Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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:

I Prefer the re-design (comments welcome):

• 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 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)

I Prefer current Main Page (comments welcome):

• 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 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 [1] 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)

• File:Smarties (Candy).jpg

  I 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)

Other proposals

• 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)

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:
        1. The colours are too primary and strong - they should be toned down
        2. The borders are not all fixed (the bottom of the main two are missing)
        3. The header background disappear frequently (IE bug)
        4. The icons don't work with the backgrounds, partly because of their size and because of the background colour
        5. There are too many links in the header and they are not all obvious what they are
        6. 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)

Spanish main page

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)

File: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 <div> style attribute that only works for some browsers (i.e. folks still using Internet Explorer won't have rounded corners). I don't know what percent of Wikipedians use Firefox (Opera, or other browsers) vs. IE? We shouldn't necessarily care about IE, though.

Just a note, when viewed in Opera 8.51 you will not get rounded corners. The CSS used for this redesign in the case of rounded corners is not standards compliant, and an only Mozilla workaraound. To get it working on all browsers you would have to use the more industry standard background image, but that brings up hassles with the reliability of the media servers and the lack of flexibility without a lot of workarounds. Or you could wait for IE to actually support CSS3, which does not appear to be happening anytime soon. Also, not caring about IE is not a good idea, then you're just marginalizing part of your audience. Microsoft took a lot of fire for doing that against Opera and Netscape users, and I don't think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to start up that practice. That being said, I might be just making a big fuss over what could be a small issue, it just doesn't seem like a wikipedia thing to do. --Moki80 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. My comment before about IE, was referring to the fact that rounded corners are just an appearance thing and don't affect the functionality (or ability to use the site). Though, after all the discussion here, I definitely conclude that the main page must work well in all browser, even when it comes to appearance or the site. --Aude 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Another issue with the div attribute, is that it only works from what I can tell with div boxes and not tables. This brings up problems from before about lining up the boxes/columns at the bottom. The Italian wiki doesn't line them up. Another problem with the rounded corners on the Italian wiki, is when you go past their main page, all the rest of their pages use square boxes. I personally don't like that inconsistency from their main page to the rest of the site. All that said, if the overwhelming preference from users is still the rounded corners, I think we could do it anyways. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the colours being too striking - suggest 153,204,153 for the green title bar, etc., and 153,204,204 for the blue. Also, the icons need the same background as their title bar. (The newspaper and calendar actually look tilted because of an optical illusion.) The bullets for "On this day" are very close to the box edge, unlike those for "In the news". And finally, something on the page is too wide - not sure what - so I'm getting horizontal scroll bars like other people. Otherwise, this is maturing nicely - well done.Bazza 13:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 here. (If that no longer works, try 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, 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)

How do you normally enter Wikipedia?

Main Page

• 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)

Special:Watchlist

• 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)

Article page (via Google?)

Other (specify?)

• Special:Contributions/Ashibaka - sort of a ghetto watchlist. Then I click the Main Page. Ashibaka tock 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Contribution changes violet/riga (t) 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's Main Page set as your browser's home page?

Yes

•  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)

No

• 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)

Is Wikipedia's Main Page on your bookmark toolbar? (Firefox users, and other browsers with the capability)

Yes

•  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)

No

• 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. 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 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 {{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 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)

The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

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 [2] 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):

Technology
Portal • Category

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

For an example: look at the 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:

Though, this is very difficult to read. You may prefer one that is slightly transparent.

drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Though, this is very difficult to read. You may prefer one that is slightly transparent.

drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A version with the little puzzle globe on the right.. the text on the left is vertically aligned and it works well with any text-size. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla-specific code is entirely unsuitable. The actual image file would need to be adjusted, but I still don't think that this would look good. —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mozilla code I assume you're speaking of (-moz-opacity) isn't the only tag put in there.. there's also the IE one and the future opacity: tag. The opacity thing doesn't seem to work in Opera, though.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people with IE should be able to view this page properly (even though I HATE IE). If we can overcome that...I love it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also loved the idea. --Quinlan Vos 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the browse icons, as I think they are confusing with three links under each. Since we've all been working on Wikipedia for a while, we understand the difference between Category, Portal, and the Article links. However, someone new to Wikipedia that's browsing for information, this seems very confusing. It's further confusing that when you click on the icon itself, it just links to the icon image and not "art", "culture", or anything. I suggest just one link for each icon, and clicking on the icon itself has to take you to the topic portal (or category). --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter what happens with any icon used in any of these drafts, assume that it would link to an appropriate page (in the finished product). That's a given. —David Levy 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Culture and Geography icons now take you to the appropriate portal so we can see how it will work. I think we should only link to the Portal and the Category. Trödel&#149;talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still confusing to have both "Portal" and "Category" presented. Categories should be incorporated into each of the portals, and just link to the portals on the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree there. violet/riga (t) 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidently. Suit yourself. Metarhyme 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Geography -- Here the image links to the portal; its name links to the category. 207.172.134.175 08:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It works, but when you roll the mouse over the icon, it says "Image:Purple geography icon.svg". I see the image link is implemented with a redirect to "Portal:Geography". Somehow, the rollover "ALT" tag needs to just say "Geography". --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's changed. How about getting rid of the heading? Just a row of icons + text? Metarhyme 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Kmf. As with all newcomer issues, we simply have to accomodate them by explaining to newcomers what they're looking at. A little note right below the icon bar ought to do the trick. --Go for it! 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I really liked the icons, they are humorous and professional at the same time. We are really getting to something. (You can't believe how relived I was when I saw the simple color scheme) We're going to have a nice draft this time. Congratulations!--Quinlan Vos 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I had tried changing the heading styles in the Main page draft, similar to how it's done on the Spanish Wikipedia. The headings use darker, much less saturated background-colors that are easier on the eye and less distracting from the main content. Also the size of the heading text is smaller with more padding between the text and the heading box. What I had done is now at:

• User:Kmf164/Main page draft

I thought they help greatly in making the page look more professional, in the use of color, typeface, padding, and margins. If you like, feel free to use heading styles like these. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current draft style. (That's entirely subjective, of course.) Also, you changed only one color (the one used for the green headings), thereby making the green headings darker than the blue headings. —David Levy 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The blue has in my opinion, the proper amount of color saturation while the green is much too saturated. Furthermore, the size of the heading text compared to the background boxes, seems out of proportion to me. Just looking at the draft, the text "Today's featured article" jumps out at me way too much, compared to "Butter" which is the featured article. As I'm scanning the page (which is how most people read web pages), my eye is very likely to skip over the word "Butter". That's why I suggest the heading text size (with some padding/margins), and background colors that are less saturated. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article is a bigger deal than butter. A tremendous amount of striving and effort goes into attaining featured article status. The treatment you prefer makes it littler, which is a disincentive to editors reaching for this goal. Metarhyme 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by your statement. Butter is "Today's featured article". We should make the article as prominent we can. Though with the current heading/color scheme I'm likely to miss the Featured article link as I skim the page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not going to be Ghee unless someone builds Ghee to Shoe polish quality. Today's featured article changes every day. Editors getting their piece featured in that spot feel good about having made the cut. Their article has to have been improved to better than most to get there. Wikipedia gets better because of this incentive to improved content. Look at it from the point of view of a labelled space which induces editors to improve content, since that is its function. I'm against shrinking the label on the goal post. Metarhyme 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For the headings/borders, I selected the hexadecimal values #d0f5e5 (green) and #d0e5f5 (blue). For the backgrounds, I selected the hexadecimal values #f1fcf5 (green) and #f1f5fc (blue). As you can see, both pairings contain two very similar values. To me, the blues and greens appear comparably saturated.

In my opinion, the current draft's headings blend nicely with the reminder of the boxes, while your headings seem more like separate elements, and actually draw attention away from the featured text. —David Levy 18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems:

• is this a mental institute..? the colors are a little too sobering. Having monocolor columns also might be annoying.
• Verdana/Tahoma/Whatever you're using for the titles looks tacky. The font is popular among personal web spaces but sould perhaps be avoided here.. try and stick with Arial or Helvetica (or whatever Wikipedia uses.)
• The purple portal icons are also sobering. This is 2006, the internet has gotten past drab design. Consider multi-color icons like those posted above for easy identification and to be more aesthetically pleasing.
• The padding around the titles (the text in verdana/tahoma) might be a few pixels too much and the titles might need to be made bigger. (Edit: Just kidding, padding is fine as it matches the rest of the text in the boxes..)
• Everything else, save the lack of Featured-Picture, seems to be fine.

drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - :speak? 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1. If you read the comments above, you'll see that most users have rejected bright tones and colorful icons. We want the page's appearance to be relatively sober, because that's what we deem aesthetically pleasing.

2. As far as I know, no special typeface is being used.

3. "Today's featured picture" is a weekend item; it shares its slot with the "Did you know..." feature. —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As for making sure the FAs get noticed, hwo about "Today's Featured Article: Butter" and have it rigged to update it?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, THANK YOU, VIOLET/RIGA! I spent the longest time trying to figure out how to move the text links closer to the icons, and all of my attempts failed miserably. Nice work!

Secondly, I agree that it's better to link only to the portals. Linking to both the portals and the categories is potentially confusing to inexperienced readers, and they're better off visiting the portals (which are far more welcoming and user-friendly). —David Levy 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for once again cleaning up my sloppy code, violet/riga! I'm learning this as I go along.  :) —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - working together we're finding a solution. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft Gold and bluish-purple. To me, much more appealling than the green/blue of the current edit. Edited from User:Kmf164/Main page draft. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the colours, but the icons, for me, appear a little too childlike. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've combined that with the current page and a few other minor changes: User:Violetriga/inprogress. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now tried an Italian-inspired lead... violet/riga (t) 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried a gold/blue color scheme, and it was rejected. The icons, as violet/riga mentioned, are childlike. —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The colours are indeed nice. Better than those being used presently. The heading bars are much nicer also.--cj | talk 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by the above and other languages, User:Violetriga/inprogress shows my preference. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but it means we can't use what they are working on at "How do you create and use backgrounds in Wikipedia?", above, without going through som more formatting hassles.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I implemented the background thing I made.. with the globe on the right.. on the new version of my page. Tricolor, tell me how you like: User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft

Get rid of the whitespace near the top. Otherwise, great. I recomend putting it on the draft page so people see it and take it further. It's come a long way since the version I implemented.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of these layouts look nice, but I prefer the functionality of project's the current draft. It already has the portal links at the top, and I don't see why we should push down the featured content in favor of the icons. Drumguy8800's version also increases the likelihood of text wrapping (which looks terrible), purely for the sake of adding a redundant Wikipedia logo. Please keep in mind that not everyone is using your text size or display resolution, Drumguy.

Also keep in mind that many people have expressed a desire to retain the basic layout of the current main page. It seems rather obvious that no radical departure is going to garner consensus. —David Levy 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the redundant globe icon doesn't display properly in IE6. —David Levy 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with both User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft and User:Violetriga/inprogress, with the browse icons at the top. Before, I also had some concerns about the browse icons being below the featured content, as you'd miss them if you didn't scroll down. Now, you can't miss them, yet the featured content also looks great. On my monitor, Drumguy8800's version looks nice with the logo. Though, when I resized my browser, the logo overlaps the browse icons. That's my only concern now; I'm not sure of a good way to resolve that. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need these icons to be at the top? Isn't the ability to read the featured content without scrolling (or with less scrolling) more important than the ability to see pretty graphics (the function of which already is provided in text form) without scrolling?

The logo (which Drumguy appears to have abandoned) is even more problematic. It displays improperly in the most common browser, and it interferes with the actual content (particularly for users with low display resolutions and/or large text sizes). This is supposed to be WikiProject Usability, and the logo makes the page less usable. And besides, the logo already appears for most users on every page (via the default MonoBook skin). —David Levy 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I first put the Portal icons up they were right under the DYK and second feature. Restore the links on top and put the icons as the first thing below the boxes under the subsection "Explore Wikipedia", like before. As for the logo, I think the text wrap is something to avoid and if it doesn't display, get it out. Unless there's a compatability issue with IE and the version with the semi-transparent logo behind the links (which there of course its), I'll support that.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For reasons already explained by both of us, I think the second logo won't work well. I would greatly prefer how the browse topics are implemented on User:Violetriga/inprogress, as it works when resizing the browser. I think it's okay that one has to scroll down to see the rest of the featured content. It's obvious that there's more content and that one needs to scroll. On the contrary, having the browse icons buried below the featured content, I don't see it at all on my screen unless I think to scroll down. Many users won't though.

With the main page, we need to satisfy three goals (1) Allow people to browse and find information (though search and the browse interface) (2) Encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia (3) Showcase the featured content (the featured article encourages people to contribute and develop great content, ITN showcases the advantages of Wikipedia over other sources - that it's quickly updated with current information, etc., and keeps the main page fresh and interesting). All three goals are super important, and the key is finding the balance. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But why are the icons so important? All of the portal links already are present at the top. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need the icons at all, but they don't hurt anything (and look nice) below featured content. —David Levy 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true. However, we must have consensus and any big changes will not met consensus. I don't like that system, I think that the only way we'll make progress is through big changes, but the facts remain. I agree with what KMF164 is saying, people won't realize they have to scroll down, but if we have the links at the top AND the icons we can help mitigate the problem. I still agree with you, I'm just being a realist and I'm taking David Levy's solution.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

ANOTHER REVISION .. ADDRESSED COMPLAINTS

User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft First, my apologies for hastily putting a problematic revision up front.
Now then.. At first I was attempting to incorporate the second logo as a floating layer so that it would ride on top of three colors.. which looked kind of cool, but it wouldnt even display correctly in internet explorer. I have revised a lot of things and it seems to work flawlessly in Opera, Mozilla, Netscape, and Internet Explorer.
Please note that previously there were layout differences in spacing, especially in IE and Firefox. By previously, I mean the green/blue page. I've resolved these differences by removing most/all of the padding & margin tags which are notoriously interpreted differently in different browsers. I added divs that spaced between the header and columns, and spacing between the two columns. Everthing appears to be flush.. except for the two columns, which have 1 px of white border around them (collectively) but I can't figure out where that came from.
Again.. removed the second logo, like noted. I think things look smoother now.. comments..? drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I like how you provide links in the resurrected yellow bar to the stuff that's down low. I'm going to take out the Health Portal, though. Support the concept, deleting the cancerous nuance.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for reverting the box design, I'm actualy going to agree with you. That's a mjor help with winning a consensus (which I think Draft 6 will do). I'm going to fiddle with the color scheme a bit.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't work with the code to do this myself, but what if the first two lines of text (which, IMO, look out of place) wer moved into the yellow bar which would be made bigger to accomodate them? Or could the yellow extend up until the top of the page?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is in response to the revision proposed by Zocky on the "official" draft. The revision discussed here is User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft..

I'm afraid to place mine on the main page again..? Zocky's is drastically different from the previous version and my replacing it would be a problem again, probably. Should there be a list at the top of the (main not talk) page of all the different proposed revisions? Then one could vote between them and the current main page. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a major difference between Zocky (whcih I WAS commenting on, thanks for making that claer above, and I like that version the best) and the others (which have now been taken off with the edit summary "just kidding"). We should vote between Zocky and something along the lines of the other two before we split hairs on the little things.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Drumguy, I like your version a lot. My only complaint is that it's too colorful at the top-- the borders surrounding the top div are distracting. But it has a lot of improvements over the current revision. Ashibaka tock 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a javascript error in IE with the Script Debugger. Wasn't getting it about an hour ago Dandin1 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've refreshed multiple times in IE, don't see it. Might've been me messing with coding on the background section.. accidentally clicked 'save page' instead of 'show preview' in the middle of it and it might've been a slightly web-hostile (buggy) version. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One other concern I have is the quality of the portals. Though, it helps a lot that User:HereToHelp got rid of the health portal, which is really primative and only recently been edited by User:Go for it! and myself. On the other portals, we should make sure the categories are all presented in a uniform style and position on the page. And, ensure each portal is regularly maintained and updated (e.g. switching the featured articles). I'll do what I can, particularly with Portal:Geography.

One other issue is the name of the "Society" portal. Is this supposed to encompass social sciences? I'm not sure I'd think to look under "Society" for economics or law. And where would I find popular culture (e.g. television, video games, sports, food & drink, etc.)? I might think to look under culture, but don't see these apparant on the Culture portal. This is all an issue of sorting topics, which is another important usability aspect of a website. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. We should strive to get these up to be Featured Portals (nothing exists in a vacuum, does it? Or else we could focus on the Main Page alone!)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I went through the main portals in late December and cleaned them up considerably, but much remains to be done. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Portal. --cj | talk 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I would prefer to link just to the categories rather than just to the portals, but both of them do provide access to the articles, so it's no big deal. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to discuss A) whether we should have a yellow (or at least colored) verson of the header or a white one as David Levy has proposed. I think, however, most people agree the header, so long as it does not have a redundant search box, allows us to put stuff up top where people do not have to scroll down while doing it in a space efficent fashon. And B) should the boxes be the new form with the title in a separate colored area [5] or more like the current Main Page [6]? IMHO, I think the header looks better colored and keeping the boxes like they were, but separate with new colors, will help us get the consensus needed to "go live" with this revision. Anyone else want to add to that? --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Zocky's header format is practical and efficient. I disagree, however, with your other points.

Superficially, your preferred version might seem closer to the current main page. Structurally, however, my preferred version is much more similar.

Splitting the content into four boxes serves no apparent purpose, and it's relatively inelegant. The shaded heading bars, conversely, stylishly demarcate the various sections (without straying from the established two-box format).

Regarding the colors (of the header and the boxes), look at the comments on this page. Numerous users have explicitly opposed the needless use of multiple colors, which gives the page a childish, unprofessional appearance. In my assessment, simplicity is the key to this project.

Incidentally, my version does contain a book image in the header. If you don't see it, please bypass your cache. —David Levy 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the book image, but I liked the yellow. On the other hand, those top two lines looked very bad alone outside of the yellow header but they look better with the white one.

And, although some users may protest against the superficial differences with the new design, I see (and am starting to agree with) your point on the boxes. As long as it goes smoothly when we vote, go for it.

One more thing (this was brought up before but it somehow got lost): The words "Todays Featured Article" stand out much more than the actual name of the article. Does anyone have any thoughs on using "Todays Featured Article: Article name"? I'm not a strong supporter myself, I just thought I'd bring it up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• User:Violetriga/inprogress
• User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft
• User:Kmf164/Main page draft
• User:David Levy/Main2
• User:Ashibaka/Main (just revamped)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired)

These are all good drafts in their own ways. When we chose the Wikimedia logo, and the Wikipedia mascot, we took a straw poll on different people's ideas-- I think we could use the same process among these. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I most like the colour schemes of the first two listed. The other are OK, but I'd say the last draft has too much going on, and looks a little too fancy for what it is. Little images in blank spaces; it starts to look a bit like a pre-teen girl's bedroom. Harro. 5 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that, someone else did. In any case I do think we should hold a multiple-vote straw poll on this. Ashibaka tock 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's coming on Saturday.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that there are significant color variances, from monitor to monitor, for each draft. The color saturation/brightness that I mentioned previously (Re: User:David Levy/Main2 and the official draft from earlier today), is slightly less an issue on my laptop display but seemed much too bright on my LCD monitor. I did try adjusting the monitor settings, but colors still a bit too bright and bold. On my own draft, I just tried slightly darkening the colors to make them look better on my laptop. The colors on User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft do look different from my laptop to LCD monitor, but in both instances the colors look okay either way. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the colors in Drumguy's draft look terrible on my screen. The colors in your current draft look fine, but the heading bars are rather dark. Perhaps a compromise between your shades and mine would be suitable. —David Levy 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's evolved sufficiently since Draft 5. I'm happy with it. Her Pegship 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This happens on Saturday. I'm ready to face criticism, too—my well of ideas has run dry.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Health Portal is NOT one of the Top 10 subjects. Waht justification does it have to be there? Put it as a subset of Science or even better Anatomy or the Medicine Portal. Unless it is recognized as an equaly important branch of Wikipedia, which it currently isn't, please DO NOT re add it. Those Portals are not chosen arbitrarily, but rather they were hand picked. health is a science; it falls under that category. It has no business being on the Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the real problem here is the whole "Top 10" thing - very crass and unprofessional. Wikipedia is not a Letterman bit. I like this top bar a lot, actually, but there's got to be a better way to have links to the portals. Zafiroblue05 22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Top 10 category was created this month. (Before that, we had the Top 8.) You say that the portals "are not chosen arbitrarily, but rather they were hand picked," but I don't know what distinction you're drawing. Who decided what categories would be included, and why is this determination sacrosanct?

Note that I'm not arguing that the health portal should be included (because I'm not sure). —David Levy 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat my comments here, from above...

"it helps a lot that User:HereToHelp got rid of the health portal, which is really primative and only recently been edited by User:Go for it! and myself."

While I think that health is an important topic, the portal needs *a lot* of improvement before it's linked to from the main page. The Portal:Medicine is somewhat similar, and is much better. This discussion needs to go over to Wikipedia talk:Portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just copied the discussion from here (and above) about the Health portal and the overall quality/consistency of the portals to Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Main_page_redesign. This is something that needs work along with the main page design, in order to make it much easier for users to browse the content on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

HTH argues that the subject itself (irrespective of the portal's quality) is not "important" enough to warrant inclusion on the main page. This claim is based upon the fact that the health portal is not among the "top 10" categories. I'm wondering who compiled this list (and why it should be regarded as official). —David Levy 22:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the idea of "Top 10" works here. There's a difference between what topics are *significant* or distinct enough that they don't really fit well as subtopics. I would consider Health a key topic... look at http://dir.yahoo.com/. But, in order to add the Health portal link to the main page, I think that portal needs significant improvements, as it's only been edited recently by two of us. And, I'm not a health expert by any means, though have some knowledge of public health and can try to help. But really, the health portal needs more integration with the Medicine portal. We need to call on the people working on the medicine and health articles to help. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "because these are an official category, agreed on by consensus" but I already see the flaws in that argument. There was no consenus vote, and on a wiki, anything can be official. So I will present a new guideline: Put the Portals on the main page that are not subsets of other portals. this however, means Art goes under Culture, Tech goes under Science, Philosophy goes under either Science or Society, and maybe even Biography under Society or Culture and Geography under History. On the other hand, the Hebrew Main Page (although we've abandoned icons) has 20 topics! I'm not sure where I stand; perhaps we should judge by the quality of the Portals themselves.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I also copied the portal discussions to Portal_talk:Browse#Main_page_redesign. We need some central place for discussion of the browse topics and how they are categorized. I'm thinking of other shortcomings... I would think of "Portal:Business and Economics" as a main topic (e.g. most universities have their Business schools separate from Arts & Sciences, Humanities, Health/Medicine, Engineering, etc.). Another main topic *might* be "Law and Government", as I wouldn't think to look under society for them. And, I'm still unsure where to put topics like Sports, Games (e.g. video games), Television, ... On Portal:Browse, they're currently under "Arts" but that doesn't quite make sense to me. Maybe they could go under culture? --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In all, I think the main page design is coming along very well towards improved usability, with the browse topics. Maybe we should make a separate, parallel subset of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Portal or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Browse topics, and work on how the topics are organized and efforts to improve the Portals. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making a molehill out of a mountain. I say we need to decide which topics to use once and for all. However, WikiProject Usability seems like a good home for this. I say let's take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Top Portals and sort this out, making an over arching decision for all of Wikipedia.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can decide right now, once and for all. There is a difference between what topics might be considered main topics and should be on the main page, versus which portals are adequate quality and consistency to be linked from the main page. We need to address this gap. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a small thing but perhaps people should read this Nature article, which basically says that the first impression of a website is made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing. If all they see are text and mute colors we may be seen as a page not worth looking at.

A long these lines, I like the way the header looks now with the book in the background. I think it would also look good if the magnifying glass was returned to the right side of the header box. And perhaps an understated object could go in the backgorund of the Featured article, etc boxes. I think this would add a look of profesionalism to the page. (Like someone was actually getting paid to stylize Wikipedia and grab the attention of new users).

I'd also like to see the Pic of the Day be a major part of the page but I think that's too much to ask for right now. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No...see just below.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Trevor for promoting the idea that the POTD should be on the main page everyday and not just on weekends. And don't worry, it's not too much to ask for. It is within our capabilities to provide. There are three obstacles which we would have to overcome to provide this feature:

1. Having the POTD everyday would create 5 boxes instead of 4 and would unbalance the columns creating a lot of empty space. We'd need a 6th feature to restore that balance.
2. Break the picture free of its formatting. The picture of the day comes pre-formatted with its own heading and a (thick purple). We'd have to coordinate with whomever is preparing the POTD day-pages (they're dated), and ask them to prepare another version daily without the formatting. (The main page needs all the formatting elements centralized on itself, so that their style can be coordinated).
3. Turn "Did you know" into a daily feature also, so that we don't have duplicate POTD's on weekend days.

We might not work this out by this Saturday, but I have a feeling we're going to be working on this project a bit longer than that.

Check out the imbedded formatting (border and heading):

I think we can deal with the three obstacles you mention. As for 5 boxes, how about making the "Wikipedia community" and/or "Sister projects" fit in one column rather than spanning the two? We could also make the size of the featured picture slightly smaller. A bigger deal is having DYK done on the weekends, but sure it can be done. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What if we changed the pic of the days' format? The page that gets changed only has the name of the image. Then people can do [[{{this is the page that gets changed}}|any modifications like size here]] and builf the frame and whatever around it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we have more real estate with the new header format, I suggest we use it to greatest advantage. And since the browsebar that's all over Wikipedia has "Portals" prominently set in its top line, perhaps we should keep "Portals" on our top line for the sake of familiarity and compatibility. That would give us one more open slot to fill in the block of portals (we've got 11 portals listed there at the moment).

What should the 12th portal be???

--Go for it! 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's any need to extend the main portals. I find that the existing ten already somewhat duplicate each other. Portal:Health is not and should not be a top-level entry point - in fact, it should probably be merged into Portal:Medicine. But this page is not the place for discussion of changes to the portal hierarchy - please continue that at Wikipedia talk:Portal.--cj | talk 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The main page is the top of the Portal hierarchy, and the top of most of the hierarchies of Wikipedia. And since this is a feedback generating forum, it's the perfect place to find out if users prefer a dozen top portals to ten on the main page. And, if the feedback is negative, we can easily pull the extra portals. There's no sense in not finding out. Besides, so far efforts to place the expanded browsebar selection of portals onto the main page have failed. So the only truly appropriate course of action is to discuss it as a main page issue and a portal hierarchy issue. --Go for it! 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page is not part of the hierarchy itself. The problem is, concerns were already raised Template:MainPageIntro that the hierarchy was imperfect - and not just because of sizing issues. None of the templates you've changed are incorporated in this design. If you wish to change the arrangement, please discuss it where it was formulated.--cj | talk 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tried swapping Portal:Health with Portal:Medicine on the main page draft. I agree with cj that maybe both should be merged. Medicine seems slightly too narrow and doesn't seem to deal with broader health topics like epidemiology and public health. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semantically, medicine is a subcategory of health. Medicine would therefore fall under both health and science in the hierarchy. Notice that the top of the hierarchy reads almost like the section titles of a newspaper. Health is a major section of most major newspapers, right up there with People and Lifestyle (Culture). --Go for it! 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with you. We need to work on getting the Health portal improved and seek out help from those involved in the relevant medicine and other articles. Until then, I would keep Medicine as the topic or just not have either on the main page (yet). --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Medicine is a subset of science and easily access from there. Newcomers often overlook the "Help" link in the navigation bar, so I put that in the place of Medicine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That works for me, until time that the Health portal is a 'top' portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The health portal is now complete. --Go for it! 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Featured article
2. Picture of the day
3. Did you know...
4. In the news
5. On this day
6. ?????

Someone mentioned Quote of the day from Wikiquote, in an earlier discussion. But would that fill enough room to balance the columns?

Do you have any other ideas?

--Go for it! 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia news? Word AND quote of the day? Wikipedia tip of the day? Today's Featured Portal/List?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew version separates the holidays from "On this day". the holidays appear at the top of OTD bolded.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some languages have Recent Deaths on the front page. I think de: is one. that would take us up to six.--Cherry blossom tree 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, we intend to propose modifications to the main page's layout/interface, but I feel that we should leave the fundamental content alone for now.

In other words, issues such as whether we should make "Picture of the Day" and "Did you know..." seven-day features (along with an additional entry) should be decided independently. There might be consensus for one set of changes (but not the other), and we don't want people to oppose the entire redesign because they view it as a package deal.

The addition of the "Wikipedia community" section should be uncontroversial, but I don't think that we should go any further than that. —David Levy 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think fundamental content should be changed if there is a change. This is a major issue and I guess we shouldn't be affraid of discussing on fundamental things. --Quinlan Vos 11:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The whole point is to redesign the page, not just arrange it so it looks better. If we encounter problems, like "which Portals are main the Partals" and "The Picture of the Day needs to be reformatted for us to use" only means that we are uncovering a few of the flaws in Wikipeda's structure. We should fix them and then incorporate them into the draft.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a major difference between the issues that you cite above and the concept of devising new featured content!

The page's static information certainly can be expanded to some extent, but an idea requiring people to regularly author an enormous amount of additional material is a proposal unto itself. We should be concentrating primarily upon improving the manner in which the existing information is presented (not in inventing new features out of whole cloth). —David Levy 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think fundamental content should be changed if there is a change.

So...it is an all-or-nothing proposition? If we don't radically alter the page's content, we shouldn't change anything?

This is a major issue and I guess we shouldn't be affraid of discussing on fundamental things.

I didn't say that they shouldn't be discussed. I said that they should be discussed separately. —David Levy 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with David on this point. Let's take these issues/proposals separately. Ditto, for my suggestion about the Health portal and overall organization of the portals/topics. As for the sixth content item, I don't think we need it. The Sister projects and/or other languages could be formatted to just one column, rather than spanning two. This would allow the Featured picture to go in the other column. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, we really need to be working within the main page's established parameters. I don't object to the idea of proposing major changes to the featured content, but attempting to create the layout for an as-yet unapproved (and barely discussed) setup is a textbook example of putting the cart before the horse.

And incidentally, it doesn't make sense to place the "community" links within one of the colored boxes, because they're supposed to contain featured (changing) content, not static (unchanging) information. —David Levy 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Help" is now listed in the banner, in addition to the left sidebar. "Introduction" is above the banner, where both "ask a question" (which goes to the same page) and Wikipedia are prominently displayed. "Current events" is listed twice: left sidebar and at the bottom of "In the news". Wikipedia:Browse "Categories" and Portal:Browse "All portals" are both right at the top, which without a thorough investigation look to be the same page. I understand why all this is there, but perhaps some brevity would be better than making people's eyes glaze over with all this thoroughness. What are your thoughts on this? --24.26.178.224 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Questions" mostly re-refers to "Reference Desk", "Help", and "Village Pump" (which are all linked to directly on the main page). "Overviews" again looks indistinguishable from both "Categories" and "All Portals". --24.26.178.224 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Many users overlook the navigation bars. Repetition is good when it reinforces what you want to say ("If you need help, go here") and doesn't take up too much real estate, which it does not.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may translate from the German Main Page in the upper lefthand corner[7]:

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is a project to construct a free encyclopedia in more than 100 languages. Everyone can contribute their knowledge directly with their browser. Begun in May 2001, there are 343,398 articles in the German language. Good authors are always welcome - the first step is easy!

More information about Wikipedia

I think this is very clear (and both links go to the same place). I would guess with the English Wikipedia, most people who don't know what is going on are going to click "anyone can edit" - because that is so surprising. The hazard with redundency is that there is no clear entry point, and it can quickly give the impression of a complicated maze. I know this was the case with me. P.S. I like a lot of what is going on here, just wanted to share my opinion. --24.26.178.224 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we welcome anonomous users ("anons") to Wikipedia so long as they aren't vandals. I agree with the above that there should be a clear place to start.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That contributor didn't apologize for anything, so I don't know why you are saying "No need to apologize". Anyway, many vandals have handles, and some 'anonymous' users are just too lazy to log in... :-) I do have a serious point to raise about the impression that Wikipedia is a "complicated maze", but I'll do that in a new comment. 62.31.128.13 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently getting a (fairly insignificant) horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Is there anything can be done about this? Are we aiming to make it work for even smaller screens, too, or is everyone at least 800x600 these days?--Cherry blossom tree 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"926,960 free encyclopedia articles that anyone can edit"

or

"926,960 free articles that anyone can edit"?

The second one sounds much better. It fits on one line without wrapping on my 800x600 screen too. --24.26.178.224 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Now that I look at the page again, I think all we need is "926,960 articles that anyone can edit". The Wikipedia logo in the top-left corner already says "The Free Encyclopedia" so I think we can do without "free" and "encyclopedia". --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing "free" from the above wording (because I think that you meant to exclude it).

I wholeheartedly support this change. In addition to the logo that appears in MonoBook (the default skin), the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." would appear directly above the welcome message on the actual main page. —David Levy 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I originally changed the page to be "xxx articles that anyone can edit" and HereToHelp added "free" in there. I actually like it, and it still fits nicely on a single line in 800x600. But whichever way is fine with me. --24.26.178.224 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We've got our own picture feed now.

The Template:POTD column is transcluded in the draft. It in turn calls a subpage by date. Here are the page names of the upcoming subpages, the first few of which I've already stocked (Instructions, if you need them are on Template talk:POTD column):

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 20, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 21, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 22, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 23, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 24, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 25, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 26, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 27, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 28, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 29, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 30, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/January 31, 2006

Wikipedia:POTD column/February 1, 2006

The pictures that need to be converted show up on the following pages (easy to find on all pages):

• Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 2006
• Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 2006
• etc.

--Go for it! 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: But now we have a slight problem...

"Did you know" only runs five days, and then gives way to Picture of the day (they share a feed). So we'll have duplicate pictures of the day if we don't create our own "Did you know" feed.

I'm working on it, but don't hesitate to jump in and help.

(You could also start looking for a 6th feature, as I assume Wikipedia Community is in the column only temporarily).

Yeeeeeeeeeehaw!

--Go for it! 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see the difference between the previous changes and the ones that you just made? No one has agreed to author a "Did you know..." feed over the weekend (let alone a sixth feature), so we're left with a layout that cannot be sustained under the current system.

Until now, we had a design that theoretically could have been dropped into the main page (with only minor, one-off changes to the transclusion setup), and everything would have worked. That no longer is the case.

Basically, you've changed the question that we're asking the Wikipedia community:

"Should reconfigure the main page to have a different interface"?

has become

"Should we turn the main page upside down, and create something dramatically different that requires more work and forces us to devise a feature that doesn't yet exist?"

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that, but it should be a separate proposal. Otherwise, many people are going to take one glance at our work, think of it as a package deal, and reject everything ("If that's how it's going to be, just leave the current main page alone!"). How do I know this? Because it's already happened (on this very page) with additions as trivial as icons and bright colors!

And quite frankly, I'm not pleased with the current design. It requires that a great deal of empty space exist (which I just shifted from "Today's Featured Picture" to "Did you know..."), and it pushes "Did you know..." right off of the screen. And have you looked at the page in Microsoft Internet Explorer recently? I assume that you haven't, because it's broken.

I don't mean to belittle the effort that you've put into this, but I believe that you're combining two proposals that should be kept separate. —David Levy 13:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

While I like the idea of the featured picture on the main page, I just don't think having 6 featured items is a good idea. It's just too much on the main page. I think we should just leave as-is, with feature picture on the weekend. Though, maybe way down the road, Wikipedia can become personalized like http://my.yahoo.com/ or http://news.google.com/, where each user can choose in "my preferences" which features they want on the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Six boxed items is overwhelming, and the current four-item setup seems appropriate. —David Levy 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm on dial-up until my ISP figures out why cable is messed up. Four items loaded in a reasonable amount of time. Six items do not. After it loaded it looked awful, with gobs of wasted space. As a smelly chunk of the lowly masses, can I vote early here just 4 boxes, please? Metarhyme 17:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that perspective. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to us to second guess the masses. They'll let us know starting Saturday what they think. A lot of people over the last few voting rounds have been clammering for Picture of the day. I kept telling them it wasn't possible because 1) The formatting (heading and border) were incompatible with our design, and 2) it was already coupled with Did you know. So there's no harm in leaving it in, because on Saturday we'll find out if users generally think there's too much material on the draft or not. And thanks to Trevor (who challenged me by sticking it in there), I spent too many hours trying to figure out how to make it and the other requested features work to let all that time go down the drain without getting a voting session's worth of feedback. We'll have plenty of time during the next editing session to adjust for users' desires. --Go for it! 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You seem to believe that you're in charge of this project. You aren't. People are complaining about your design, and you're basically telling them that you've made an executive decision. You can't do that (regardless of how many hours you've spent).

2. The proposed establishment of weekend "Did you know..." installments (and some as-yet undetermined additional feature) goes beyond the scope of the main page design, and therefore would require a separate consensus.

3. The most common type of input has not been a request to expand "Today's featured picture" to seven days, but has been a desire to not make any major changes to the main page's structure. We're never going to garner community consensus with a dramatically different design, and any attempt to do so will merely generate opposition to the general idea of modifying the main page. —David Levy 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it at four features, as per above (loading time, space, a tendency to not scroll down, complicated formatting, and the consensus for minimal change). There's a lot of work in changing the format for the second feature. David levy, I agree entirely that Go for it! is taking too much control (15 consecutive edits, jeez!) but I also think that we should not be bound by consensus. That consensus, however, will not like the introduction of a 6th feature and major formatting issues for two of them. Remember the KISS principle. It will be very clear that people do not like the new features tomorrow. Go for it! (ha ha) if you like and run it by them. All I say is show them what we have with four features and make sure it's clear that this is not a package deal. I think they'll say they like it with four feature better, but go ahead and ignore me if you're sure—just expect a lot of "I-told-you-so"s.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses.

1. First, let me point out that the IE glitch predates my changes. Click here to see. I'm trying to track down the glitch now.
2. Second, nobody is claiming being in charge. Haven't you figured my role out yet? I'm here to stir things up! How have I done so far - this project's really rockin', huh? Though I didn't mean to stir you up quite so much. *good humored chuckle* True, my statement was rather strongly put - I think we all feel strongly in our views, and me expressing mine sure brought out yours! I admire your dedication to this project. And personally, I like all the versions (except the supermulticolored rough-up of the Italian page) and have something completely different in mind other than simple POV pushing. I didn't even see most of the alternate versions until I started looking for the glitch you reported! Wow. I'm impressed.
3. Third, our consensus does matter to me, and I believe we are in agreement: we're here to serve the community. The important question is "Are we following the consensus presented in the feedback?" The main consensus so far has been to keep the current main page. So if we we're to go with that consensus, we might as well just shut the project down and change the actual main page piecemeal one tiny element at a time (which we may wind up doing anyways). The point is, we're trying to build consensus for a new main page by designing something that will knock their socks off. Each round is an attempt to change their minds about the current main page. And the current main page certainly isn't our consensus.  ;)
4. Fourth, I agree about the whole package deal thing, but if consensus is overwhelming in any particular direction, on any particular point, we can move on that. The drafts are just a frame of reference to generate that feedback. What would be really cool is if a couple thousand people came in here and expressed their opinions. Now that would be an accomplishment.
5. Fifth, if I do go out on a limb and try something, be sure that I help others try their ideas too. I assumed there would be more than 6 drafts before ratification, giving plenty of opportunity for everyone to get their ideas across. And public opinion is brutal - anyone brave enough to stick their neck out is likely to get their head chopped off. Mine's been chopped off here (on Wikipedia) several times. So, I don't mind waiting until Draft 7, 8, or 9, or even the next (or another) redesign project to try out the 6-feature idea. I'm not married to it. But at least now it exists, and can be put to use (remember FireFox).

We don't have much time left, so whatever we do, we need to do pretty quick. So rather than engage in lengthy debates, let's just work together and let the result flow. I'll step back and tweak things here and there. I'll meet you on the draft page, and at the end of this one. --Go for it! 01:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond to the remainder of your post, I'll say this:

If you're willing to put the 6-feature idea on hold (pending the outcome of the separate discussion that should occur), I'll unfork the draft right now. I truly believe that this would be the best course of action, but I don't intend to force my opinion on anyone. It's up to you. —David Levy 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless somebody knows some trick for erasing text from a transcluded article, we can't just transclude Did You Know, because it contains an imbedded heading. Which will clash with our heading...

$%^&*(%^&*()

*LIGHT BULB*

We can overlap the incoming heading with a blank heading (with the background turned on). I hope transparency works.

I'm going to try it.

--Go for it! 10:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have worked. Sort of. It moves around a little when you change screen size.

Are em's proportional? I'll try that next... Yep, em's work. I've tested it on Firefox and IE.

We've got ourselves a continuously updated Did You Know feed, folks!

Trevor, you inspired me.

--Go for it! 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This won't be a problem later: we can just remove the header because the template will have to work with this page, not the current Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was able to blank out the heading and use negative margins (top and left) to line the template's heading up where the blanked out heading was, thus overlapping it with the blanked out heading's background.

However, there's a line of code in the template that says "div style="float:right; margin-left: 0.5em;" that seems to cause the background of the heading below it to expand up to the previous header.

I added 17 hard carriage returns (br), and it pushed it back down, though there's variable space there now, depending how big or small your text size is adjusted to.

Does anyone know what is going on with this, and how to fix it?

We need to replace the 17 carriage returns with a better solution.

I think it has something to do with "float". Can we lock the template down somehow inside another div container, using some kind of command to anchor it?

If we lick this problem, we'll have a fully operational "live" news feed, making the whole page fully operational!

--Go for it! 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, we can modify the templates themselves when we are ready to "go live".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index · Mobile

i am not known to the procedure with proposals to the main page so please move this one to the appropriate place if this way is not the way to do - thank you - User:Trigan777

moved from the draft page to here for discussion by Go for it! 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who here knows anything about mobile internet browsing?

Please describe how much and in what format such a user sees on his device at any given time.

--Go for it! 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

FireFox did it! He found a simple solution to the heading bleed. And by the way, check out his user page...

Look familiar? --Go for it! 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee, where have I seen that before?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of discussion over redesigns of the Main Page, and my question is what should the ultimate aim be? Should it be to have something as simple as possible that as many people as possible can use (call this the MAIN PAGE)? Then fix this in stone, but make clear that it is a simple template that most people should modify to create their own main page. Anyone who comes along with a bright idea or personal preference for layout, can then create their own version (probably in their user space) and use it as their personal "entry point". Kind of similar to using RSS feeds, or having a skin. This would avoid the countless edit wars I've seen over minor points of style and trying to fix a page to suit a few types of users, rather than leaving it flexible enough for all users to use it in their own way. Maybe I'm missing something and this wouldn't be workable, or is already possible, but I'd sure like to see a range of styles and "Main Page" designs available to pick and choose from. You would also be able to change things over time as you moved around different areas of Wikipedia, altering your personal "home page" to 'retire' the old interests and add the new ones. 62.31.128.13 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) — copied here from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability#Customizable_Main_Page.3F --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. However, the HTML work would be horrendous. Also, it's a hassle to keep your own page updated. The programing would be a mess. People can just customize their own userpages, like FireFox did. And to tell the computer how to do that...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)DID I MENTION THE PROGRAMING???

In the future, way down the road and beyond the scope of this project, I think it might be possible to have a customizable main page, like you can customize google news, yahoo, etc. by selecting which content items you want (e.g. weather, sports...) , and positioning them. In the meantime, sure it's possible for those inclined to go ahead and create their own version of the main page in their user space. (it is possible to have personal customizations of monobook.css and monobook.js in your user space too). --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments so far. I like some of the ideas and drafts I've seen around here. Does anyone have a fairly comprehensive listing of the many different drafts and versions that have been suggested, so that I can compare them, and try and pick and match ideas I like for a personalised UserMainPage(TM)? Is all the featured content on Wikipedia centred around the Main Page, or do other areas have constantly updating featured content? One thing I wanted to try and incorporate was having the Wikipedia: Signpost content appear as a feed, rather than clicking a link to go to it (goes and checks)... DOH! I see there is an RSS feed there already. I've been away too long! :-) 62.31.128.13 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another alternative to worrying so about what exactly is presented on the Main opening page— Which I agree should be a cross between something that showcases the capabilities of Wikipedia (which is an argument for the current layout including the "article of the day," etc.) and a guide to how to obtain the information (a non-contributing) user might be looking for.

My solution would be also to provide a repeat user with a "Toolset" page one can open upon (that one could bookmark), and that one can (1) modify in accordance with one's wishes, and (2) provide a rigorous "Starter toolset" into the heart of wikipedia.

One example is Wikipedia:Starter toolset, which I am in process of majorly upgrading. Suggestions are strongly solicited. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think most people find their own ways of doing this. I for one have a "recent changes" style bookmark which I always use, and many others use their user page (or subpage thereof) to create a customisable entrance. violet/riga (t) 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to fork the page into two separate versions. Instead of a single "Draft 6," we'll have "Draft 6A" and "Draft 6B." We'll allow the respondents to decide which setup is preferable, and that can be moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (with the longer revision history intact). —David Levy 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're a mind reader. You came pretty close to what I was thinking. --Go for it! 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But you forked prematurely. We need to find that IE formatting glitch. --Go for it! 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't know what glitch you're referring to. (The problem that I referenced related to the spacing, and it was fixed by FireFox.)

2. Whatever the problem is, the eventual fix can be applied to both drafts almost simultaneously. —David Levy 01:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added drumguy's draft with the browse icons as the third choice, as I still have some doubts about the brightness of the colors on the main drafts. We can just see what feedback we get. Also, I fixed the vote numbering. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In IE, the formatting is off. Can you see it? The margins and the padding is all screwed up. Compare browsers and get back to me. --Go for it! 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see some minor differences (an unavoidable condition), but nothing looks "screwed up." —David Levy 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)