Talk:Main Page/Layout design/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

I have the feeling, we are mixing up two questions/votes (see comments on most votes...). Lets split them in separate votes:

Contents

Vote 1:

Vote 2:

  • more emphasis on the "dynamic content" at Main Page/Temp4. Colour is more Question 1, but I'd be interested in suggestions on that too. Note that this temp page is changing as I get comments, so I'm taking this as useful feedback, not as being decisive or consensus-building in any way. Martin
    • Arwel
    • Fantasy (for the colors I prefer Main Page/Temp2)
    • Eloquence (see discussion below)
    • Oliver P. (see discussion below)
    • James F. (see discussion below)
    • Brion (cautiously optimistic; see discussion below)
    • Angela I know I'm voting in more than one place but I want color, less clutter and more dynamic content.
    • Kurt Jansson (with the colors of Main Page/Temp2)
    • whkoh (Dynamic content & single-color)
    • Delirium (dynamic content is good; I prefer colors, but don't care that much)
    • LDan (It seems like the majority wants this, so I'm going to implement it)
  • leave it as it was
  • Any better proposals?

Vote 3 (statistical):

  • I always start with the Main Page
    • Angela but I don't actually look at it. I log in and then go to my watchlist then recent changes.
    • whkoh for convenience, since my bookmark goes there
    • James F.
    • Bdesham -- yeah, what Angela said
    • I glance to see what's new/in the news/..., and then go to my watchlist Martin
    • Oliver P. - ditto. I might click on a recently deceased person or other newsworthy thing, but I very rarely use any of the other stuff.
    • Kosebamse - ditto
    • SGBailey 22:39 8 Jul 2003 (UTC) as a convenient bookmark and to look at the selected articles block, then I do "Recent changes" or login
    • Arwel -- Quick glance at the main page before going to my watchlist.
  • I always start with my watchlist (= I never use the Main Page)
  • I always start with Recent Changes
    • SGBailey 22:39 8 Jul 2003 (UTC) Second page, but where I aim for.
  • Several of the above

Would this kind of Votes make more sense? Fantasy 13:59 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

yes, I think it would -- Tarquin
Perhaps it's too early to be voting. Comments would be more useful than numbers. I keep wanting to vote for all of them. Angela

The third question could be helpful to see, if any of us are even using the Main Page, or if we should look for other sources of Opinion... ;-) Fantasy 18:45 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

People for the new design: (10)

  • Delirium
  • FearÉIREANN (I like the lack of clutter on Temp3 but not the colour-scheme. A combination of the current colour scheme with Temp3 contents would be interesting to see.) (Done - Main Page/Temp3 Angela)
  • Poor Yorick
  • Eloquence (although I prefer [1] and [2])
  • User:anthere. Not gonna say I don't like this kind of design, since I helped set the initial one on the fr wiki. I like it better than the old one. Love the colors. However, 1) I support different designs and different organisations-schemes among wikipedias, 2) a table-type design makes it harder to edit 3) there is imho too much information on this page. What about working on point 3 ?
  • Tannin (But see comment below)
  • user:zanimum
  • Angela I prefer it with color than without.
  • (Arwel I prefer colour too. ) -- removing this vote because the question is now meaningless with all the extra pages being designed! Arwel 08:55 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Tim Starling
  • Kosebamse The colours per se are fine, but some degirliefication definitely wouldn't hurt. Whatever we do, please let's keep the introductory paragraph (it seems to be missing from Main Page/Temp4). Degirlification ? What about instoring sex neutrality on this encyclopedia ? Equality of numbers between female and male editors ? The previous design was a man-perception of what an encyclopedia should be :-) User:anthere Sure. And it is my (male) perception that these colours per se are good (by which I mean that making community matters yellow on the main page is a good idea, as all community pages here are yellow and a coherent design would help everybody find their way around. Blue is a good colour for content as content pages are blue on white and it is also a colour that is traditionally associated with seriousness, and red is obvously a good choice for current or new subjects.) However, it is also my perception that the lilac, pink, and light yellow tones currently used run contrary to (again, my perception) Wikipedia's "dead serious" attitude and soften up the visual impression where clarity would be more desirable. I'm not against pastel, but it should look grown-up. Ahem...I just found out that I did't write anything gender-related - but I'll try if somebody insists ;-) actually, IMO, it is not sex neutrality that is under discussion here, so please accept my apologies for my choice of words. WikiRespect, Kosebamse 19:04 7 Jul 2003 (UTC). No problem Kosebamse. Well, you might perhaps write something about different color perceptions and meaning men versus women ? :-) wikipedia:WikiWomen I would if I could offer any more than a personal impression, which unfortunately is not the case. But it looks like an intersting topic (perhaps it covered somewhere under psychology and perception?) Kosebamse 06:30 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Which "new design" is this question asking about? Main Page/Temp, Temp2, Temp3, or Temp4? I don't think this page is set up too well, there's just too many "new designs". --bdesham 16:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

People against the new design: (6)

People against all of the above designs: (-)

Color aside, these (nearly identical) layouts are cramped, poorly spaced, and illegible on small screens. Take a look over some old versions of the main page and see what we've gained and what we've lost. Then consider a cleaner layout... (4)
  • Brion
  • Tarquin - yup.
  • Camembert - that's the crux of the thing, really
  • Angela Reducing the clutter is more important that the color, but I think it should have some color, so I'm voting twice.
People in favour of Main Page/Temp2 i.e. single-color layout: (4)

What are we voting for? Does "against the new skin" mean that you want it forgotten about forever, or merely reverted temporarily pending discussion? -- Tim Starling 01:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm thinking of it as a straw poll, nothing more. Putting my name up there means I'm against the new layout, just as it says. Beyond that, I'd have to see how other people feel. --Camembert
I'm thinking of it as a straw poll too; just to see who loves/hates it. It seems to me that a lot of people were not properly informed about the permanant change to the Main Page. I personally like it, but I'd also like to make sure that the Wikipedia population is given a say about it.
I think it should go live now. That way people will complain soon enough if something goes wrong. Remember, this is a wiki, after all ;-). --Eloquence 15:07 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yeh, a couple of days, and we got complaints. :-/ Poor Yorick
Is this a vote for or against the current revision? --Eloquence
The current revision. But I think people who don't like the current revision, wouldn't like any minor tweaks of the current revision either. Wikipedians seem to be split between the bland white camp and the groovy colour camp. Hm... if there was only a way we can have the Main Page design listed as a preference.... Poor Yorick
Agreed. Then everyone can choose the layout that he/she likes...and everyone can be happy and not be confined to the choices made by other people. whkoh 07:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What do you mean by "current revision"? It's changed frequently in the last few hours, from ugly and cramped and hard to read with lots of colors to ugly and cramped and hard to read in black and white and back again. Either way, it's ugly and cramped and hard to read. Color is a silly thing to fight over when the page is so difficult to use. :) --Brion


  • some talk to Talk:Main Page/Temp4
  • more talk to talk:Main Page/Temp4


Poll Question

I'm afraid I'm completely confused by the poll at the top of this page now. There seem to be five different categories. What does "People against both designs" mean? Is this about the old design and the current one, or Main Page/Temp and Main Page/Temp2? -- Oliver P. 03:14 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

THEY'RE ALL DREADFUL! What difference does it make what color scheme? :) --Brion

HMMM!

Since registered users can select a skin of their choosing, why vote? Gad! Am I alone in feeling this "poll" is redundant?

Could someone clearly and patiently explain why it isn't?

I'm all for people submitting new skin designs... Surely choice is the best way forward?

Important: There should certainly be a completely bland skin for those who need no extra stimulation.


JasonM

If I show a potential new Wikipedian www.wikipedia.org, I need a really good general startpage. I don't want him to have to log in first and tell him to choose a skin design. Hope this helps as a reason? Fantasy 08:44 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have to agree with that point, however there will always be personal preference coming into this, my argument is that a "best" skin is not possible, all the designs (temp1 - 4) are highly functional however none are likely to be anyone's true ideal style sheet... Plus the need for some users to switch to an accessible style sheet highlights the usefulness of perhaps DHTML scripted switchable style sheets (see a www.listapart.org [[3]].) It's a thought anyway.
Further, in the discussion between dynamic and static content, you can't easily "skin" dynamic content - it needs to be kept updated by an actual human. Martin
The content needs updating, the purpose of the style guide (or 'skin') is to provide a drop in format for the information.

What is the purpose of the main page?

It seems to me there are two semi-conflicting jobs for it:

1. To act as an introduction and lead-in for people seeking information (users)

2. To act as an introduction and lead-in for people seeking to be part of wikipedia (participants)

If its main job is No. 1, then it should be more dynamic. If its main job is No. 2, then it should be more like the current configuation. I would vote for No. 2, because I don't think wikipedia is yet in shape to present itself to the world as a product instead of a process: We need more participants before we can concentrate about users, IMHO. And as far as color/boxes/fonts/design, since (*cliche alert*) a camel is a horse designed by a committee, I think this should be left up to the Secret Cabal rather than group-think. - DavidWBrooks 13:41 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't get your distinction between "users" and "participants". I expect almost all people arrive here because they were seeking information, and I rather doubt that anyone arrives here with the express purpose of contributing, if they haven't already seen the information. So it's the "users" (in your terminology) that we need to draw in with the Main Page. Personally, I think they'd be more likely to be drawn in by a simple uncluttered page with some interesting topical content. And they'd be turned off by the presence of a cabal! -- Oliver P. 15:35 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • This is the way I look at it: How do people first come to Wikipedia? If they come through Google/search engine looking for information ("users"), they'll go directly to a topic page, not Main Page. If they (like me) come because they read about Wikipedia and were interested in the way it works ("participants"), they'll go to Main Page. So I think Main Page should concentrate on helping/luring the "participant" by being heavy with information ABOUT the project, rather than helping the "user" by being heavy with information IN the project. - DavidWBrooks 16:18 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See The Read/Talk/Contribute Model. It's based around h2g2, but it applies to Wikipedia too - on Wikipedia it'd be a Read/Correct/Contribute model.

  1. Read: The way most people come to Wikipedia will be to read the content. We've got good content now, which is convenient, because that's what gets us readers. If a reader finds something interesting or useful, then they may come back, or visit the main page to see what else there is. Note that pure readers are invisible to us, but a common figure is that there are 20 readers for every person who ever contributes.
  2. Correct: We make it easy to correct errors or make tiny improvements to Wikipedia - a spelling mistake here, rewording a sentence there, adding a date there. That helps draw folks into the site, and also improves our content. But they'll probably carry on reading stuff too. The user might also make some suggestion on a talk page, or ask a question on the reference desk.
  3. Contribute: After making some minor corrections like this, and building up confidence with the system, some users will move on to become contributors. Assuming they got a good response of course, and weren't flamed to death by some of our more excitable Wikipedians. They might write a brand new article, or completely rewrite a page, or go and research a subject, or design a new front page - whatever they like.

I think it's obvious why folks move from reading to correcting - dislike of typos, or the desire to add a factoid they happen to know. Many folks will be happy to just read/correct and never go further, and that's cool too. But many will go on to make larger and larger edits, just in a natural progression from "ooh, this word is spelt wrong" to "ooh, this article really should have a section on X".

Steering back to the topic, the point is that folks rarely magically become contributors straight away, without going through the reading/correcting stages. Most people will want to find out what flavour the site is, whether they'll feel at home, what the community is like, before writing a five page essay on their specialist subject.

In any case users carry on reading and correcting when they're at the contribution stage. So by having a main page that appeals to the reader and corrector (as Main Page/Temp4 does, I think) we should please everyone. Maybe it should give an additional link to (say) Wikipedia:Contribute (just as we give a link to Wikipedia:Welcome, Newcomers and Wikipedia:About). I'm not convinced that the mishmash of links to random Wikipedia: pages on the Main Page is much use to anyone. Martin 18:06 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. I hate to say this, but you're pretty convincing, because there's few things more painful than having your mind changed! I'm afraid you're righter than me: a dynamic Main Page would be better, along the lines of Main Page/Temp4, as long as it can be done frequently enough and consistently. - DavidWBrooks 18:56 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Woo! :)
I think you're absolutely right that it would need to be updated frequently - and to a decent standard. But we already do this to some extent, and I think it'd be worth the effort. By the way, I've added a link to the contributing FAQ - does that help address your concerns? Martin


This vote is last hit Monty Pythonesque levels of absurdity. The question keeps changing, new questions keep appearing, new temps appear only to change and become a different version when 'b' votes on them than they were when 'a' voted. At this stage which votes are the 'real' ones, which questions the 'real' ones? Are the 'old' questions replaced by the 'new' ones, or do they live alongside? And how come, among those who are against all the above designs category in one of the categories, we have People in favour of Main Page/Temp2 i.e. single-color layout: (4) - so people who are against all the above designs including Temp2 are included in a category under a headline that has them endorsing Temp2!!! Lewis Carroll could not have written something more absurd.

I have no doubt those responsible for the above are trying their best to sort out the mess. But in trying to 'tweak' things the end result is something that seems to get more confusing every day. So lets just scrap the vote and start again. If we have to have a vote, it has to have clear and unambiguous questions. And because the issue is so complicated, I do not see how you can hope to hold a vote on all the questions simultaneously. The questions are:

1. Colour or no colour? (ie, change old page? Keep old page?)

2 if colour, which colour layout?

3. How much text?

You cannot do all of these at once, without creating a complete mess. The only way is to have a separate vote on each, with each basic decision, decided on its own, leading to the next set of choices. If you want no colour, little text would be largely unworkable, because you would have an almost empty page. Equally, colour would necessitate a limit to text, because fill page with text and colour and you would produce an unreadable mess. So each step would have implications for the options available in the next question.

As Number 1 basically offers you a two-way straight choice (the issue of a lot of colour versus a little colour can be solved when discussing specifically discussing alternative layouts) that can be decided pretty clearly, quickly and cleanly.

And if on 2 and 3 you want to try to reach a consensus, given that you would have a number of choices, one solution is to opt for PR.STV. Everyone lists their name, the options, and casts their preference votes. And when they being counted, using PR.STV ends up allowing everyone to shape the final result.

Finally could someone copyright Temp2? It looks like wiki has found a guaranteed cure for insomia. :-) I mean, what the was the person who designed that page on? And if you can find out ban the substance immediately! :-) FearÉIREANN


sigh Instant Run-off Voting (IRoV) is NOT the same as PR.STV, though you would not know it from the articles on wiki that merged different systems into one blatently wrong article against the advice of people who kept trying to point out they were different. Given the determination of a couple of people to screw up the articles on voting systems and make a mess of the names against the advice of a range of people who knew the facts, those who did the original articles that were wrongly merged just gave up trying to get things right when so many people seemed intent on getting them wrong! As to First Past the Post (FPtP), it is a crappy undemocratic system that is a mathematical joke, producing ludicrous results with the loser in popular vote being given landslide victories (Thatcher in 1983, the SDP-Liberal Alliance getting less than 5% of the seats on 25% on the votes. FearÉIREANN 21:06 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shall we take this to talk:instant-runoff voting? Then we can fix whatever this problem is, if indeed it is a problem. Martin