Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 5

message: There is an audience poll below, to gauge:
* How users primarily enter Wikipedia? main page? watchlist? article page via google? other?
* Is Wikipedia's Main Page set as your browser's home page?
* Is Wikipedia's Main Page on your bookmark toolbar? (Firefox users, and other browsers with the capability)
I consider it important that we step back from the draft design and consider how the main page really is used and by who. I realize it's unscientific, but still helpful to get back to the usability ideas inherent in this redesign project. Thanks. --Aude 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

message: There was some version confusion, which resulted in responses to the wrong version, but Draft 5 is back up and ready for critiquing.  Please check the history of the draft to make sure you are commenting on the right version (in case someone else changes it - look for my namestamp).  Thank you.  Go for it! 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, though wondered if there wasn't a way to make the daily feautred article get its own redirecting page so that there could be a general link to the (full) feautred article.  Sort of a variable that gets assigned daily automatically.  We could then link to that um... with the (more).  I now realise that this is far too complicated for something so minor, and possibly impossible anyway.  Moving on then, the WP:FA link I referred to above should've actually been WP:WIAFA.  I got the two confused and there's already a link to the former.  The images just have "click me! click me!" written all over them to me so it would be nice if they could be pointed to something useful (if this is possible and if copywrite policy allows it). Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I like this new page. It looks rather nice, and more organized than the current page.  It is bright, which I believe has been commented on by a lot of people, but overall I give it a 9/10. (I recall giving a 7/10 on the previous one.) Link9er 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the italian-inspired, it looks nicer and clearer. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the new design. It looks much cleaner and neater than the current one. A great job done to the revision. --Terence Ong Talk 05:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are now square corners. As for the round vs. square debate, I like square because the round is a little pixelated and it would require so much work just for an aesthetic change.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if giving my opinion in this part is the right place. Whatever. The interest in giving the "other languages" on the left column is to make a kind of pattern for which will be followed by all the pages on Wikipedia. If we change it on one page - even if it's the "Main Page" - I think it wouldn't give the reflex to people to look at the left on the window to check for a foreign language version of the article. A problem remains, of course : do we have to keep "other languages" on the bottom ? I think this isn't a problem and that we can keep the two things together : the column in order to show the pattern of Wikipedia ; the bottom indication to show new people that there are other languages wikipedias in the world. What do you think of that ? (sorry for the IP address : I only registered on french wikipedia :o) ) 81.56.64.150 12:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The draft was altered, and therefore comments were made on the wrong draft.  Sorry for the confusion.  It has been restored to its intended configuration.  Thank you Infinity0 for fixing the spacing problem I asked you about -- I sure couldn't figure it out.  Go for it! 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just modified my comments to reflect this fact.  Thanks for alerting me to this. I think the main draft is getting closer to what we need. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like what you did with the top bar a lot (though I think the Welcome To and the search box should be a little closer together, each of them closer to the center - there's too much blank space in the middle. Zafiroblue05 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the search bar is great too.  But, we need to make the links to portals and catagories at least twice the size they are.  Everything else on the page isn't nearly as important as the search catatgories, and portals.  Those 3 things are the way people are able to come to wikipedia, and find the info they want.  People don't come for news, or anaversiries, they come for the info they need.  I propose the enlargement of the the links at the top.  Tobyk777 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Main Page Redesign Draft Five''' -- ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft|It's starting to look pretty good...]]'' 

message: *Well, I prefer a redesign. I think we're getting close, and I like how this version is trying to go for that style, but I've gone a little furthur. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired). I think it color is a very important part of the main page, and needs to be used. Also, the number of articles does not need to be linked to twice in the same box. Remove the one below the intro text and leave the one above the search box (which I also think is a must stay item).- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, though wondered if there wasn't a way to make the daily feautred article get its own redirecting page so that there could be a general link to the (full) feautred article.  Sort of a variable that gets assigned daily automatically.  We could then link to that um... with the (more).  I now realise that this is far too complicated for something so minor, and possibly impossible anyway.  Moving on then, the WP:FA link I referred to above should've actually been WP:WIAFA.  I got the two confused and there's already a link to the former.  The images just have "click me! click me!" written all over them to me so it would be nice if they could be pointed to something useful (if this is possible and if copywrite policy allows it). Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I like this new page. It looks rather nice, and more organized than the current page.  It is bright, which I believe has been commented on by a lot of people, but overall I give it a 9/10. (I recall giving a 7/10 on the previous one.) Link9er 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the italian-inspired, it looks nicer and clearer. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the new design. It looks much cleaner and neater than the current one. A great job done to the revision. --Terence Ong Talk 05:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Prefer the re-design (comments welcome):

message: *This looks very good, it presents information well, and the general layout is better than the main page, but the green and blue are much too loud, and we certainly don't need icons next to every heading-- they're hard to make out anyway. I think dark pastels might be good for the headings. By the way, the search bar runs off the page on my browser, and it's a duplicate of the search bar already on the side. Also, what's up with  hanging out in the background? It looks like it's going to sneak up from behind and stab me. Ashibaka tock 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now square corners. As for the round vs. square debate, I like square because the round is a little pixelated and it would require so much work just for an aesthetic change.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Prefer current Main Page (comments welcome): 

message: * User:Kmf164/Main page draft
Colors. I think the current draft and it's colors (particularly the blue) are too bold, though the green color is more acceptable.  I would prefer keeping the current main page colors, as that would make the new design less drastic a change from the present version.  
Browse bar. I also like the original browse bar from Tom-'s original draft, with "Welcome to Wikipedia..." not centered, but towards the left and the search box.  More recent comments here suggested making the links to the community portal, help desk, etc. more prominent.  I suggest eliminating some items in "Almanac · Categories · FAQs · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Site news · Index"  and adding links to the help desk, community portal, as well as for donations (as is on the current main page).  I also suggest this "browsebarmain" be separate (white bkgd) from the yellow box.  
Icons. I like using the icons from the Italian Wikipedia, though think "Today's featured article" and the "Featured picture" need different/new icons. 
Other languages. Another suggestion was adding the "other languages" to the left column (as on all other articles).  I had some feedback on that (keep the "other languages") on the bottom, though inconclusive on whether to have other languages also on the left.  
:I don't know if giving my opinion in this part is the right place. Whatever. The interest in giving the "other languages" on the left column is to make a kind of pattern for which will be followed by all the pages on Wikipedia. If we change it on one page - even if it's the "Main Page" - I think it wouldn't give the reflex to people to look at the left on the window to check for a foreign language version of the article. A problem remains, of course : do we have to keep "other languages" on the bottom ? I think this isn't a problem and that we can keep the two things together : the column in order to show the pattern of Wikipedia ; the bottom indication to show new people that there are other languages wikipedias in the world. What do you think of that ? (sorry for the IP address : I only registered on french wikipedia :o) ) 81.56.64.150 12:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft was altered, and therefore comments were made on the wrong draft.  Sorry for the confusion.  It has been restored to its intended configuration.  Thank you Infinity0 for fixing the spacing problem I asked you about -- I sure couldn't figure it out.  Go for it! 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just modified my comments to reflect this fact.  Thanks for alerting me to this. I think the main draft is getting closer to what we need. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like what you did with the top bar a lot (though I think the Welcome To and the search box should be a little closer together, each of them closer to the center - there's too much blank space in the middle. Zafiroblue05 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the search bar is great too.  But, we need to make the links to portals and catagories at least twice the size they are.  Everything else on the page isn't nearly as important as the search catatgories, and portals.  Those 3 things are the way people are able to come to wikipedia, and find the info they want.  People don't come for news, or anaversiries, they come for the info they need.  I propose the enlargement of the the links at the top.  Tobyk777 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other proposals 

message: There was much demand in the last round of discussions for "linkage".  So I've added a box to highlight the Wikipedia Community.  
Some of you are much more familiar with where all the best hang-outs are, so if you'd like to improve the list of community pages, please do so.  Here's the link:  Template:Wikipedia community (main page).  Go for it! 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Community box 

message: I couldn't figure out how to get space between the 2 main columns without adding margins on the far sides (via the cell padding variable at the top of the column table).  Can anyone fix this?  (That is, remove the padding on the sides, while keeping the space between the 2 columns)?  Thanks.  20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Infinity for solving that problem I was having.  The sides match up perfectly now.  Go for it! 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Padding problem 

message: I think we really need to step back here.  It seems to me that each successive draft is getting worse.  Much more discussion and many more varied proposals need developing first.  violet/riga (t) 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step back 

message: We should do a detailed study into the Main Pages of other languages.  The Dutch one, I think, is far better than any design proposed here so far, and there are many others that do it better.  We really need to think about what is important on the Main Page rather than just reorganising what we have right now.  violet/riga (t) 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Other languages, with discussion on that talk page. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad spanish translation.  They do have "In the news" and don't have "On this day".  I just corrected my comments. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the Spanish one is very professional. The icons are actually helpful there, too. Ashibaka tock 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examining other language Main Pages 

message: I was just going through the other languages, in order to add links to the left column (as w/ other articles) to my draft.  I don't care for all the icons on the Dutch main page, however I like the Spanish main page.   They have "Explore Wikipedia", "Categories", "Participate in Wikipedia" - I like that one, "Wikipedia in other languages" all in the left column;  In the right column, they have "Today's featured article", "Did you know?", and "On this day" "In the news".  They don't have "In the news""On this day" which I do like, nor do they have "featured picture".  —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad spanish translation.  They do have "In the news" and don't have "On this day".  I just corrected my comments. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the Spanish one is very professional. The icons are actually helpful there, too. Ashibaka tock 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish main page

message: Draft 5 was altered, causing a bunch of people to comment on an unintended version.  I've restored Draft 5.  Please take a look.  Go for it! 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHECK THE HISTORY OF THE DRAFT BEFORE YOU COMMENT 

message: Hey all.  One thing that's been a source of on-again off-again controversy at Template talk:In the news has been the appropriate means to deal with obituaries.  Many of us are in favour of a cut-and-dried set of rules so that we don't get bogged down into endless debates about whether death x has been notable enough to get onto the front page.  Officially, we mirror the "no obits" rule in use on Current events, which I personally find a sensible standard, but some users have rightfully pointed out that this has been overlooked on the occasion of numerous deaths, particularly when they have been high-profile Americans (cf Peter Jennings, Rosa Parks).  
One compromise solution that has been proposed is to stick in a small space for the latest one or two high-profile additions to Recent deaths onto the front page.  I mocked this up for the current layout here, but the thought has struck me that it might be worth running by you lot, too, with it possibly getting implemented whenever you roll out a new version of the front page.  Anyone with any cracking layout ideas? The Tom 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deaths section 

message: This is what I see with Firefox, 800x600 settings on a 15" monitor --Ancheta Wis 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample results with a Firefox browser 

message: Is awful - top search box overlaps welcome banner.  --hydnjo talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "Welcome to Wikipedia" can be left-aligned (with some padding).  That would help somewhat with the overlap issue.  Also, in your screenshot, the number of browse categories looks to be too many.  I suggest getting rid of "Art" and "Philosophy" — those two aren't on the current main page.  Thanks for the comment.  —--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *OK now :-)  hydnjo talk 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classic skin

message: What I've noticed over the past few drafts, is that for every person who wants it one way, there's another who wants it exactly the opposite way.  Check the archives.  Go for it! 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50/50 

message: The div method of source coding is wreaking havoc with various users' browsers.  We may have to use a more stable type of code, like table encoding.  See Portal:Cricket and Portal:Philosophy for 2 very stable pages.  The current Main Page seems to be pretty damn stable too.  Go for it! 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  div encoding unstable 

message: Perhaps something like this: User:Porge/Main_Page porges 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a fan of the colors being used... does not go good with the overall "theme" of the site. --^BuGs^ 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for heading colours 

message: I think that in an encyclopedia, the catagories, portals, A-Z, and other navigational link curretnly at the top should be way bigger.  People don't go to an encyclopedia, for news, or triva, or pictures, or anything else, as much as they information.  The links at the top are by far the most important thing on the page, and must be enlarged from their tiny state.  Tobyk777 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigger Directory

message: Here is the latest look in Firefox 800x600. You have fixed the problem shown above, even when resizing the browser. Looks good. --Ancheta Wis 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrap is fixed in Firefox

message: I know there are more important things to be worrying about, but the curvature on the green & blue sections looks horrendous.
Nononono.  If you're going to use images to create rounded corners, use the method shown here.  (If that no longer works, try this link.)  In that example, images are used to create inverted curves (that is, white bg, transparent curve) which makes it look *much* cleaner... drumguy8800 - speak? 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curvature 

message: I very much like this section.  hydnjo talk 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Community

message: I think the colours are much too bright in draft five. Please change them so they are subtle like they are on the current main page. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Choalbaton 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours too bright

message: I think this draft has a number of problems at the moment, mainly in terms of colour. Not only are the colours too bold but they clash completely. The subtlty of the sidebar and background certain doesn't match the kindergarten green/blue shades, and the pastely yellow at the top looks completely out of place.
The asymmetry of the boxes (vertically and horizontally) makes it look odd - the existance of the sidebar doesn't help with this. The two lower boxes should start at the same point - this is particularly important if the boxes are going to have coloured title bars. I think it'd probably look better if the two were the same width.
The current main page is great because the colour scheme is consistant and quite understated/subtle. It matches the colour scheme that runs through the entire Wikipedia. Obviously some of the issues I've pointed out with the draft also apply to the main page.
Finally, I believe this project to be fundamentally flawed. What is most usable to one user is not suited to another. The optimal solution would be to give users a preference as to which page they land on when they type http://en.wikipedia.org/ into their browser. This may be the current main page, an alternative main page suited for the visually impaired, or even a portal. --Oldak Quill 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with this page... 

message: I agree that the current colors are too bright. Something much more faded would be easier on the eye, yet still highlight the section. Her Pegship 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighter colors 

message: While y'all are screwin' messin' around (no insult intended) with getting the Main Page exactly right, a couple of real good things have come out of this project. So, how about adding  almanac and  glossaries right now. Just add them to the  template and then all can have one click accessibility to a couple of neat places in the meantime (so to speak).  ;-)  hydnjo talk 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add NOW

message: I think what you should so is ensure that the boxes all line up like they do at the moment. Like i say, the text for news changes every day, so the boxes will go up and down like a visualiser on a music player. Simply put some padding at the bottom, or between the article top, then it'll line up, and stay the same all the time (consistency, again) The magical Spum-dandy 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please make it more consistent 

message: An important question to ask is who is the audience for the main page?  I'm thinking it's more likely people that come to look for information on a topic, read articles, maybe edit some, and might be anons./IP.  Though, I also think a lot of these people come in through google to an article page.  People that come to the main page might not have a specific idea of what information they want, but more likely to browse?  And as a contributor, I do look at the main page from time to time, to see what the featured article is and the featured picture on the weekend.  I'm also interested in ITN and what articles are linked on the main page, that might need work.  However, my main entry point to Wikipedia is my Watchlist or one of my vandalism watchlists.
I've been poking around Wikipedia to find out statistics on "entry pages" to Wikipedia.  How many people enter Wikipedia through the main page?  Maybe break this down by anons/IPs, editors (maybe by # of edits, or when they registered, or something), and admins?  I think this is an important consideration for how prominent the browse categories, the community portal/help pages, etc. should be.  While I've found some interesting results at http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm, I haven't yet found anything on "entry pages" to Wikipedia.  Maybe these stats are restricted to admins-only or I'm not sure?  Does anyone know where/how to find this information?  At least, maybe a straw poll here, on what's your main entry point to Wikipedia? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another good question.  Maybe a straw poll will give us a general idea of how many users have the main page set as the browser's home page? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience? 

message: I think we need to take a step back, with the redesign process and get a better sense of who the users of the main page are, and how users enter Wikipedia.  Ultimately, it would be useful to track down site statistics on "entry pages" to Wikipedia? e.g. watchlist, main page, article page via google search? I realize this poll isn't represntative, as it's just people who find this draft talk page.  Maybe there's a better place for such a survey? —--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience poll 

message: ====Main Page====
* I prefer to come through the Main Page. Even though I rarely actually use it  Run!  18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do you normally enter Wikipedia?

message: * I prefer to come through the Main Page. Even though I rarely actually use it  Run!  18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Main Page]]

message: * My watchlist is the primary way I arrive at Wikipedia, though sometimes I first go to one of my vandalism watchlists.  After I go through recent changes, I might look at the Main page to see what the featured article is or what's linked to the main page (on ITN).  I also will use the main page to go browse for something. --Aude 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Watchlist]]

message: * Special:Contributions/Ashibaka - sort of a ghetto watchlist. Then I click the Main Page. Ashibaka tock 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other (specify?)

message: ====Yes====
*  Run!  18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Wikipedia's [[Main Page]] set as your browser's home page?

message: *  Run!  18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: * My browser home page has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Aude 16:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: ====Yes====
*  Run!  18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Wikipedia's [[Main Page]] on your bookmark toolbar? (Firefox users, and other browsers with the capability)

message: *  Run!  18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: * I don't have the main page bookmarked anywhere, though my watchlist is bookmarked in my toolbar. --Aude 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Excuse me for my poor English. I'm sorry for asking this question on this discussion but I want to design a portal with a white background coulor on the German Wikipedia site. Nobody knows how you have changed the background coulor to white at your drafts. Usually the background colour is defined by the software and can only be changed in personal sylesheets (user/monobook.css). Is there a way to override the default settings? I hope somebody can help us. Thanks --De.Doit 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background colour 

message: I just noticed a couple of flaws in the page's appearance when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.  The top banner doesn't quite reach as far to the left and right as the two columns below it, and the book image is cut off before it reaches the top.  Here's a screen capture.  —David Levy 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE Display Problems 

message: I notice that everything on this redesign is in a pastel box. Take a note from the current Main Page: not everything needs to be pastel-boxified. Ashibaka tock 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastel boxes

message: This draft is no longer actively proposed.  Please see the discussion below for my current attempt.  —David Levy 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous attempt by David Levy 

message: I realize this has been requested before, but nobody seems to have taken it into real consideration.  I believe that the main page should have a look a lot like the current Portal:Browse page does, just a bit simplified and with other content for the news, "Did you know?", etc.  While many Wikipedia readers are Wiki-nuts, there are some people who come on here just to find information on a broad topic, and, while there is a search function, it's not always easy to guess the name of the article you're seeking.  As of now, the only resemblance our Main Page has to this is a few small links at the top.
P.S.: One site that implements this idea quite well now is the Italian Main Page.     appzter 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Browse]]-esque page? 

message: I strongly oppose the split into four boxes.  In my opinion,, the page looks much better with two boxes, even though the headings don't line up.  This is how the current main page is configured.
The four boxes make the page look very busy, and such a setup completely defeats the purpose of having one color for the left and another for the right.  —David Levy 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can take avantage of this: use four colors!--:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make the layout look even busier (and uglier).  Keep in mind that numerous users have expressed a preference to keep the main page simple.  —David Levy 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two boxes vs. four boxes

message: I'd just like to reiterate that I wholeheartedly support the removal of the icons.  Aside from my personal opinion that the page looks much better without them, it's obvious from the above comments that many people strongly oppose their inclusion.  —David Levy 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no icons marginally improves load time - better for disadvantaged DUN users. Metarhyme 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Icons

message: With or without the icons, I think the headings look bad with colors still too bold and saturated, and the heading text proportionally too large.  I suggest either the heading style (like the Spanish wikipedia) or stick to the style used on the current main page.  When I get some time, I can work on improving the headings (if enough of you agree with me). --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: Um... personally, I would prefer just plain text, or enlarged text from the logo. This reminds me of a children's movie or something. Ashibaka tock 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this be adapted to our purposes?

message: I think thnat curretnly the Hebrew WP  has the best mainpage.  It incorperates everything that our mainpage has and Portal:Browse into one, perfectly formatted page.  It think that we should make our page look alot like this.  What do you guys think?  Tobyk777 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That being the case, I'll come up with these:
History
Portal • Category (alternative image)
Health
Portal • Category 
Culture
Portal • Category
Any takers?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes one taker with Ultra-Extreme Support.  I think below these pics we should have subportals.  The mainpage should be merged with the Browse page.  Tobyk777 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks a Ultra-Extreme lot. I've arranged them all at User:HereToHelp/Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More like Hebrew

message: I just slapped a needs-fixing-if-not-swiftly-reverted box around "Community" adapting colors I swiped from the Spanish wikipedia for it. This could get out of hand, go for it! Metarhyme 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community box

message: I've added a hide/show function for the smaller language links.  Thoughts?  violet/riga (t) 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that this doesn't interfere with browser compatibility, it seems like a good idea to me.  —David Levy 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial language hide/show 

message: :(copied from the village pump & Go for it!'s talk page:)
Hi.  I'm on the Main Page Redesign team.  I'm looking into possibly turning off the title (H1 heading?) at the top of the page we are working on. We need to see what the Main Page Redesign Draft would look like without the page name showing up on the screen.  What is the link to the the documentation on this?  --Go for it! 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You already have the answer: the same way you turned off the #siteSub, with a hack on MediaWiki:Monobook.js. There is no documentation, of course, since it's a hack. --cesarb 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Ask any administrator when you want it undone. --cesarb 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As with all changes in Wikipedia's CSS and JS, you have to clear your cache before it takes effect. Sorry for forgetting to remind you of that. It works for me on Firefox 1.5, and it's so simple I'd expect it to work even on MSIE. --cesarb 13:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the article title be disabled on a particular page? 

message: What's that icon set called?  --Go for it! 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: commons:Category:P_icons  —David Levy 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (note: I was referring to this draft, the current one is beastly) Ashibaka tock 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very nice - what icon set are those icons now on the page from? 

message: I'm not thrilled with the browse icons, as I think they are confusing with three links under each.  Since we've all been working on Wikipedia for a while, we understand the difference between Category, Portal, and the Article links.  However, someone new to Wikipedia that's browsing for information, this seems very confusing.  It's further confusing that when you click on the icon itself, it just links to the icon image and not "art", "culture", or anything.  I suggest just one link for each icon, and clicking on the icon itself has to take you to the topic portal (or category). --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what happens with any icon used in any of these drafts, assume that it would link to an appropriate page (in the finished product).  That's a given.  —David Levy 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Culture and Geography icons now take you to the appropriate portal so we can see how it will work. I think we should only link to the Portal and the Category. Trödel•talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still confusing to have both "Portal" and "Category" presented.  Categories should be incorporated into each of the portals, and just link to the portals on the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there. violet/riga (t) 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently. Suit yourself. Metarhyme 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay.  It works, but when you roll the mouse over the icon, it says "Image:Purple geography icon.svg".  I see the image link is implemented with a redirect to "Portal:Geography".  Somehow, the rollover "ALT" tag needs to just say "Geography". --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's changed. How about getting rid of the heading? Just a row of icons + text? Metarhyme 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I really liked the icons, they are humorous and professional at the same time. We are really getting to something. (You can't believe how relived I was when I saw the simple color scheme) We're going to have a nice draft this time. Congratulations!--Quinlan Vos 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browse icons 

message: Firstly, THANK YOU, VIOLET/RIGA!  I spent the longest time trying to figure out how to move the text links closer to the icons, and all of my attempts failed miserably.  Nice work!
Secondly, I agree that it's better to link only to the portals.  Linking to both the portals and the categories is potentially confusing to inexperienced readers, and they're better off visiting the portals (which are far more welcoming and user-friendly).  —David Levy 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for once again cleaning up my sloppy code, violet/riga!  I'm learning this as I go along.  :)  —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - working together we're finding a solution. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explore Wikipedia

message: User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft Gold and bluish-purple.  To me, much more appealling than the green/blue of the current edit.  Edited from User:Kmf164/Main page draft.  drumguy8800 - speak? 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much like the colours, but the icons, for me, appear a little too childlike. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've combined that with the current page and a few other minor changes: User:Violetriga/inprogress. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now tried an Italian-inspired lead... violet/riga (t) 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried a gold/blue color scheme, and it was rejected.  The icons, as violet/riga mentioned, are childlike.  —David Levy 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color & Icon Proposal 

message: I'm getting a javascript error in IE with the Script Debugger.  Wasn't getting it about an hour ago Dandin1 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've refreshed multiple times in IE, don't see it.  Might've been me messing with coding on the background section.. accidentally clicked 'save page' instead of 'show preview' in the middle of it and it might've been a slightly web-hostile (buggy) version.  drumguy8800 - speak? 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript error 

message: One other concern I have is the quality of the portals.  Though, it helps a lot that User:HereToHelp got rid of the health portal, which is really primative and only recently been edited by User:Go for it! and myself.  On the other portals, we should make sure the categories are all presented in a uniform style and position on the page.  And, ensure each portal is regularly maintained and updated (e.g. switching the featured articles).  I'll do what I can, particularly with Portal:Geography.
One other issue is the name of the "Society" portal.  Is this supposed to encompass social sciences?  I'm not sure I'd think to look under "Society" for economics or law.  And where would I find popular culture (e.g. television, video games, sports, food & drink, etc.)?  I might think to look under culture, but don't see these apparant on the Culture portal.  This is all an issue of sorting topics, which is another important usability aspect of a website.  --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. We should strive to get these up to be Featured Portals (nothing exists in a vacuum, does it? Or else we could focus on the Main Page alone!)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is why I would prefer to link just to the categories rather than just to the portals, but both of them do provide access to the articles, so it's no big deal. Ashibaka tock 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals 

message: * User:Violetriga/inprogress
* User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft
* User:Kmf164/Main page draft
* User:David Levy/Main2
* User:Ashibaka/Main (just revamped)
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (Italian_Inspired)
These are all good drafts in their own ways. When we chose the Wikimedia logo, and the Wikipedia mascot, we took a straw poll on different people's ideas-- I think we could use the same process among these. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I most like the colour schemes of the first two listed. The other are OK, but I'd say the last draft has too much going on, and looks a little too fancy for what it is. Little images in blank spaces; it starts to look a bit like a pre-teen girl's bedroom. Harro. 5 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add that, someone else did. In any case I do think we should hold a multiple-vote straw poll on this. Ashibaka tock 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's coming on Saturday.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of independent drafts

message: Just want to point out that there are significant color variances, from monitor to monitor, for each draft.  The color saturation/brightness that I mentioned previously (Re: User:David Levy/Main2 and the official draft from earlier today), is slightly less an issue on my laptop display but seemed much too bright on my LCD monitor.  I did try adjusting the monitor settings, but colors still a bit too bright and bold.  On my own draft, I just tried slightly darkening the colors to make them look better on my laptop.  The colors on User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft do look different from my laptop to LCD monitor, but in both instances the colors look okay either way. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the colors in Drumguy's draft look terrible on my screen.  The colors in your current draft look fine, but the heading bars are rather dark.  Perhaps a compromise between your shades and mine would be suitable.  —David Levy 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors - monitor variances

message: It's evolved sufficiently since Draft 5. I'm happy with it. Her Pegship 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens on Saturday. I'm ready to face criticism, too—my well of ideas has run dry.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we make this Draft 6? 

message: I also copied the portal discussions to Portal_talk:Browse#Main_page_redesign.  We need some central place for discussion of the browse topics and how they are categorized.  I'm thinking of other shortcomings... I would think of "Portal:Business and Economics" as a main topic (e.g. most universities have their Business schools separate from Arts & Sciences, Humanities, Health/Medicine, Engineering, etc.).  Another main topic *might* be "Law and Government", as I wouldn't think to look under society for them.  And, I'm still unsure where to put topics like Sports, Games (e.g. video games), Television, ...  On Portal:Browse, they're currently under "Arts" but that doesn't quite make sense to me.  Maybe they could go under culture? --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all, I think the main page design is coming along very well towards improved usability, with the browse topics.  Maybe we should make a separate, parallel subset of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Portal or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Browse topics, and work on how the topics are organized and efforts to improve the Portals. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're making a molehill out of a mountain. I say we need to decide which topics to use once and for all. However, WikiProject Usability seems like a good home for this. I say let's take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Top Portals and sort this out, making an over arching decision for all of Wikipedia.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can decide right now, once and for all.  There is a difference between what topics might be considered main topics and should be on the main page, versus which portals are adequate quality and consistency to be linked from the main page.  We need to address this gap. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Browse topic categorization

message: Its a small thing but perhaps people should read this Nature article, which basically says that the first impression of a website is made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing. If all they see are text and mute colors we may be seen as a page not worth looking at.
A long these lines, I like the way the header looks now with the book in the background. I think it would also look good if the magnifying glass was returned to the right side of the header box. And perhaps an understated object could go in the backgorund of the Featured article, etc boxes. I think this would add a look of profesionalism to the page. (Like someone was actually getting paid to stylize Wikipedia and grab the attention of new users). 
I'd also like to see the Pic of the Day be a major part of the page but I think that's too much to ask for right now. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No...see just below.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background pics/ Watermarks 

message: Thank you Trevor for promoting the idea that the POTD should be on the main page everyday and not just on weekends.  And don't worry, it's not too much to ask for.  It is within our capabilities to provide.  There are three obstacles which we would have to overcome to provide this feature:
#Having the POTD everyday would create 5 boxes instead of 4 and would unbalance the columns creating a lot of empty space.  We'd need a 6th feature to restore that balance.
#Break the picture free of its formatting.  The picture of the day comes pre-formatted with its own heading and a (thick purple).  We'd have to coordinate with whomever is preparing the POTD day-pages (they're dated), and ask them to prepare another version daily without the formatting. (The main page needs all the formatting elements centralized on itself, so that their style can be coordinated).
#Turn "Did you know" into a daily feature also, so that we don't have duplicate POTD's on weekend days.
We might not work this out by this Saturday, but I have a feeling we're going to be working on this project a bit longer than that.
Check out the imbedded formatting (border and heading):
:I think we can deal with the three obstacles you mention.  As for 5 boxes, how about making the "Wikipedia community" and/or "Sister projects" fit in one column rather than spanning the two?  We could also make the size of the featured picture slightly smaller.  A bigger deal is having DYK done on the weekends, but sure it can be done. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we changed the pic of the days' format? The page that gets changed only has the name of the image. Then people can do any modifications like size here and builf the frame and whatever around it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the day issue 

message: Since we have more real estate with the new header format, I suggest we use it to greatest advantage.  And since the browsebar that's all over Wikipedia has "Portals" prominently set in its top line, perhaps we should keep "Portals" on our top line for the sake of familiarity and compatibility.  That would give us one more open slot to fill in the block of portals (we've got 11 portals listed there at the moment).
What should the 12th portal be???  
--Go for it! 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced there's any need to extend the main portals. I find that the existing ten already somewhat duplicate each other. Portal:Health is not and should not be a top-level entry point - in fact, it should probably be merged into Portal:Medicine. But this page is not the place for discussion of changes to the portal hierarchy - please continue that at Wikipedia talk:Portal.--cj | talk 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Main Page is not part of the hierarchy itself. The problem is, concerns were already raised Template:MainPageIntro that the hierarchy was imperfect - and not just because of sizing issues. None of the templates you've changed are incorporated in this design. If you wish to change the arrangement, please discuss it where it was formulated.--cj | talk 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried swapping Portal:Health with Portal:Medicine on the main page draft.  I agree with cj that maybe both should be merged.  Medicine seems slightly too narrow and doesn't seem to deal with broader health topics like epidemiology and public health. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I generally agree with you.  We need to work on getting the Health portal improved and seek out help from those involved in the relevant medicine and other articles. Until then, I would keep Medicine as the topic or just not have either on the main page (yet). --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Medicine is a subset of science and easily access from there. Newcomers often overlook the "Help" link in the navigation bar, so I put that in the place of Medicine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me, until time that the Health portal is a 'top' portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An even dozen portals? 

message: #Featured article
#Picture of the day
#Did you know...
#In the news
#On this day
#?????
Someone mentioned Quote of the day from Wikiquote, in an earlier discussion.  But would that fill enough room to balance the columns?
Do you have any other ideas?
--Go for it! 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some languages have Recent Deaths on the front page. I think de: is one. that would take us up to six.--Cherry blossom tree 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we went for six features, what would the sixth feature be? 

message: I'm currently getting a (fairly insignificant) horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. Is there anything can be done about this? Are we aiming to make it work for even smaller screens, too, or is everyone at least 800x600 these days?--Cherry blossom tree 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Screens

message: We've got our own picture feed now.
The Template:POTD column is transcluded in the draft.  It in turn calls a subpage by date.  Here are the page names of the upcoming subpages, the first few of which I've already stocked (Instructions, if you need them are on Template talk:POTD column):
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 20, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 21, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 22, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 23, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 24, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 25, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 26, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 27, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 28, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 29, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 30, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/January 31, 2006
:Wikipedia:POTD column/February 1, 2006
The pictures that need to be converted show up on the following pages (easy to find on all pages): 
*Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 2006
*Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 2006
*etc.
--Go for it! 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of the day added 

message: Unless somebody knows some trick for erasing text from a transcluded article, we can't just transclude Did You Know, because it contains an imbedded heading.  Which will clash with our heading...
$%^&*(%^&*()
 *LIGHT BULB*
We can overlap the incoming heading with a blank heading (with the background turned on).  I hope transparency works.
I'm going to try it.
--Go for it! 10:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't be a problem later: we can just remove the header because the template will have to work with this page, not the current Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of "Did You Know" problem

message: I was able to blank out the heading and use negative margins (top and left) to line the template's heading up where the blanked out heading was, thus overlapping it with the blanked out heading's background.
However, there's a line of code in the template that says "div style="float:right; margin-left: 0.5em;" that seems to cause the background of the heading below it to expand up to the previous header.
I added 17 hard carriage returns (br), and it pushed it back down, though there's variable space there now, depending how big or small your text size is adjusted to.  
Does anyone know what is going on with this, and how to fix it?
We need to replace the 17 carriage returns with a better solution.
I think it has something to do with "float".  Can we lock the template down somehow inside another div container, using some kind of command to anchor it?
If we lick this problem, we'll have a fully operational "live" news feed, making the whole page fully operational!
--Go for it! 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we can modify the templates themselves when we are ready to "go live".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "push-it-up-there" trick worked on In the news, sort of...

message: Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index · Mobile
:i am not known to the procedure with proposals to the main page so please move this one to the appropriate place if this way is not the way to do  - thank you - User:Trigan777
:moved from the draft page to here for discussion by Go for it! 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile phone access - where's the best place for this?

message: FireFox did it!  He found a simple solution to the heading bleed.  And by the way, check out his user page...
Look familiar?  --Go for it! 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks FireFox! 

message: I've seen a lot of discussion over redesigns of the Main Page, and my question is what should the ultimate aim be? Should it be to have something as simple as possible that as many people as possible can use (call this the MAIN PAGE)? Then fix this in stone, but make clear that it is a simple template that most people should modify to create their own main page. Anyone who comes along with a bright idea or personal preference for layout, can then create their own version (probably in their user space) and use it as their personal "entry point". Kind of similar to using RSS feeds, or having a skin. This would avoid the countless edit wars I've seen over minor points of style and trying to fix a page to suit a few types of users, rather than leaving it flexible enough for all users to use it in their own way. Maybe I'm missing something and this wouldn't be workable, or is already possible, but I'd sure like to see a range of styles and "Main Page" designs available to pick and choose from. You would also be able to change things over time as you moved around different areas of Wikipedia, altering your personal "home page" to 'retire' the old interests and add the new ones. 62.31.128.13 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, way down the road and beyond the scope of this project, I think it might be possible to have a customizable main page, like you can customize google news, yahoo, etc. by selecting which content items you want (e.g. weather, sports...) , and positioning them.  In the meantime, sure it's possible for those inclined to go ahead and create their own version of the main page in their user space.   (it is possible to have personal customizations of monobook.css and monobook.js in your user space too). --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the comments so far. I like some of the ideas and drafts I've seen around here. Does anyone have a fairly comprehensive listing of the many different drafts and versions that have been suggested, so that I can compare them, and try and pick and match ideas I like for a personalised UserMainPage(TM)? Is all the featured content on Wikipedia centred around the Main Page, or do other areas have constantly updating featured content? One thing I wanted to try and incorporate was having the Wikipedia: Signpost content appear as a feed, rather than clicking a link to go to it (goes and checks)... DOH! I see there is an RSS feed there already. I've been away too long! :-) 62.31.128.13 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customizable Main Page? 

message: There is another alternative to worrying so about what exactly is presented on the Main opening page— Which I agree should be a cross between something that showcases the capabilities of Wikipedia (which is an argument for the current layout including the "article of the day," etc.) and a guide to how to obtain the information (a non-contributing) user might be looking for. 
My solution would be also to provide a repeat user with a "Toolset" page one can open upon (that one could bookmark), and that one can (1) modify in accordance with one's wishes, and (2) provide a rigorous "Starter toolset" into the heart of wikipedia.
One example is Wikipedia:Starter toolset, which I am in process of majorly upgrading.  Suggestions are strongly solicited.  ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think most people find their own ways of doing this.  I for one have a "recent changes" style bookmark which I always use, and many others use their user page (or subpage thereof) to create a customisable entrance. violet/riga (t) 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional "Opening" Page 

message: In IE, the formatting is off.  Can you see it?  The margins and the padding is all screwed up.  Compare browsers and get back to me.  --Go for it! 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some minor differences (an unavoidable condition), but nothing looks "screwed up."  —David Levy 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IE Formatting Glitch