Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 2

Please see my latest (fourth) version with less icons and topical links. There's also an alternative (third) version with a centered search bar. Finally, my first version is also available, which is more similar to the current main page.

Comments

Very good design! I like seeing the search box displayed prominently. Dawginroswell (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Check out this version as well, with an even more prominent search bar (I think). - Wintran ^(talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On an 800x600 screen it almost - but not quite - fits. Maybe about 10 pixels or so stretch off the right side, which isn't enough to actually prevent reading of the text (at the most, there's about two thirds of a letter missing off any given line), but it does look rather untidy. Just needs a minor tweak in that respect. Anaxial (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for testing it on a smaller screen, I agree with you that it would need some tweaking in that regard, and to make nicer wrapping. - Wintran ^(talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Credits

• Box layout - modified from Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (misty breeze).
• Title with smallcaps-style - Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Scottydude (2).
• Multiple featured articles - modified from Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Gnangarra.
• Topical links in "Explore", linking to overviews instead of portals - this discussion.

...and lots of various discussions and ideas. - Wintran ^(talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential problems

Here are some potential problems with this design that might come up for discussions:

• Too many icons - page gets cluttered

My response: This might be true. The icon issue could be resolved by removing some icons from the Explore-section, or by removing the icons from box-titles. I don't believe that removing all icons would make the main page more user friendly or visually appealing, as well-placed icons and graphics help navigation and information interpretation. Please see my fourth version that uses less icons.

• Dynamic sections (FA, ITN, POTD etc) too far down

My response: The main page should prioritize welcoming new users, and provide information to them. Wikipedia could add a secondary main page aimed at more regular users that could instead prioritize dynamic information and community news (maybe registered users could switch to this as their default main page). However, the original main page should focus on catching the attention and liking of new users. Still, we should discuss the length of the introduction text and size and placement of the Explore-box.

• Duplicated search field

My response: The search function is the most important feature for new users arriving at Wikipedia. It's more confusing to not be able to find it than to find two of them, especially if both placements make sense. Check out my third version with an even more prominent search bar.

• Too many clickable images (icons) that conflict with actual links. Users might believe they follow the textual link when they actually clicked on the image.

My response: This is a real problem and might require circumventing Wikipedia's default image handling.

• Too few wiki-links

My response: Wiki-links are good, and an important part of Wikipedia, but not when they detract attention from other, more important links or content. Then they risk becoming misleading and irritating, as I believe is the case with, for example, the current Template:In the news. That's why I chose to reduce the number of wiki-links in most sections, and used a larger title for the featured articles.

• No "Did you know..."

My response: I personally didn't feel it was a good enough concept to keep it, considering the limited space. There are plenty of other ideas that could be just as good candidates as dynamic content, if not better.

Please add to the discussion. - Wintran ^(talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

version 4 feedback

I definitely like the 'explore' box, its a pretty bold and appealing drift from whats traditionally been there. I also like multiple featured articles/pics this design incorporates. I would find a way to make 'Wikipedia' pop a little more at the top, get some wikilinks in the 'free encyclopedia' that 'anyone can edit' too. Maybe a bit darker borders around the sections too, just a tad. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment! You're right that the Wikipedia header at the top could use some more emphasize, I'm glad you pointed that out. I'm not sure about wiki-linking in the top box, I have doubts about its usefulness and believe it could detract from the visuals and other content, but linking "anyone can edit" might be a good idea to encourage new users to edit (which is also the main purpose of my introductory text). Darker borders might look better; the visuals of the box design is simply copied from Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (misty breeze), if someone comes up with a nicer version it could be switched altogether. - Wintran ^(talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Increased the size of the title now, and wiki-linked "anyone can edit". I like it better. - Wintran ^(talk) 23:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to make some even greater changes to the title. Please tell me what you think. - Wintran ^(talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, see if you can't shrink the padding just a smidgen in it, now bow seems a little tall. Consider putting the topics bar between the header and the content like here - Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/88wolfmaster? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reduced the margins around the title to make the box shorter. Will think about adding portals under title. I already tried it in my first version, then moved them to the Explore box in my second version and removed them altogether in version 4, because I thought they caused cluttering and as I'm not sure how useful they are. But I might try the single row variant similar to 88wolfmaster. - Wintran ^(talk) 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Way awesome, the top is much better to me. You might want to change the 'featured picture' section to 'pictures' if you keep three in there. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)