changing the main page? I couldn't answer it and thus I am writing it here to get my mind straight on this. Thank you for your time. --Quinlan Vos 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think that, yes, the colors and icons are not sily per se but arguing over them is silly. The discussion "More like Hebrew" is focusing on the actual layout and major changes there. hey guys, this guy's got a point!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Taking the main page from baby pink & blue to ocean blue & green is super-major. It's like buying a car or a bicycle or changing the walls - paint is all-important. If there's concensus that it's better, that's a time consuming accomplishment it would be a shame to waste. Metarhyme 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:If we can improve the page's appearance to even a small extent, why shouldn’t we? The community seems to oppose a massive overhaul (as do I), but I see no reason why we should be stuck with the exact setup that happens to be in use. In my opinion, our current draft tweaks the existing layout in a manner that renders it more visually appealing, easier to read, and slightly more functional, without sacrificing most of the familiarity. What's wrong with that? —David Levy 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::You'll recall I insisted for the current red and blue to be preserved. It is "sideways editing" to change the colors; and it just puts us further away from consensus. However, I think thatn alligning the current boxes left and then having something like the Hebrew MP is better as well. See "More like Hebrew" on this page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Firstly, the current main page's left-hand box is pink. (This is a variety of red, but it's worth noting.) As I mentioned earlier, that color has become strongly associated with the various {{tl|POV}}-related templates (and the negative connotation thereof). Additionally, the darker shade of pink required for the title bars is downright jarring (IMHO).

:::The current main page's color scheme has no special significance, and I seriously doubt that many people would oppose the redesign on this basis. We shouldn't change things for the sake of change, but I believe that the new colors are better.

:::I've read the discussion regarding the Dutch/Hebrew layout, and I disagree with the praise. Half of the main content is pushed down, purely for the sake of including space-consuming icons. (The accompanying portal links could be displayed without them.) —David Levy 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reviews but I guess I couldn't express myself in the right way. I didn't mean that we shouldn't have a change. I just tried to point out that where we are now (in the sixth draft, come on!) is not very different than the current main page. Things about the efectiveness are starting to be talked though. I really liked the discussion on the new format for example (Hebrew format) since it is really a change. I guess we started heading for the last draft with huge paces! --Quinlan Vos 00:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:(copied from the village pump & Go for it!'s talk page:)

Hi. I'm on the Main Page Redesign team. I'm looking into possibly turning off the title (H1 heading?) at the top of the page we are working on. We need to see what the Main Page Redesign Draft would look like without the page name showing up on the screen. What is the link to the the documentation on this? --Go for it! 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:You already have the answer: the same way you turned off the #siteSub, with a hack on MediaWiki:Monobook.js. There is no documentation, of course, since it's a hack. --cesarb 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails of the code on monobook.js. Do you know precisely what code would need to be pasted in? If so, it would sure help our project along. I appreciate your help so far, it puts us one step closer... --Go for it! 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Done. Ask any administrator when you want it undone. --cesarb 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have worked, as the page title still shows up at the top of the page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft. Please take a look. --Go for it! 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:As with all changes in Wikipedia's CSS and JS, you have to clear your cache before it takes effect. Sorry for forgetting to remind you of that. It works for me on Firefox 1.5, and it's so simple I'd expect it to work even on MSIE. --cesarb 13:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Ctrl-F5 did the trick (I use Firefox). Looks great! How do you clear the cache with Internet Explorer? --Go for it! 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's that icon set called? --Go for it! 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:commons:Category:P_icons —David Levy 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The draft as it currently stands is excellent. Let's mark it Draft 6. :) (or feel free to continue improving...) Ashibaka tock 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:(note: I was referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=35614769 this draft], the current one is beastly) Ashibaka tock 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles.

Art | Culture | Geography | Health | History | People | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Search · Questions · Site news · Index