Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Talk for Draft 4

Picture of the day, and column balance

The overwhelming response last time was that the redesign was too busy, and that the box bottoms didn't line up. This draft has been simplified, getting back to basics. Two side-by-side boxes are used, which line up at the bottom like the current Main Page. If Pic of the Day is to be added every day, rather than just on weekends, then one of the column boxes will have a lot of blank space. Therefore, if the POTD is to be added as a regular daily feature, another regular feature needs to be developed for the adjacent column. "Tip of the day" might be worthy. Any ideas? Go for it! 16:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need another feature. The solution would be to expand ITN and the featured picture caption, and make each feature in the left column slightly shorter/more condensed. Alternativly, it might be possible to swap the position of ITN, with DYK or On this day (and adjust the length of them, accordingly). —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See about importing Quote of the Day from WikiQuote, perhaps? GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Drab backgrounds removed

Another recurring theme of critiques has been a negative reaction to pastel colors and too many colors. Comments included comparisons with a nursery, easter eggs, and M&Ms. So the color backgrounds have been removed, while the color borders have been retained and reduced. Go for it! 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Without the backgrounds it looks bland :p porges 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think the background colors are okay, but just not so many as were used in the previous draft. Keeping the two colors used currently (pink/blue) would be good. See User:Kmf164/Main_page_draft. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who commented on the whole "nursery" theme being a bit too much to bear. Therefore, hopefully no pink nor baby blue. Go for it! 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rounded corners

In the last round of discussions, a couple comments were made in favor of rounded corners like those found on the Italian Wikipedia Main Page. If there is enough interest expressed this time around, perhaps the next redesign will include them. But the main question right now is: is Draft 4 worthy of replacing the current Main Page? Go for it! 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I started it. I repeat myself here, since the old comment is hard to find:

• Speaking of design, I am sorry to tell you that the english wikipedia is way behind the others.

The Italian Wikipedia has almost everything in the right place.

• Advanced use of CSS.
• Rounded corners
• Nice and appealing images that describe each category
• Much more organised community portal
• Clear looks and intelligent use of colours

I personally think we should include ALL these points and ameliorate them to create something even better.

Federico Pistono 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. About the only thing I can find on the Italian Main Page that requires CSS is the rounded corners. The rest isn't all that advanced. Also, the iconified section is essentially a browse page, and we have three of those with links in the browsebar: Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, and Wikipedia:Browse by overview. User: Fplay has coined those our Browse Triumvirate, and they are all iconified, mostly with the Nuvola icons (the same set the Italian WP chose theirs from). The redesign draft maintains the portal-like design of the current Main Page. Placing a browse section on the page like the Italian Main Page would force the user to scroll down to see the daily features, and is just way too cumbersome. And, if you put a browse section below the daily features, it takes longer to scroll down to it than it takes to click the browse links provided on the browsebar. My conclusion: I don't think adding a browse section to the Main Page is a very good plan, since we're already well-covered for that purpose with other pages and links to those. Plus, the majority of users seem to love the daily features, and so the focus is on those. Go for it! 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. very nice sections, It is I shame I missed them until now. But I think this is a good example of how a not accurate observer can be distracted and not notice that, even though I have more than 700 edits, I did not see the section, probably never needed to. Remember that the impact of the first page does influence you a lot. I sotrongly suggest we use more colour, maybe not a brose section, but certainly some non intrusive images.

The reason the browse pages were "invisible" until now, is because until recently, there wasn't a standardized browsebar, and the "browse bar" on the Main Page only has 2 of the 3 browse pages, and one of them was referred to as "browse" (pretty ambiguous). The browse triumvirate presents categories, portals, and overview articles in a table of contents format, using icons. Go for it! 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Nuvola in Italian means "cloud" Federico Pistono 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From looking at the Italian main page, what I really like is their use of colorful icons for "DYK", "In the news", and "On this day". Though, the category icons, I think are too much. I like how the drafts more simply list the browse categories, horizontally. I also like how they highlight the community portal. However, the rounded corners I think would depart too radically from the current English main page. The square boxes are what people are used to, and I don't think that should change.

I've studied the Italian main page, and I agree that icons would snazz things up on ours, like icons in the headings -- I've added this to the wish list. I still need to look at the community portals. Go for it! 11:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Borrowing from the Italian Wikipedia, I've tried putting the DYK, ITN, and OTD icons into the draft at User:Kmf164/Main page draft that can be used for developing ideas for the next 'official' draft. The Italian Wikipedia does not have an equivalent for Featured article or Featured picture, though I think it would be easy to come up with something (e.g. an award icon for FA, and a picture frame for the other). I like the look of the icons, as a simple enhancement (but not overdoing it). —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried tweaking the barnstar graphic, and making an icon for "featured article", in similar style as Italian Wikipedia. Maybe a different kind of award graphic, or something else would work better. Making icons isn't necessarily one of my best talents, so if someone else has better ideas, they would be very welcome. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Had to make 2 new templates to accomodate colored headings

I thought a little more color would be nice, so I tried adding heading background color, and it looks even better than the current draft. However, the "In the news" template and the additional feature template below it both have the headings built-in, so I couldn't gain access to change them because those pages are protected. Therefore, I created 2 new templates, and placed the news and picture in them respectively, without the headings. Unfortunately, these 2 templates will have to be updated every day. Go for it! 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This design is a lot nicer than the previous one. However, the coloured heading bars need adjusting. Would it be possible to make them extend the width (or very near it) of the box, and increase the padding between the heading bar and the actual contents of the box. Perhaps more like this.--cj | talk 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the padding, and I'm looking for a way to extend the heading bars. Go for it! 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RD and WP:HD

Why is there no linkage to these newcomer friendly pages? --hydnjo talk 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll look into it and will get back to you on this one. Thanks for bringing this up (again). Go for it! 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I've just learned or have done:

• The FAQs link leads to the RD/reference desk ("Find out how to ask a question" is the very first item on there).
• Both the Help Desk and the Reference Desk are presented under the 4th heading in the table of contents of the main help file: Help:Contents#Asking questions.
• I've added a link to the top of the FAQ page for the Help Desk.
• I've added links to the Help Desk and to the Help Portal in the See Also section of the FAQ page.
• I've added a link to the Help Desk at the top of the main help page, the page that is listed as ("Help" on the navigation menu), which is on the user's screen at all times.

Does this solve the problem to your satisfaction? Go for it! 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll see how the desks do without the current linkage from the Main Page. Thanks for your response, hydnjo talk 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree about making links to the help desk, more prominent. (also to the community portal, as done in the Italian Wikipedia). A possible solution is to tweak the items listed in the browsebarmain, (and add the community portal icon, to draw the eye to it). I also suggest adding "Donations", as is currently on the main page. See User:Kmf164/Main page draft for these possible ideas implemented. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll put some more thought into it. There's a lot of requested features to integrate. This is going to take a rethink. Go for it! 09:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding pictures

I was pointed here from Talk:Main_Page, so I’ll copy & paste my comment :) "I think [the images] would look better with a thin 1px black border around them, something to separate them from the rest of the page." porges 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a border might look nice, so I'm asking on Wikipedia_talk:Picture_tutorial#Borders.3F. From what I've found in all the help pages here and on metawiki, I don't think the border is possible with current wiki syntax, but maybe I'm missing something. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia has a template that creates borders around images. See here for an example. We have an equivalent template on en: but it doesn't seem to work.--cj | talk 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into how they implemented it on Dutch Wikipedia. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Second search box

What drew my attention to the original draft was the second search box in the yellow heading. I have tweaked the draft I mocked up a few days ago, to use the original draft header, with the search box. It also differs from the current draft, in that the browse topics, as well as the Almanac, Categories, FAQ ... links are below the yellow box — not in it. See User:Kmf164/Main_page_draft. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Colours, margins, categories

• I agree with Flcelloguy above who says that the page is too bright. The contrast of the headings with the white background for text makes the page seem too bright to read from and thus makes the current main page seem freindlier.
• Everything looks very rough and unprofessional due to its not using enough margins. That is, there is no margin left of heading text, nor beneath these heading bars when above a picture.
• The category bar at the bottom of the page seems fairly useless to me...

Although I do like some things about the Italian version, I'm not sure about the snowflakes...

jnothman ^talk 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

A user on Talk:Main page suggested putting the "other languages" on the left side, as is done with all other articles. I think it's a good idea, making good use of available white space on the left. We could then either remove the "other languages" from the bottom of the main page, or still keep those links at the bottom to double-reinforce the point that Wikipedia is in so many languages. Any thoughts? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is done with most other-language Wikipedia's, although some restrict them to the five or so "major" language Wikipedia's. There's no reason to remove "other languages" from the bottom of the page, but it might be better reformated.--cj | talk 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The white space on the left serves an important role in balancing the busy body area of the page. The main pages that include the complete other languages list on the left contain much less visual structure. On other hand, it's good for consistency and not a terrible idea. But I'm inclined to think there would be slightly more lost than gained. Aapo Laitinen 11:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Adjusted brightness down a notch or two

I added a slight bit of background color for those who mentioned it was too bright. Go for it! 10:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Spacing under headings fixed

Added spacing under headings, so that pictures no longer touch the heading background. Go for it! 11:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Heading bars extended

Okay, as per CJ's suggestion, the heading bars are now full width.

Community portal linkage

I took a look at the Community Portal's connectivity. It's the second entry on the navigation menu on the left sidebar, and so it's pretty accessible. Though I was surprised that it wasn't so much as mentioned in the help page, so I added 3 links to it there. I was shocked that it wasn't included in Portal:Browse, which covers portals, so I added 2 links there. And we may have something more for the Main Page Redesign in Draft 5.

Where are the Nuvola 600?

According to the article on the nuvola icons, there are 600 of them. I can only locate about 35 of them. Can anyone help me out here? Go for it! 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

commons:Category:Nuvola icons. Loads of useful ones there. You could also look at commons:Category:Icons for other sets, though we should try and keep to a consistent style as much as possible. the wub "?!" 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)