Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive open editing session: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m {{talkarchive}} |
m update sig using AWB |
||
Line 63:
The argument that the icons cause wrapping on some browsers, so we shouldn't have them at all, seems negative, unconstructive, and if you ask me unprofessional.. i mean, i know very little about wiki-markup, but surely this is a fixable non-issue. [[User:131.111.8.96|131.111.8.96]] 15:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:I had tried small icons (I don't necessarily care which icon set), on [[User:Kmf164/Main page draft|Draft K]], as a way to prominently accomodate both the browse portals and the search box. This solution used the same amount of space in and below the header as both the current draft, and sean's proposal. But, didn't get much response (positive or negative) to Draft K, except for some people outright objecting to icons. --[[User:
::Although Draft K may use the same amount of space, the portal icons and links are much bigger, and seem more in-your-face.. in the layout in sean's version they seem tidy; i still think it's possible to make an acceptable draft with icons.. or am i dreaming? [[User:131.111.8.97|131.111.8.97]] 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 69:
::Sorry, i should sign in before i post comments.. i've been the 131.111.8.x user. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't know about the icons... they don't jump out at me as "i love them". But I don't hate them either (though I think others do). Another problem is that with icons, the list of portals takes up more space in the header. Whereas, with the bulleted lists, I think there's more room to add portals in the future. --[[User:
::::And I think few people have reacted negatively to the bulleted list format. --[[User:
:<font style="color:#00A650;">''I'm unimpressed with the way some (i.e. David Levy) are handling the portal icon situation.. it seems very unconstructive.''</font>
Line 183:
*[[Egypt]] Wins African Nations Cup for the fifth time, after defeating Ivory Coast in Cairo after Kick offs. {{unsigned|Jumpster}}
:We pull {{tlp|In the news|}} from the same place the current main page does, so have nothing to do with deciding what news goes there. If you want to suggest something, you can do so at [[Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates]]. This particular item has already been suggested, and you can add your opinion there. --[[User:
== A question ==
Line 217:
What do you all think? --[[User:81.104.41.42|81.104.41.42]] 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:It had been part of the search box ("search 967,241 articles:"), but with where the search box is now, there's no space there for it. It's logical to put the article count in the heading, with "Welcome to Wikipedia". The article count is on the current main page, and is an important tradition to keep. Especially so, as Wikipedia approaches the 1,000,000 articles milestone. --[[User:
::The article count remains on the page (in a context that directly relates to article counts, so it's unlikely to be interpreted as a proclamation that quantity is of the utmost importance). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 227:
:Regarding the edit war, I contacted [[User:The Tom|The Tom]] after his most recent insertion of the article count. He <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Levy&diff=39256873&oldid=39230605 agreed]</span> that there are legitimate arguments against its inclusion in the header, and indicated that he would not protest its removal —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the explanation. It worked okay with the search box, but I can't think of any better, more elegant way to include the count in the header as we have it now. --[[User:
::::Tom has also made it very clear that he dislikes "the free encyclopedia" to be repeated when it is available right below the jigsaw globe. I disagree and think that is our unofficial slogan, and we should keep it. I did try a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=38987231 compromise] (pay attention only to the header), but I was reverted.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 372:
::Nine has worked fine until now; what's wrong with them? 12 makes the header feel too big vertically. It also pushes stuff down. The Portal itself is not very good anyway (dull clors, rarely updated, etc.).--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm concerned that putting the term "Business" on the main page seems like an invitation for businesses to write [[Wikipedia:Vanity|vanity]] articles and add spam. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not]] a business directory. Economics is more of a scholarly, academic topic and businesses are part of the economy. But, if we can go with just the nine topics, that's fine. --[[User:
The Economics portal can easily be made ready before March 1st, and I would see to it personally if it and the 12 portals are listed in the header. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 442:
:You mean the title on the colored bars, but the text on white? Interesting. Considering that's something that the current main Page didn't do either, I don't think we've recently or seriously considered it.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== --[[User:
I'm not soliciting votes or anything, but I thought you'd like to know that one of the most active participants here is up for RfA at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmf164]]. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 467:
::Yeah. Go for it! may still object (being the primary supporter of 12 Portals), even after hearing (well, reading) your logic, so I want to get an okay from him/her (I hate when people don't tell you their gender!) before we go ahead and remove them. The other thing is that removing the Portals willmove the other stuff up on to that first screen that people see (only about 10 pixels, but does help).--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd say stick with the 8 that are currently on the main page, and then work separately on the issue of portals. Though, I know that Go for it!'s done a great job with the Philosophy portal and would consider it as the ninth. I'd prefer people to judge the design, in it's own right, and not be thinking "why isn't my portal there?". Someone above mentioned the issue of "social sciences"... which currently falls under the "society" portal. And the distinction between "society" and "culture" is unclear to me. In usability testing and web design, there is a method of card sorting to get an idea of how people organize and think about topics. I think we can do a bit more to improve the organization of topics and portals, but should keep it separate from the main page design project. --[[User:
For the record, I'm a guy. The selection of 12 portals is about as close as we are going to get to a top-tier of the overall structure. There are 3 main reasons for this:
Line 474:
#Going one way or the other, would result in the wrong ''feel''. Too stuffy or too casual. The above selection provides the best of both worlds, and gets pretty close to optimizing access to underlying subject areas. Semantic parent/offspring relationships between the subjects, vs overlap, is irrelevant. The absolutely most important criteria is how easily the user can find what he or she is looking for. With too few subjects, we force them to search longer with more clicks. With too many, we force them to browse a list to hunt for the right area. But a matrix of an even dozen is easy on the eyes, not too many, not too few. And all major categories are covered in about as few words as possible for that many subjects.<br><br>--[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::What about [[Arts]]? It's also a key section of the newspaper and a distinct academic area. That would give us thirteen topics, which is too many. Maybe I would get rid of Politics, in favor of Arts. --[[User:
:::We obviously have a variety of opinions of what should be included, and this is one of the main reasons why it would be best to add as few new portals as possible. All of this can be decided later, and it deserves far more discussion/input than we're capable of providing. I also agree with Kmf164 that we shouldn't complicate the vote in this manner. This truly is a separate question, and it should be treated as such. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 489:
Culture and Society overlap almost completely (they are invariably interwined - culture implies society while being an aspect thereof. Meanwhile, all societies have culture and each society throughout history is a culture - Mayan, Aztec, British, French, etc.). The two terms are almost synonymous. And while Art is a subcategory of Culture, my guess is that most users would skip Culture and go straight to Art if given the choice. Culture is the most ambiguous subject currently on the list, and the best candidate for replacement. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:For the issue of portals, I think discussion needs to be raised separately on [[Wikipedia talk:Portal]]. Whatever the outcome of discussions on [[Wikipedia talk:Portal]], it will impact the main page. With the matrix of portal links, we have some flexibility on the number of portal links and room for additions, if we start with just 8 or 9 now. --[[User:
I just checked over the drafts from the poll. The minimum number of portals in any of the drafts displayed in Round 6 was ten. So where the heck did nine come from all of a sudden? That's shrinking the number below the minimum! Most of the drafts have 11 or more, and those that use a matix have 12. Nine wasn't even visited and therefore has no consensus in the draft poll at all. Nine is clearly not an issue. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:The current main page has 8 portal links. If we agree to add philosophy, then we have nine. The proposed designs all had somewhat arbitrary selection of portals. --[[User:
::It's not "a portal" issue, it's the subject hierarchy used throughout Wikipedia, including categories, lists, overview articles, etc. The portal page isn't even as big a venue as this page, and would be limiting participation and visibility. The Main Page discussion page (and by extension, this discussion page) have far more visibility and relevance, since the Main Page itself is the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy. (And it wasn't long ago that the browsebar and the main page sported categories only, not portals.) --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]]
Line 509:
:::::As Kmf164 noted, this venue has hosted very little discussion on the topic, and we certainly haven't arrived at a consensus. I didn't say that this should be resolved at the portal page, but it's clear that it hasn't been resolved here or anyplace else. Meanwhile, there's talk of reorganizing the hierarchy, and that absolutely should be addressed '''before''' we add portals that we later need to remove (but aren't realistically able to). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The number of portal links is one thing, while deciding which portal links they should be is another. Discussion of which portal links to include has been very minimal. I think only [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Portal_links]] touched the issue, but this discussion was buried within all the other discussions at the time. Only a few users weighed in, and even at that, I don't see much consensus. --[[User:
::::But there is a standard already in use all over Wikipedia, and it hasn't gotten much in the way of negative feedback, yet a great many people use it. The browsebar has 11 topics, 10 of those on the matrix. For the sake of continuity, it makes sense for us not to deviate too far from that standard. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 541:
::::Oh yeah, that's right, we want them to hear "Welcome to Wikipedia" not a series of links that don't make sense. Dropping all charges.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't have a problem with labeling the box, "search". The go button is like Google's "I'm feeling lucky", which I think most people are familiar with. And if no matches come up, go provide a list of search results. However, I'm not entirely opposed to changing "search" to "find" either. It would require a simple change to the mediawiki software, which can be requested via BugZilla. That's how we got the "searchBody" id tag added for the search div box. Given consensus on making this change, I think the request could be granted. --[[User:
:I don't care for the yellow background. I have suggested before to do little more than add a subtle yellow glow around the actual searchbox. We can use the same colour that is used above for the selected tab, for consistency. The yellow background rather breaks with the general tone of the page, which is made up of blue and white boxes. -- [[User talk:Ec5618|Ec5618]] 15:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 561:
:Makes sense. I '''support'''. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Support'''--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. I don't think it's feasible. The software draws the name for both from [[MediaWiki:Search]]. If we were to request a change to the software on Bugzilla, the change would impact all other language Wikipedias, and other projects (e.g. Wikinews, ...). However, changes like border or background color can be implemented with changes to monobook. --[[User:
::I don't know what you mean regarding wikis in other languages. "Search" is an English word, and each language already uses its own equivalent. Furthermore, the English language version of the <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&useskin=cologneblue Cologne Blue]</span> skin already uses the "find" designation. It makes considerably more sense, so why shouldn't all of the other skins incorporate a consistent label? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, this might be a little complicated to explain, but I'll try... With monobook.php, all wikis use the same term ($variable) for the search box label and button. This variable is drawn from [[MediaWiki:Search]]. In English, we have set this to "search", while in French, they set it to [[:fr:MediaWiki:Search|"Rechercher"]], etc. To make "search" above the box, different from "search" in the button, would require an adding a new variable to MediaWiki software, such as [[MediaWiki:Searchtitle]]. The developers would then have to modify the monobook.php file and tell it to use $searchtitle for the title of the search box. Then, we would have to go into [[MediaWiki:Searchtitle]] and set it to "find". But, all the other language Wikipedia's would also have to set [[MediaWiki:Searchtitle]] to whatever it should be in their language. Though, maybe there is a way for the developers to do this automatically. As for CologneBlue, the CologneBlue.php file hard-codes the term "Find" and "Search" into the skin, rather than using the variable from [[MediaWiki:Search]]. I hope this explanation is clear. I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you're suggesting, but this change is a bit more involved than modifying a .css file. --[[User:
::::Thanks very much for providing such a thorough explanation. I now understand what you mean, but it seems to me that this could easily be handled by automatically assigning [[MediaWiki:Search]]'s value to the new variable by default (which I believe you alluded to). Of course, I'm not a developer, but I think that this is worth looking into. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
* Give the search box a highlighted background color(#F7F7DF), or a highlighted color border (either a hyperlink blue(#0000CD), or the current "selected tab" border color(#FABD23) as Ec5618 suggested).
Line 570:
:Highlighted would be nice. Any of these would be fine. :-) I '''Support.''' --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. Makes it look like an eyesore on the side of the screen, constantly distracting you, and people see it if anyway they bother looking on the sidebar (as I said above).--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Neutral'''. I supported this change, in event we omitted the second search box, and still might if the colors are very subtle. Example #3 is too bold for my tastes. Example number one or two might be okay with me. --[[User:
::the blue is actually very subtle within the whole page. i'll enlarge my screenshots. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]
:'''Question''' - if one can move or alter the search box in the sidebar, why not remove it altogether from the main page, and keep the search box somewhere in the header? That removes redundancy and emphasizes the search more. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 18:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 590:
== All portals? ==
There's some debate over what to call the ninth link... "All portals", "Other...", "More topics...". I agree with Urthogie that the term "portals" isn't exactly clear to the newbie. In my mind, I think portals = topics. But, all topics don't (yet) have portals. So, think "More" is a better term than "All". That's how I came up with "More topics...", but I'm open to other suggestions. Also, does [[Portal:Browse]] really include *all* portals? It might, but I'm not sure. --[[User:
:In my opinion, it's important to convey the fact that these are ''portal'' links. Our ''categories'' system is a parallel grouping of "topics," and we need to note the distinction. The link in question was relocated from below the header box (where it previously was labeled "Portals," which is how it's labeled on the current main page). If someone doesn't know what our "portals" are, they'll learn upon visiting them. And if [[Portal:Browse]] doesn't include all of the portals, that's a problem in need of correction. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 15:55/15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 598:
:::I agree. Regarding the main page itself, my concern is that the word "topics" applies to both portals and categories. In other words, it doesn't adequately convey the nature of the links in question. Even if someone is unfamiliar with the difference between "portals" and "categories," they should be made aware that the distinction exists. This can be accomplished only via the use of consistent terminology. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Again, beyond the scope of this project... but ideally category topics should be incorporated into the portals, as done with [[Portal:Australia]]. In my mind, categories serve the editors more than people browsing Wikipedia. Categories help with maintenance and building topic structures, and include things such as [[:Category:Australia stubs]] and [[:Category:WikiProject Australia]]. To the reader, I think that Portals should be presented as the means for browsing topics. --[[User:
:::::As a reader (both before and after I began editing), I've made far more use of the categories system than I have of the portals. It's a legitimate means of browsing, and I don't believe that it should be relegated to secondary status. I realize that the portals seem more inviting to some users (especially newbies), but they already receive preferential treatment on the main page (via the listing of eight of them, which we've made considerably more prominent). To imply that the portals are the preferred method of topic organization is confusing and misleading.
Line 604:
:::::Both the current main page and our draft present links to both the categories and the portals, and it's important that the distinction be made as clear as possible. Referring to one as "topics" fails to accomplish this. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::But portals are a more recent creation, while there have always been categories. In fact, the browse links currently on the main page linked had pointed to categories, until December 21, 2005. But, many portals are still in development stage (e.g. [[Portal:Health]]), and don't yet include categories. I'm fine with either "All portals" or "More topics", and the issues of portals and topics can be handled separately. --[[User:
:::::::To someone new to Wikipedia, the fact that categories predate portals is irrelevant. Both are valid organizations of '''topics''', so it's confusing and impractical to identify one via that term. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 766:
:'''Oppose''' strongly. I am against the second search box for many reasons detailed above. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]
:'''Oppose''' the inclusion of the search box. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Neutral'''. The current draft seems to be the best way of including the second search box and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. If the community really wants the second search box, then I'm fine with it. Though, my personal preference is for just the one search box, which I think is sufficient. --[[User:
2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=39995764] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link in header. (c) "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.
:'''Support''', but with the additional links from the current draft included. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. I think the design is simpler, and tighter without the second search box. Though, in this case, I would center all the browse links as in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=38795011]. --[[User:
::Even better centered. This is my top layout of choice. (except with "all portals" instead of the 9th portal link, as discussed) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=39995917] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link NOT in header. (c) "Portals", "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.
:'''Oppose''', because we shouldn't be adding any new portal links at this juncture. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. Adding new portals should be handled separately from the design. --[[User:
Which do people prefer? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 942:
:::I'm not entirely sure of a good way to set-up the voting, but let's think about this...
:::When the official vote happens, maybe we should let people vote between (1) current main page and (2) new design. If they choose #2, then (1) extra search box or (2) no second search box.
:::Alternatively, maybe we can use time between now and the official vote to solicit opinion on this single issue through a straw poll and then present either draft (w/search box) or draft (w/o search box) for the vote. --[[User:
::::We '''must not''' muddy the election waters by advancing more than one version of the draft. If we do, people will begin demanding that all sorts of arbitrary differences be put up for a vote, and they'll oppose the redesign if they aren't.
| |||