Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Talk archive for drafts 1 and 2

message: The extra column will probably look great larger resolutions, but on 800x600 it makes for a very cluttered look and the search bar overlaps into the new right column. --MarSch 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this problem is reinforced by the wide space between columns and on the sides. --MarSch 11:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  extra column 

message: 1. The Featured Picture could do to be bigger. It's not too noticeable for the one on the page at the moment, but for a lot of pictures having it at that size would make it next to useless. Would it be possible to put that in one of the other columns and have either Sister Projects or Other Languages going down the side?
2. I don't like having two font sizes on the Featured Article - it just doesn't look right. Also (and I'll concede this should possibly be directed somewhere else) I think it would be better to have one brief self contained paragraph outlining the topic rather than just re-printing the start of the article.
3. The bottom sections (Sister Projects and Other Languages) are in a different style to the rest of the page. I'm not sure if it would look better if they weren't, but I just thought I'd mention it.
4. Generally I think it looks much nicer than the current main page and doesn't seem to lose anything important. Good show!
--Cherry blossom tree 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. I can see a rationale for haveing a smaller second paragraph but the text doesn't render particularly well at that size (firefox 1.07, Mac OSX). Neither do the italics under Did You Know for that matter (they look particularly bad). Jasongetsdown 02:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Featured" Section and Bottom Sections 

message: I would start with slightly smaller changes -- don't change color or div-layout unnecessarily, and focus on the content.
In particular : 
* keep the current basic layout for the 4 main text components -- only one pink and one blue-background div, both aligned top and bottom; 
* add a lighter-color "categories" div along the RHS, with a light grayscale background image
* use no border or background color for the intro text and search-bar at top (perhaps a light grayscale background image and very light border).
* don't change the layout of "sister projects" and "other languages".  This is a point of preference, and the current layout works just fine.
*: +sj +
:There is some discussion on this point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#Some_considerations... with the resulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft2 - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start with smaller color changes 

message: Just my viewpoint, but personally I don't feel the side-by-side Sister projects and Other languages works with the rest of the page's layout - I feel it would be better to have these sections as they are in the old version, one on top of the other. Other than that, this is a very nice design. --Sum0 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In addition, I feel the 1,000+ group should be reincluded.  The Jade Knight 07:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister projects/Other languages 

message: In my opinion, it looks like right edge of the the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box should be horizontally aligned with the "In the news" and "On this day..." boxes. Is there a reason for the current spacing layout? - ElAmericano 05:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It does look a little odd, but if this is changed then there should be whitespace within the coloured boxes when one column is longer than the other, not between the coloured boxes. Andrew_pmk | Talk 20:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: i think the amount of whitespace between the boxes is perfect, however i do think the heading should line up. you could add a few extra pixels to the width of those two columns to make it aligned properly without adjusting the whitespace. danhash 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight alignment problem 

message: I think it could be improved significantly.  In particular:
1. It makes no sense to have such a small thumbnailed Picture of the Day in the southeast corner, when there is all that white space to the left of it.  Slide one of the boxes on the right half of the page (e.g. In the News) down below the "Did You Know" box, move "On this day" up to replace it, slide the picture of the day under that, and enlarge the picture.  Or something similar.  Make the picture more prominent.
2.  I strongly feel the "In The News" section should be given much less prominence, even to the point of just providing a link to Wikinews.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service.  At most, just 2-4 headlines, and a link to Wikinews; no images.  And position the box down in the page, not up.
3.  More prominence to the Featured Article, including its image.
4.  Too much white space between "Sister Projects" and "Other Languages"
5.  No need for two search boxes.  If they can't find one, something's wrong.
Jeeb 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with point #2. extra images clutter up the page and the news images aren't really necessary. as far as the search boxes, it's being discussed here danhash 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative Emphases 

message: The position of the featured picture is very odd. Why not just do it like before, and use the DYK box for the featured pic on weekends? - Kookykman|(t)(c)
:I don't know about the featured picture replacing DYK on week-ends, it doesn't make that much sense: if you want a DYK section on week days, there's no reason not to have it on week-ends. As for the placement of the features picture at the bottom-right of the page, I think this is ridiculous, especially in that size. what about a miniature below the featured article? Jules LT 16:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture? 

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea to include date/time somewhere, because "today's featured article" confuses some people; see this post to the helpdesk-mailinglist. Gerrit CUTEDH 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i heartily agree --Quiddity 03:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses UTC as basis for these dates.  While you can set your timezone in "my preferences", it doesn't affect the Main Page.  I don't know if/how easily the dates could be generated on-the-fly based on user preferences, but sounds like a good idea to me. ---Aude 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  date/time 

message: New Layout Is Excellent
Very, very nice. It has an intuitive format and gives access to more areas of interest than before. Nice work. Much appreciated.
Thanks  - Jack
Sorry for the enthusiasm.  I think the draft idea is great as it is.  When is it going to be implemented? --Kitch 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me likes. not signed in - n:user:bawolff 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PUT ALL PRAISE HERE

message: Why not make the page look more 3D like? --Member 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see. But that would involve using more graphics/color, and a lot of the comments on the related talk pages (see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page) seem to be against more color. I'd like to see a draft though, so, test it out. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D Look

message: Some comments
* In general, much better, especially the coloured sections.
* I've got "justify paragraphs" checked for viewing Wikipedia. Paragraphs on this page is for some reason not justified and the Browse Wikipedia section's title is a bit screwed up (fixable by including br after Browse).
* I also have the "number sections" option checked. In both the current and proposed pages this adds meaningless numbers to the section titles.
* Biggest problem is the massive white space on the page already discussed above.
* The second biggest problem is that the pictures are getting too small. This makes the page lose a lot of its appeal.
* I like additional information on the picture of the day.
* Do people actually use the Browse Wikipedia section? I never do. I think we can replace the whole section with a link called "Categories" and use the freed up space to increase the size of the other contents.
* I think the "Ask a question" link should be replaced with separate links to the Help and Reference desks. Since there is already an Introduction link, this could be reduced to a single link to the Reference Desk.
* The Sign in paragraph can be removed - all pages already have a big sign in at the very top.
* It's a good idea to have less languages on the page, but should we keep the 'Complete List' link?
I understand that people feel that the current page is too cluttered and will cause information overload in most users. However, I would prefer even more information. What is the possibility of having two main pages - a simple and a super one?
Good job! -  s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: Unfortunatley, the biggest loser in the redesign is "Today's Featured Article," which now gets only a small amount of space.  I'd suggest that this is a mistake:
* It does not make Wikipedia look like a serious encyclopedia
* It removes a small but not insignificant incentive for people to try and write "Front Page Quality" articles
* It just accords less attention and respect to the work that is at the heart of Wikipedia
I'd suggest putting the "Browse" stuff at the bottom of the left-hand column, and continuing to accord plenty of space to the Featued Article, which is always the best thing I see when I visit the frontpage, and which consistantly provides an exciting look into Wikipedia at its best.
--ThaddeusFrye 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article 

message: Small point but the search box doesn't highlight when selected.  --hydnjo talk 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what browser? Tom- 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Search box

message: My suggestion is to move the "Browse Wikipedia" column to the bottom-left of the page and move the "picture-of-the-day" up to replace it next to "Today's headlines".
In other words, keep all the unchanging links in the first (left-most column).
--Luis Fernandes Nov 23, 2005
: I could definitely see that, and agree with it.  Pylon 17:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree the featured ficture should be higher up --T-rex 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move  "Browse Wikipedia" section 

message: Would it be possible to extend the capability of the Main Page by adding an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) link to:
# capture the Main Page contents complete (i.e. Today's Featured Article, In The News, Selected Anniversaries and Did You Know.) providing a full Main Page RSS feed from Wikipedia.
# or have individual RSS feeds for each section to precede the Archive – By email – More... tag. 
As a minimum it would be great to have the anniversaries in RSS format.
Main Page RSS links would have the advantage of making Wikipedia even more accessible to the public when not browsing directly.
Unless there is another way of doing it?--Steve Marquis 11:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS or similar feed for the main page 

message: Please help. The draft looks ugly in some points, at least with Opera. It's ok with FireFox. - TesterX 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same problems, also in Opera 8.51 on Windows XP. 198.161.230.10 04:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout suboptimal

message: Three items:
#My main concern with this draft is the color scheme - White is awfully harsh on the eyes.  Yes, I know, the main namespace has a white background anyway, but could we please use the soft pastels present on the current main page?  
#The "Browse Wikipedia" box looks unbalanced...it's mirrored with the normal navigation links, but the background is a different color, it's strange.  It might be unnecessary - most people pick up an encyclopedia to search, not browse.  
#Is this going to come up for a vote before it's implemented?  Is there a process for that? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I get the impression that most people seem to like the many colours, but I kind of have the same problem with it as with having many different font faces (ie. the "ransom letter" effect).  They're distracting, and it's not really clear what their purpose is. It may just be the particular mismatched pastel theme, especially with the "Welcome to Wikipedia" yellow-ish colour, which tends to draw the eye up from the text (making reading bothersome, and I suppose the text should be the focus, not the welcome). I think I do prefer colors (or at least shades) to nothing, but the current scheme makes me think of a children's toy or Pez candy. On the bright side, according to the ColorBlind Web Page Filter, the page appears to be very accessible to different forms of color blindness. 198.161.230.10 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Much White 

message: It's ugly - too "busy" - and we don't need two search boxes. Nowhere near as good as the existing page. Dan100 (Talk) 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The featured picture is in a very strange place. It has to go somewhere.-- --(U | T | C) 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FPC

message: The good:
*different colours & boxes for; Today's featured article, Did you know?, In the news, On this day: November 24th. cleaner & clearer.
*cleaner Browse Wikipedia
Problems;
*Browse Wikipedia is in wrong place. should be in dead space below toolbox on left.
*the featured pic is tiny with little text to explain context. better to have nothing at all, though i would miss the pics. therefore, don't change it.
*no need to change Other languages & sister project as they are at bottom of page anyway.
*Generally too radical. ONLY MINOR TWEEKS ARE NEEDED.
Veej 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very few actual ''improvements'' (non-technical) 

message: Tom-, I guess you didn't like my color scheme, since you moved my changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Unforgettableid. :) Anyway, the reason why I don't like the huge pink and blue boxes that are used on the Main Page now is because colored backgrounds are usually used to highlight small amounts of text, not 15 square inches of text. Also, I feel that having such large areas of color of almost exact opposite hues on the color wheel clash against each other, similar to purple and yellow. How about limiting the amount of color, e.g. by doing what was done on the Estonian main page and by using different colors, like pale blue and pale green, that are more similar to each other? :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plainer colors 

message: Also, how did you like my smaller changes, e.g. to the search box? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also 

message: It's difficult to recognize the encyclopedia image on the search box background as an encyclopedia, since the image is so faded out. Perhaps it'd be better to use that image in a darker form in the logo space in the top-left corner, above the Main Page...Recent Events...Random Article links on the left? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia image 

message: From reading comments from everyone, I agree with moving the browse column to the left nav space and making the featured picture more prominent.  
1. A lot of people have commented about the main page being too crowded with three columns.  By using the available space on the left nav bar for the browse categories, we can eliminate the third column.  In my opinion, I think "Browse wikipedia" should go below the 'navigation' and 'search box' and above the 'toolbox'.  The 'Useful links' could be added to the toolbox, in some way. 
2. The featured picture should be prominent, perhaps below the Featured article.  I think pictures greatly add to the visual appeal of Wikipedia and enhance article text, and the main page should reflect that with the featured picture.  The size and shape of the featured picture box varies greatly from that used by "Today's featured article" , "In the news" , and other features.  We could use the same size box for featured picture, dividing it into two subcolumns.  The left subcolumn can have "Featured picture", "Title", and we could add "the caption text".  The image can go in the right subcolumn.
To illustrate these ideas, I have mocked-up the design in photoshop (see right).
---Aude 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Why not move "browse by topic" higher up though? It would look more balanced if both toolboxes were touching each other, like usual, and "browse" was above them. Btw, thanks for making up that mockup! Moving that browse box to the left would've been a pain to mock up in HTML/CSS since it involves changing the MonoBook skin for one page only. 64.231.254.54 13:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the Featured Article shouldn't lose prominence in the front page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking another look at this, I think more space needs to be devoted to the Featured article.  Maybe just have the featured article and featured picture on the left, and put less emphasis on "Did you know?" — maybe move to the right column and making the box smaller/shorter? ---Aude 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move browse to left, move feature pict. 

message: I have modified :Image:Wikidraft_kmf164.jpg (see above), to incorporate more user comments and attempting to find some consensus. The image is created using Photoshop, rather than with HTML/wiki coding.
This design (see right) follows incorporates the following changes:
# Reduces the number of different colors, inline with the current design.  When adding the featured picture and using boxes around all these page elements, there would be five boxes and five different colors.  User comments suggest that's too many different colors — plus the yellow used in the heading.
# Includes the browse menu on the left, but without the subtopics and using the same style as the navigation and toolbox.
# Moves the featured picture to the right column.
# Expands space used for Today's featured article.
# Moves "Archive - By email - More anniverseries" up slightly, to make On this day more compact.  Same is done for Did you know ..., and In the news.
# Reduces the number of In the news items, by one. Also reduces the number of Did you know items, to provide the space for the Featured picture.
---Aude 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified main page mock-up

message: I would like to see the languages with 1,000+ edits reintroduced.  One of the things I always enjoyed was the multilingual nature of Wikipedia--it would be good for these smaller but established wikipedias to be able to have native speakers notice that Wikipedia is available in their language as soon as they hit the main page.  The Jade Knight 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Languages 

message: I find it always difficult to know to which article a picture belongs on the main page. Even though the articles say picture I have to go over all the lines to find the corresponding article. So either use a picture only for the first article so it's clear from the beginning for all pictures to which article they relate or mark articles that feature a picture on the main page with a different color. Maybe I'm not alone who doesn't know what's on the picture and wants to find out but without the hassle to go over all the mentioned articles in a box. I think people see the pictures first before they read. I hope someone's reading this here and comments on it :-) --Bernd 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I think it would be valuable to put a "make this your homepage" link on the main page for less technical users who don't know how to make Wikipedia their homepage. Many major websites include this sort of link on their homepage and Wikipedia, being one of the top visited pages on the whole internet, should also because many people probably want to make it their hompage. P-unit 05:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this.  - JustinWick 06:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Wikipedia is great, and I have done quite a lot of editing, but I don't go to the Main Page for fun. Instead, I go to Slashdot, LWN or another true news website. But wouldn't this seem like shameless self-promotion? Why would non-editors want to make Wikipedia their homepage? --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are curious, and Wikipedia is the ultimate cure. For instance, why would they want to set Google News as their homepage? Because people want to know what's going on. Wikikpedia is the ultimate site for random knowledge, whether you are an editor or not. I come here just to read random articles all the time and probably would even if I was not an editor. (This is how I got drawn into being one, actually.) Essentially, what I'm saying is that lots of people are interested in Wikipedia and come here for fun. Additionally, I think self-promotion to this degree is okay. We're not boasting about ourselves but rather offering an opportunity for the interested users to make this their homepage. If anything, a little self-promotion like this can't hurt and it is not disgraceful.P-unit 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I see your point now. But if we add it to the Main Page, let's make the text Make Wikipedia your Homepage a template, say, , so we can also add it to  also. :) --Unforgettableid | talk to me 04:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to self-reply, but I created the template  but did not add the necessary JavaScript as from . --Unforgettableid | talk to me 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to get around the JavaScrit problem? I tried it on my page and Wikipedia wasn't accepting the HTML Javascript tags. (i.e. I didn't find a solution) Can some exception be made for the Main_Page to use Javascript because it is alwasy locked or is that out of yours and the system's capabilities? 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Make this you homepage" link 

message: The design is good but why are there two search bars on the main page? It is good to have more information on the front page but be careful not to add too much or it will be difficult to read and not aesthetically pleasing (Not that I'm the expert when it comes to web designing).--88.106.236.168 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they be so prominent? Some of them are new; others have a surprising amount of ugly, unfinished content linked close to their Main Pages. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice design 

message: One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you don't have to fiddle about with a username and password before you can access (or even edit)the pages. I hope the site does not become too member-inclusive and makes some things open to members only. (But it's a great site)--88.106.236.168 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, it has been starting to become so. Only members can now create pages. A sad farewell to the Wiki Way :( --Unforgettableid | talk to me 05:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki membership 

message: The primary links for each blurb (news, featured article) are bold, but this there are usually so many other links that it can still be confusing what a person is supposed to click on to get at the actual primary focus of the blurb. The featured article has a "full article" link, but, especially when there are multiple consecutive linked items (one of which being the primary and bolded), I still end up sometimes clicking on something I didn't want to click on--I'm used to there only actually being one link, and being able to just carelessly click somewhere near what I want.  At the possible expense of writing clarity, could primary links always be presented at the immediate start of blurbs, or, less preferably, have a "full article"-type link at the end of each blurb?  Or use some other method of more clearly presenting the link? I think this is especially important for the news articles, and, to a lesser extent, Did You Know. FireWorks 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should make the "Full article" link at the heading? E.g. "Today's featured article (view full article)" --Unforgettableid | talk to me 05:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Links 

message: I seriously doubt anyone uses that stuff, people just search these days. It takes a lot of room and is quite ugly... Dan100 (Talk) 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see people using it for school (before post-secondary, mostly) research and stuff, where they just want to read about things that fall in certain categories of interest. Or maybe someone that wants to learn everything about astronomy, say... FireWorks 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: those people will type "astronomy" in the search field. axe it. --Gbleem 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. P.S. an e.g. "geography" search should take you to :Category:Geography, a portal, though. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 05:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I use it,I like just casually browsing and finding something interesting to read.Somethings are competely new to me let alone that I could search for them.I don't see why you would actually want to remove a feature.Certainly with so few people desiding over it.--Technosphere83 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the "browse" box? 

message: Looking at the source HTML, I noticed ALT tags missing for some images such as <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/Hotairballooninflation.jpg/140px-Hotairballooninflation.jpg" alt="" width="140" height="105" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Hotairballooninflation.jpg" />.  This may present accessibility issues.  Instead, there should be a short caption in the ALT tag for screenreaders. 
Also, as mentioned by User:Jeffthejiff on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#Less_wikilinks, having the browse box code at the top of the source code, above the main body, is also problematic for screenreaders.  The browse box will be read before "Welcome to Wikipedia ...".  ---Aude 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility - ALT tags, screenreaders 

message: Hi I just saw your idea to improve the main page, and think it's great.  Everything you have done will make wikipedia way better.  I don't know HTML or alot about templates, so I can't say much from an experts perspective, but I do have a sugestions.
*Instead of collums, there should be rows.  I think that the top row should be the FA, then the search (with A-Z next to it), then the catagories, then the other stuff.  
**It would look way better with rows
**I don't think anyone reads the did you know, or the anaversaries.  I just think that rows, not collums would make it much easier to read.  Also, most wikipedia articles are not in collums but in rows.  
Do you guys agree with me?  Tobyk777 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collums not Rows

message: Please change the byline from "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." Seriously how long has Wikipedia been around and only now you're circling the wagons? Heptapod 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "almost" is sort of repelling isn't it? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth in Advertising 

message: I think the new main page should also show other featured items other than the featured article and featured pictured. Just look at all the other featured content there is.
 Tarret 14:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as Featured pictures and Featured articles are the only features that contain enough pictures/articles (respectively) from which to select  "Today's Featured Article" and "Featured Picture".  For example, we have just the Cricket portal, and no Featured sounds or Featured topics.  I think these all need more work before appearing on the main page.  ---Aude 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Featured Items

message: It seems like the cursor should be in the Search box when you open the page.  I don't know whether that is possible.
I'm using: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
:Webpages that use JS to move your focus are evil. Elaboration can be supplied at request. Unrelatedly, I like the new proposed design as it is now (Dec 28) a lot more than the one currently in use, and previous drafts. Probably in part because it's a lot more like the current design than some of the previous drafts were. The news section is kind of squishy though, even at 1024x769 (and anything less than that, or a window that isn't fully maximised, is kind of ugly looking).  It also says "In the news" twice. It's also a bit long-ish for a main page, but I don't know what could be cut. Does the software allow the title ("Main Page", or, now, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft") to be hidden?  Everything above the "Welcome" banner could go (except during fund drives, etc. of course) FireWorks 09:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply, just happened across this while trying to find a way to get Firefox's default cursor position to the search box rather than the address box. I totally agree with Fireworks, I hate when websites put the cursor in a text box of any sort (using any method, I'm assuming JS is the norm if not the only way) because I don't use the mouse as much as I do the keyboard. Basically when the cursor is in a text box (at least in my browser, Firefox 1.5) you can't use the page up or page down buttons until exiting all boxes (and putting the focus or cursor on the page). It would certainly be possible for Wikipedia to have the cursor default to the search box upon loading up (or whenever they want really) but I pray this doesn't happen and hope that either other sites change this or that I find some way to avoid this problem. I'm going to checking out GreaseMonkey scripts by the way, anyone else out there let me know if you have or or are interested in a solution to this. --David Monaghan 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default Cursor Position