Design firm reimagines Wikipedia - And it's glorious! - Polidicks

[QUOTE]We all know and love Wikipedia, and at one point in our lives, it has helped us whenever we need to reach knowledge. It recently suffered a revision in its design ot make it more user friendly and appealable, but the lithuanian design agency NewIsNew thinks it can be done better. In its [URL="http://newisnew.lt/en/wikipedia-redefined"]Wikipedia Redifined[/URL] site, they show mockups of a new branding, new web design and new editing mode for Wikipedia, and it's breathtaking! The idea the agency came up for the editor is glorious, if only it was real... [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/[/URL] [IMG]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/4.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/21.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/34.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/35.png[/IMG]

looks too plain [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] but it'd be really neat if the contents table stays static and just the info scrolled up/down

Oh god I need this for reasons.

Wikipedia desperately needs a WYSIWYG editor

I like the layout but not the new logo

I mean, I know how to use wikimarkup or whatever it's called, but the code is still virtually unreadable because of all the fucking citations. Those little [1]s you see can be 2 or 3 lines of shit in the code which makes editing very difficult and unappealing for beginners

Doesn't look nearly as bad as some website redesigns (facebook), but Wikipedia looks nice enough as it is.

Don't mind the logo, layout could use a bit of decoration.

[QUOTE=smurfy;37140194]I mean, I know how to use wikimarkup or whatever it's called, but the code is still virtually unreadable because of all the fucking citations. One sentence in the article can become 3 lines long in the code if it has proper referencing[/QUOTE] Unless that's actually on purpose in order to deter idiots from editing the articles..

Little bit too flat and simple. But their basic idea is good, just overdone in the example.

I don't like that they got rid of the puzzle globe. It's meant to symbolise that Wikipedia will never be complete, will always have a piece missing, which I think is cool

[QUOTE=smurfy;37140194]I mean, I know how to use wikimarkup or whatever it's called, but the code is still virtually unreadable because of all the fucking citations. Those little [1]s you see can be 2 or 3 lines of shit in the code which makes editing very difficult and unappealing for beginners[/QUOTE] Yeah, making the citations work properly is infuriating at times.

I don't think the search bar is big enough.

Lithuanian design agency? Fuck yes, Lithuania is awesome!

IMO Mediawiki needs a major update, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_version_history#Table]they haven't added anything really big[/url] for ages, I think the last change I noticed was 1.16 when they changed to the Vector theme

I don't like it, it looks like half assed metro and sort of tablet-y. And that sure isn't a ton of space wasted on top of the page with those huge ass buttons!

i wish they would go back to the old search bar on the right side and smaller than it is now :/

i like the simplicity but not the logo

The new editor looks pretty good, but the logo and the page designs are both nightmarish.

[img]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/21.png[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/PQio[/img] Looks a bit like youtube

Looks a bit cluttered, and I think the different areas need a darker background so it doesn't get confusing.

Also that contents bar taking up a couple inches of the left side of the screen reminds me of facebook's passion for not properly using a screen's space. I want to scroll [I]less[/I] because I find that much more comfortable for reading. Only the problem is ten times worse because this is a wikipedia article and not a 100 word facebook post.

[QUOTE=smurfy;37140170]Wikipedia desperately needs a WYSIWYG editor[/QUOTE] I'm big on editing Wikia, and there is a WYSIWIG editor for Wikia. [B]Fuck it.[/B] It's useless. Much better to learn wiki markup.

Is that top toolbar for blind people? It's fucking enormous. The top, the huge toolbar and the actual content don't even flow together. To me it looks like it was done by a damn poor design firm.

Oh great a fucking W for a logo brilliant creativity right there.

MY EYES ARE BURNING

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37141042]Is that top toolbar for blind people? It's fucking enormous. The top, the huge toolbar and the actual content don't even flow together. To me it looks like it was done by a damn poor design firm.[/QUOTE] Oh shit, look at that. The thick-ass top toolbar stays in place as you scroll down. With recent releases of software such as Inkscape and Ubuntu Linux, there has been an increased focus on side toolbars. There's a reason for that. Your computer monitor is as a rule wider than it is tall, and especially with recent trends toward widescreen, there's more real estate on the sides than on the top. There's a goddamned reason the toolbar is on the sides.

Top bar seems really annoying. You'll basically need to scroll over it every time you load a page, because it takes up like a fourth of the damn page. That thing should definitely designed with minimalism in mind, way too much space between everything up there. I've tried out a couple of addons that change Wiki's design like [url=https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/beautipedia/?display=en]this[/url] and [url=https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/wikipedia-style-grey-lady-iii/?display=en]that[/url], but I always keep coming back to the original design. It's simply the most efficient design out of all I've tried.

[QUOTE=gamefreek76;37140211]Doesn't look nearly as bad as some website redesigns (facebook), but Wikipedia looks nice enough as it is.[/QUOTE] I'd love if it had some of googles cross referencing technologies.

It's not bad.