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

The part about the "W" logo is utter nonsense IMO

The front page of wikipedia where you select the language looks horrible. I hope we can all agree to that.

[QUOTE=Aurora93;37143684]everybody's saying "oh this is copying metro!!!" as if minimalism in interface design was invented by microsoft[/QUOTE] Isn't that the opposite of what I just said? [QUOTE=Kopimi;37143708]flat colors in high contrast has been used in design for a long time before windows 8 and metro was even revealed, this is just as bad as complaining that people are stealing "gloss" from apple[/QUOTE] I'm not complaining. How is it even near as bad? [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] We were moving away from these 'flat' styles. But, now we seem to be going back to it again.

This is ugly and not innovative at all.

Doesn't look to bad in my opinion.

I think that it is very pleasing to the eye.

It's not perfect but there are some very interesting ideas in there [editline]9th August 2012[/editline] One thing they should implement immediately: [img]http://d1hfzzcaiqc5zu.cloudfront.net/img/38.png[/img] Colour-coding links and markup while editing would make it 1000x times easier, whilst being 1000x easier to implement than WYSIWYG

I like how they make it metro, but please don't change the logo, the globe is perfect for what it's representing.

It looks almost exactly like Google Docs. I don't really dislike it

This must look terrible on netbooks

It probably looks terrible on pretty much anything

[QUOTE=Amplar;37140134]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[/QUOTE] it's best to make it look plain so that it's easier for other people with ancient computers to look up this website faster.

[QUOTE=darkedone02;37148721]it's best to make it look plain so that it's easier for other people with ancient computers to look up this website faster.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be black and white to run well on old computers

[QUOTE=darkedone02;37148721]it's best to make it look plain so that it's easier for other people with ancient computers to look up this website faster.[/QUOTE] Grudgingly I must agree. People with IE6 and shit are a goddamned disgrace holding back the Net, but it is important that a free encyclopedia remain free for all.

i dont even understand why wiki never changed the body text to a serif font yet

[QUOTE=Aurora93;37150594]i dont even understand why wiki never changed the body text to a serif font yet[/QUOTE] Serif fonts are for newspapers. Sans is supposed to be easier to read on a screen iirc.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37150608]Serif fonts are for newspapers. Sans is supposed to be easier to read on a screen iirc.[/QUOTE] that's sort of an old guideline as serif fonts can work on a computer too, we don't live in an age where computers are dominated by huge CRTs with only 1024x768 resolutions anymore. however, the legibility of serifs vs. sans serifs have been debated a lot, though i've heard sans serif fonts are phenomenally better in use for large, encyclopedic pieces of text and essays