Wikipedia talk:Design overhaul, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] From IRC

Good idea pzfun, as we were discussing on IRC, this revamp should aim to attract more people, with a wider range of demographics. Some of my fellow peers seem to think that Wikipedia is "geeky", so this new style should appeal to all sorts. We should try to keep it simple, for new users as well. Steve-o 08:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Attracting a range of demographics would be great. Making it easier to find the beautiful and amazing parts of the site, likewise. I have to send out a list of links to help people find the most beautiful spaces; they tend to be more than 3 links from the main page via normal routes [if you know to visit 'recentchanges' and maneuver through the links at the top there, you can get almost anywhere in 3 links]. +sj + 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reward anyway?

Maybe folks can post rewards for the winner :-)

Kim Bruning 08:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not, in fact, a "good idea." Regardless of whether or not there is any prize or payment for such a "contest," this is still spec work, and Wikimedia should not practice this kind of bad business. By running such a contest, you are devaluing the work professional designers do, and you are doing a disservice to yourself in that any proposal which comes from this kind of contest has no market or technical research behind it.

I would propose that, instead, Wikimedia ask designers to submit queries of interest. No actual designs or proposals should be submitted. Rather designers should be allowed to invite Wikimedia to view their portfolios and prices (or lack thereof).

In all actuality, what would really be best is for Wikimedia to simply go and look at designers' portfolios and when they find someone they believe could do the deal, they should query them as to whether or not they'd be willing to do the work pro bono. You'd be surprised at how many professional designers would love to be able to work with you for free.

Please see the No!Spec website for more information on how this could possibly hurt Wikimedia and furthers damage to the design industry.

-- Andy Standfield

Agreed. Spec work is rarely good for either party (The client or the designer). Whether it's a paid gig or not is a different issue, but if Wikipedia wants a serious redesign, ask for proposals...NOT finished work, an then select 1-3 designers to work together WITH wikipedia to complete the project.
Hmmm, Wikipedia is Open Content, so the "rules of the game" might be somewhat different from what you're accustomed to. Would you care to comment on that? Kim Bruning 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (more correctly, wikipedia is free content. However, in english that term can be confusing. It is free as in speech, not free as in beer.)
I can't really comment on it since I don't really see how it pertains the subject. It's spec no matter what the content or organizational structure is. It doesn't matter if it's a multimillion dollar international corporation, a two-person small business, or NPO (like the Wikimedia Foundation). The "rules of the game" are the same. Seriously, read through that No!Spec.com site. You might find it really interesting and enlightening. -- Andy Standfield
Thank you very much for the Nospec link. I actually asked my question based on what I read there.
Hmmm, are you familiar with the Free Content world? (perhaps you've heard of creative commons, or the GFDL? ) Kim Bruning 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Lessig and I go way back :) I still fail to see how that really has anything to do with the project. I'm not trying to be problematic or dim here, I just don't see the connection and was hoping you could maybe fill me in on how it makes a difference. -- Andy Standfield
I can't speak for andy, but I think he's trying to point out that there is a difference between 'pro-bono' work and 'spec' work. Pro-bono is fine, and for a great free resource like Wikipedia, likely a perfectly acceptable request. Spec work, though, is always bad. It's simply a contest asking people to work for free in hopes of winning. That, by default, is going to define the type of entries you receive. It also means that you're not actually building a relatinship with the service provider. Spec work is common in some industries (namely Architecture) so it's certainly not uncommon, just not a great idea. If Wikipedia is looking for Pro-Bono work, fine, write up a RFP, let people respond to it, then pick one or more firmst to work closely with wikipedia through the process. The benefits wikipedia, as they'll get much more personalized service and end product, and it benefits the people doing the pro-bono work, as they too, will end up with a much more succesful product that they can use in their portfolio. -- D
If Wikipedia wants to attract good designers, it'll have to play by the designers' rules (to at least some extent). Andy wasn't objecting to the design eventually being open-licenced; he was objecting to it being chosen in a contest. Quote from the site:

Begin Quote Design contests are obviously huge gambles for the designers. They have to commit to doing a significant amount of work, and they have to do so essentially blind. Without the benefit of meeting with those putting on the contest face-to-face and gaining some in-depth insight into the project, the designers have to guess at the tastes of those in charge and just hope they do something appealing.

The thing that contest originators don’t understand, however, is that the contest model is just as much a lottery for them, too. Without meeting with the contest entrants, and seeing their past work and experiencing their personalities, the contest originators put themselves in the middle of a very risky gamble. Based simply on a submitted image, it is impossible to determine whether or not the designer has the knowledge and background to guide the project to an efficient (or even successful) conclusion.

It really isn’t all that difficult for someone with some basic creative skills to put some shapes together into a pleasing arrangement. However, making sure that those shapes have the technical foundation to meet the needs of a company is a different matter, as is having the knowledge and skill to follow up the project with changes, modifications, or even application to future projects.

Once the winner of the contest is chosen, the company has committed itself into a relationship with the designer. Now, at least on some level, the company is going to have to deal with this person. It’s not unlike choosing a mail-order bride based just on a picture. It’s not going to matter how pretty she is in the picture if she’s a complete and total shrew in person, or if it’s discovered that she can’t speak your language and has no skills to speak of. I’d venture to guess that very few of the companies running contests have the knowledge of the design industry to take over a project should they discover that their winner’s only skill is in making pleasing pictures.

What it boils down to is a loss of control. By running a contest, the company gives up its power to choose a designer based on talent, skill, personality and all of the other factors that make it possible to conduct business with someone. This is no more a sound business model than playing the lottery in the hopes of making a profit. End Quote

It pains me to take his side on this, because it potentially deprives amateur designers like me from adding ridiculously high-profile stuff to our resume`s (hopefully I'd still get to design stuff for side projects like Wikimania). But Wikipedia itself deserves the dedicated attention of a pro designer or design firm.
I don't think so. Pro-Bono work doesn't HAVE to come from a professional firm. If you respond to the RFP and have a portfolio/sales pitch that sways the Wikipedia team, you could just as easily get the 'commission'. -- D
(This is complicated by the fact that Wikimedia's pretty broke. Would any design firms be willing to take on the project as charity?)
I would imagine the answer is yes...undoubtedly. -- D


Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. The idea of making an agreement with a deisgner that *guarantees them* their design would be used strikes a sour chord with me... +sj + 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
(Here's another good link from that site: http://www.no-spec.com/?page_id=9 ) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well, as I understand it from you folks, we need a different approach. Kim Bruning 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

thecatat7 10:5239, 18 May 2006

Cat from NO!SPEC here (please excuse my first post, even after reading the instructions I'm not sure if I'm doing this properly)

... regarding the comment "This is complicated by the fact that Wikimedia's pretty broke. Would any design firms be willing to take on the project as charity?" ... the answer is 'yes'.

Working pro-bono is what designers do all the time. Generously giving back to the community is a professional way of doing business. It benefits those who cannot afford top design, and benefits the designer who gets a great piece in their portfolio.

Spec design contests have already been covered very well above so I won't say anything else except for ... "if your job calls for a professional designer, then hire one. Pro-bono, or whatever."

If you decide to go the pro-bono route, what Wikipedia needs to do is put out a call for portfolios, select one designer (or design company) with a fit to work pro-bono, write up a detailed design brief, agree on ONE person as a contact between the designer and Wikipedia (no designer in their right mind would agree to design by committee as it hinders the process on both sides), then work closely to create your new look and feel.

If you need help with the process just drop me a line and I'll walk you through it. In addition to supporting your pro-bono design call on NO!SPEC (www.no-spec.com), Creative Latitude (www.creativelatitude.com) would also put out an email to our members to alert them of your needs, as well as request that they pass it around.

Wikipedia can also get the message out via design forums, design blogs, adland ... and possibly BoingBoing. We'd be happy to assist with some of this (note: we have no ins with BoingBoing).

-- Catherine Morley Project Manager: NO!SPEC & Creative Latitude

It's great to see direct feedback from NO!SPEC :-) Cheers to you, Catherine.

This spec/no spec discussion doesn't take into account that the Wikimedia projects are community-based. The excerpt from nospec.org talks about people in charge. I would feel very uncomfortable if the board or some other so called "authority" would decide about the design of the site. The current logo is the logo that the community has chosen. The monobook layout is also based on community decisions. A new design without community support - a bad idea. -- User:JeLuF

"A new design without community support - a bad idea." Sure, sure. But there is a huge difference between community SUPPORT and 'design by committee'. The community editing of factual articles works amazingly well. Community design, though, rarely works. Most of the time, design by committee results in a bland, uninteresting solution that pleases no one. You like pink? He likes brown? John like yellow? Ok, we'll make the logo a rainbow! ;O) --D

[edit] A "Design Constitution"?

As I understand it, designers usually meet with the execs and get a feel for the company's strategy. But with wikipedia, the company's a community -- maybe we should collectively draft a very broad set of guidelines to help the board choose a firm or designer (and to give the designer something to work with). Not design by comittee, but writing by comittee (which we're good at).

A preliminary version, off the top of my head:

1. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide a free (libre) compendium of the world's knowledge. [Insert lots of background about how the encyclopedia works, on social and technical levels. danah boyd could be helpful here. It's vital that the designer(s) understand how everything works; they'll probably want to do research on their own.]

2. The goals of the redesign/branding are to further this purpose by attracting productive new editors (and new people in general).

3. Wikipedia possesses several traits that the design should convey:

* It's useful.
* It's collective.
* It's fluid.
* It's exciting.
* It's easy to edit.
* It's cool, not geeky (?)
* It's international/global.

4. Initially, the design should be opt-in for logged-in users.

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A gallery of custom skins

The look of varoius custom skins that already exist can be found here.Geni 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designs

[edit] Design by User:Ctrl build

No idea where to put this but:

Since this proposal looks like it might go in a different direction, you'll probably want to put your designs up at m:Gallery of user styles as well. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First design by User:Christoph Knoth

[edit] Second design by User:Christoph Knoth

[edit] Design by: Pop Art

[edit] Design by Justin Garrity @ Pop Art

  • Big Idea = Content Accessability - Let the content come forward and move the search into the standard top right corner
  • Used the existing XHTML (only changing the logo by reducing the size)
  • Improve font readability by changing font sizes, font colors, linking colors where appropriate, and character spacing
The problem I see with this design is that the article related tabs (edit, discussion, history) get lost in the general navigation. Some elements are missing: Personal links, interwiki... --Elian Talk 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The main page doesn't have any interlang links. I assume they would go the same place they would go in monobook. The top right search box appears in the classic skin and appears to work ok.Geni 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a redesign of this page Main_Page. Article specific pages would include language links in the side bar as they do now and the tabs at the top of the page would appear more prominant. - --Justinogarrity 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My design for Wikipedia by LaurenceS

my design


> I have made my design simple!

> also easy to use

> I have used div tags for most of my design

> also tried to keep it low on graphics

> sorry if I might have missed anything out of my design.