Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 6

message: I don't think mediators will be needed. My idea: shut down the voting and let's civilly discuss how to do this. Forget the time limit. We won't vote until we're ready. Please look at my idea above and see if it will meet our needs.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying anything to the contrary.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is getting out of hand...

message: During the previous round of discussions (in archive 5), somebody suggested that we make multiple versions of the main page available for users to "set" as their main page - thus allowing everyone to get what they want.  His idea was dismissed out of hand as being a complex programming problem, 
but there must be several approaches by which such a concept could work.  The simplest one I can think of is just to have several main pages that users can set as their home page in their browser or as a button on their browser's tool bar.  We could then provide a link on the default main page leading to a page which lists all the alternate main pages available to choose from.  Another idea is to set up a feature in "my preferences" in which the user can select which page the "Main Page" item in the navigation menu of the left bar leads to.  Speaking of menus in the left bar, a whole menu of main page designs could be offered there: then users could select whichever main page they were in the mood for at any time!  And last but not least are skins and the user configuration methods available right now -- can't a user configure links available to him in the left bar?  Can skins have particular main page links built-in to them?  By making multiple main pages available, nobody needs to be disappointed in the above election or by any election in which the design draft they preferred didn't get approved as "the main page".  --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea but it doesn't quite work. What we need is a Main Page for the anons that looks decent, encourages them to use us and contribute, and like us. We should all come to a compromise for that default Main Page. Also:anyone can put a MP in their userspace and set it to be their Wikipedia homepage, but nobody can have the "Main Page" link (and the icon above it) link to their own MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, users probably could do that with some user style and JavaScript hacking. æle ✆ 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not such a great idea with the main page coded the way it is now. It makes much more sense just to provide the tools to make it easier to create your own main page in your userspace. Saying that an option to automatically redirect would be nice.   freshgavin TALK    02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forging ahead - What about main page configurability?

message: *I like how the features boxes are done in this version, but the header is very lacking. Zafiroblue05 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft]] (Draft C)

message: *Sorry, this is an awful version.  The colors/graphics used clash horribly.. the bottom-stripes in the right column aren't formatted correctly.. the entire page just feels very uncohesive.  drumguy8800 - speak? 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired)]] (Draft G)

message: Rather than picking apart certain pages, lets get specific here and support or oppose certain elements of a page.  Upon a (2/3) majority of votes, we will incorporate those into a community selected draft.  Please use Oppose  or Support , followed by comments, and of course, ~~~~, your signature.
:For those of you familiar with this project! Please add whichever voting sections you see fit.  Please place votes between  and . drumguy8800 - speak? 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the information at the bottom of the page — "Wikipedia's sister projects" / "Wikipedia in other languages" (and "Wikipedia community," in some versions).  —David Levy 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues to SUPPORT or OPPOSE 

message: ====Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)====
=====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorations

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  --Quinlan Vos 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold and Purple (Drafts C & E)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Incompatible with the core design. (EDIT: Heading style shows promise though, if it is made to stand out a little bit less.)   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
# Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit  03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Inspired

message: # Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit  03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  What are the snowflakes doing there?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)====
=====Support=====
#Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header Styles

message: =====Support=====
#Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)

message: #Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  The yellow looks awful.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Small (Drafts A & B)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Small with Blue Border & Purple link box (Draft C)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  Bullets are not lined up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: * The purple box, if used, should go above and not below. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: =====Support=====
#Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large with Portal Icons (Draft E)

message: #Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Too noisy, lots of wasted white space. Not appropriate for the main focus of a page.   freshgavin TALK    00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
# I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quiet header (Draft F)

message: # I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose.  The categories should be at the top.  I like the formatting up top, though.  Equalpants 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
#Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want.  the one on the left is not obvious enough.  Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP.  Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Search Bar

message: #Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want.  the one on the left is not obvious enough.  Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP.  Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose since there already is a search bar at the left side and that makes an additional one unneccessary. --Tone 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Four (4) features====
=====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columns

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Four (4) features

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose This configuration confines Picture of the day to weekends, and Did you know to weekdays.  Based on the straw poll on drafts above, there seems to be a lot of demand for having the Featured Picuture and Did you know seven days per week.  --Go for it! 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six (6) features (including featured picture)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose - too much stuff.  violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # I agree some of the above oppose comments, but I don't want to strike down the POTD option for those reasons alone. Perhaps people should check out User:Kmf164/Main page draft. 5 features seem feasable, and the non-updating community section stays as part of the bottom section. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I don't understand what this refers to. Can someone please explain? jnothman talk 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the information at the bottom of the page — "Wikipedia's sister projects" / "Wikipedia in other languages" (and "Wikipedia community," in some versions).  —David Levy 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Data

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Within a Box (Draft C)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Pastel box creep. There's no need to distinguish this from something else on the page, if there is nothing else. Ashibaka tock 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain Text on a Page (Draft A, B, E)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  - Too sloppy and bare. drumguy</font>8800 - speak? 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Lest we plunge into another round of voting on matters of taste, let's take a step back and have a discussion about what we want from the main page and what it should contain. Layout and colour schemes are secondary, and far easier to change than the content of the page. They can and should be dealt with later. 
I've constructed a framework for a structured discussion below. We may want to stop voting and archive all old comments (including this one) and work on the structured discussion. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a step back 

message: The main page currently performs following functions:
; Welcoming users
* Not strictly necessary, but nice and has a long tradition.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "edit this page" is not at the top of the main page!! For protected pages you only see "view source". This is why there needs to be something on the main page that emphasises that people can edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Functions

message: Browsebar is the top line of text on the current main page, used for quick navigation links to finding information on Wikipedia.
;Do we need this and why?
*This has long been used for links to different ways of getting information on Wikipedia. These seem to come in two flavours - browsing tools (A-Z, categories, lists, portals, etc.) and links to meta information. Browsing tools are obviously essential, but Wikipedia-related information also needs to be readily accessable. We may want to split them into those two groups more explicitely, though.  Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it "How to edit" would attract those who want to edit, but not those who are asking "What is Wikipedia?". Wikipedia:Introduction is a very nice set of pages, but should be called "Introduction to editing Wikipedia". Some people clicking something labelled introduction will want an overview of the different areas of Wikipedia, rather than to dive straight into a Wikipedia editing tutorial. Some will want to learn more about editing Wikipedia. Some will want to learn more about exploring and browsing Wikipedia (either the content of Wikipedia by the content portals or other content browsing options, or by exploring the Wikipedia community through its portal). I think you need to make the "editor 'how to' introduction" followed by "editor browsing (content and community)" and "reader 'what is this?' introduction" followed by "reader browsing (content)" entry routes into Wikipedia more explicit. Wasn't quite sure where to put these comments. Please move somewhere else if more appropriate. 194.200.237.219 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Browsebar

message: ;Do we need this and why?
*If we don't go for a full community feature, we should use this. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community links section 

message: ;Do we need this and why?
*These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: ;Do we need this and why?
*These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister projects 

message: This is the section for general discussion of issues that should be considered in the main page layout. Specific graphic solutions will be dealt with later.
;Small screens
*IMO, everything needs to look acceptable on anything down to 800x600. This limits the size of various elements, like the browser bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout considerations

message: Why is the intro linked to via the anyone can edit? It's too unclear. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how it is on the current MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because the intro is about editing? Black Carrot 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is the most surprising, and it's a jumping-off point for getting a reader involved. This is a good place to link to the Introduction. Ashibaka tock 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Intro

message: Draft c is the best, it has a little bit of everything, it even has picture of the day, and it just looks more neater than everything else.--WikiJake 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Banez 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft c is the best 

message: I like the links on the top of the page to allow users to go to specific parts of the site; it's clean and organised and i think it's very clear.
Thanks: Tom
This isn't the voting section.  I've added this vote to Draft E in the voting section above. --Go for it! 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I prefer Draft E 

message: This project has gone insane?  There is no structure to this page or production *at all*.  When does voting stop?  When is a consensus reached?  And if we're going to "vote" or do things according to "community consensus," shouldn't there be some way to access this from the front page, which is what's getting redesigned?  I propose we contact administration, create a very clean voting sheet for drafts, set a 14-day voting period (as is FPC Nominations), and get this thing on and out of here.  I'm not sure how voting would work, per drafts.. as some people might like certian aspects of multiple drafts.  We've advanced far enough though.. if further improvements need to be made, they can be made after the "new" main page is published.  Propose creating Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Voting and establishing the following voting categories (or let people vote on drafts):
*Colors
*Header
*# of Content Sections (6 or 4)
*Picture of the Day
**Integrated in a column
**or Has its own "double-wide" column
I may be completely off base here, this may just be part of the growing process and we might have steps planned after this.. in terms of adding more features / doing something else radically new.  Otherwise, I think we're ready.  drumguy8800 - speak? 05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood the situation.  We aren't voting to determine a new main page.  We're attempting to create a draft that eventually can serve as a candidate for that purpose.  It was stated on Saturday (and remains stated at the top of the page) that this discussion period will continue until January 28th (after which point we'll resume our active collaboration), but feedback will remain welcome throughout the process.  Only when we have a version that generates relatively little opposition (which is even more important than the amount of active support) will we be ready to advance to the final stages.  We appear to be getting very close.  —David Levy 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insane project 

message: I just noticed that the header from draft H contains the same bug that's present in earlier versions (including draft G): a broken book image when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.  Zocky eliminated this problem by introducing a different type of coding (present in drafts A, B and D).  I attempted to adapt the IE-compatible setup (by replacing the portal links with the search box and magnifying glass image), but I was unsuccessful.  Can someone else please do this?  (I've also posted this request on Zocky's talk page.)  —David Levy 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header problem

message: A gripe that I have with the current main page and all of the current drafts is that they seem to imply that the features in the same column are related to each other, when in fact all 4 or 6 have no greater connection to one than another. This is a particular problem with drafts where the feature heading spans the full column background (i.e. draft A and B, not draft D which is my current favourite) because it then looks like the second feature somehow comes underneath the first's heading. In the next draft could someone try a version where there is an actual white separation between the end of the background of the first feature in each column and the header of the one below? --BigBlueFish 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should be so difficult. I'll try implementing something when the votes are over. BigBlueFish 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Row Separation 

message: I synthesized some ideas in the other drafts.  Some styles/color details are frankenstiened, but the idea is clear. Kevin Baastalk 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done we think!  hydnjo talk 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get the snowflakes. Why? jnothman talk 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's residue from a piece i pulled from another template.  There's no actual reason. anycase, I know have made Version 2 of draft 6I: Draft 6I.2. Kevin Baastalk 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft I 

message: Perhaps, since I imported them over from the Italian Main page I should explain the slowflakes. The current season (in the Norther Hemisphere) is winter. In winter (at least where I'm from) it snows. Snowflakes=Winter. I suspect the idea is to change the pic each season. Leaves=Fall, Sun=summer, Flowers=Spring, or something to that effect. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Interesting idea, but the northern hemisphere thing would be a problem, since English Wikipedia serves both hemispheres.  How about something other than snowflakes? --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that you will find those who didn't get it don't connect snow to this time of year (or have never had snow).  Anything will do. I'm not attached to the idea.  - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It snowed here last week, and I still didn't know what the heck the snowflakes were supposed to mean.  To be honest, draft G strikes me as seemingly random combination of elements.  —David Levy 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this whole idea has died anyway, but what about jigsaw globes?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowflakes 

message: Please continue to include the draft interlinks that I have boldly added. It's really the only way to be able to compare with any degree of convience.  Thanks,  hydnjo talk 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Though, might be easier to maintain with a template.  So, the links are now in :Template:Main page draft interlinks which is inserted at the top of each draft. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oohhh... a template... Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you hydnjo talk 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft interlinks

message: Administration has added a notice to the Main Page, extending this feedback phase until February 4th.  That'll basically gives us a steady stream of comments (and new talent) for another week.  I suggest we make the best use of it and improve the drafts as much as possible while the feedback lasts.We can change the project page to read "Please look these drafts over, and vote for your favorite design elements on the discussion page."  Or something similar.Go for it! 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consultation session extended

message: I'm just wondering what the next step will be. My suggestion: after this round of voting closes the top 50% drafts can be updated with suggestions people are giving in their votes ("I like it but would like to see..."). Maybe another round of votes, comparing both A to B to C to D (just example letters) and A to A.5, B to B.5, C to C.5, and D to D.5. Or is that too complicated? Hmm.- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we certainly drop the bottom 3rd.  But as a latecomer, I'm somewhat bias, because I have an unfair disadvantage in votes. Kevin Baastalk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. The feedback session has been extended. And we haven't decided on any rules yet.  See Election below.  --Go for it! 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will happen next? 

message: Sorry if this has already idea has already been raised, but I would like something similar to the Google personalised homepage, where each user can choose what content and where it goes on the page.  I think some of these draphts have too much content on them, and not everyone is going to want to read all of it.
Neilgravir 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without significant changes to the software. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  This would be something set in "my preferences", which is a software issue.  Not to say it's not possible, but would take more serious coding by someone with the talent, time, and interest in taking this on. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Configurability issue 

message: The Portals have been bothering me for awhile, because I got the funny feeling something major was missing.  Then it finally hit me: it's Business.  Business is missing.  It's prominent in newspapers and therefore fits in with Culture, Health, People, Politics, Society, and Technology.  It's a university department, and therefore fits in well with Geography, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Science.  It's also one of the Big Three fields: Business, Politics, & Science.  But which subject should it offset?  Of all the others, Art seemed the most redundant, as it folds easily under Culture.  I've changed it on Drafts B & C, to start getting feedback on the change.  --Go for it! 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portals

message: Pardon me if this has been suggested, but why do we have to only have one main page? Why not make the main page customizable to each user's preference, thereby satisfiying all? -Hoekenheef 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this has been suggested before. But, let me summarize what has been said:
*What you've suggested would bring up many technical problems,
*Anons still see a MP without getting to choose one,
*People can have their own in their userspace and any links can be engineered to link to their page.
*Currently, this is too convoluted to persue.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: IANAPNAIABWCGACTC: I am not a programmer, nor am I a Bureaucrat who can go and change the code. You'll have to talk to someone other than me.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Main Pages 

message: What the ???  --Go for it! 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different problem. Somewhere, half way through this, the font changes on my machine. It's only here. I think but cannot acertain that something happened with drumguy's HTML sig.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have cleared itself up...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I put in that comment and it came back! It must be only one you edit this page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this page is getting too big? I'm getting problems with font and typeface as well. Carcharoth 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, just missing a </font> in someone's sig. Fixed now, I'll tell him about it.  hydnjo talk 16:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought it was a sig but I couldn't quite pinpoint it. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Everything went small, I don't know what the heck happened

message: Only a week to go and nearly half the alphabet letters have been used up! :-) I would like to see an extremely stripped down version, like Raul suggested up above, though see my suggestion there. Also, the suggestions for a "main page" for beginners and for kids seems to have some merit, though the concept may be considered patronising. Of course, this can all be avoided if it is made clear that this main page redesign is aimed at being the default main page that anyone sees, rather than a page aimed at subsets of Wikipedia users. At the moment, the multiple designs (some of which are quite nice) are just layout tweaks, rather than redesigns, of the main page. Carcharoth 13:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. These are all variations on the same idea, so it shouldn't be too hard to combine them into one draft.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly halfway through the alphabet... 

message: Thanks to whoever refactored the top of this page, navigation was becoming damn near impossible. Will whoever did it please step forward and *blush* for us.  ;-)  hydnjo talk 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was hydnjo. See the "Draft interlinks" section on this page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nay, I was not referring to that *thank you* (besides which --Aude made the template) but the "Place your votes and reasons for them in this section:" menu section that showed up. Trying to find the right place to vote or comment was deterring some folks, of that I'm confident. Thankfully there now is a congealed section allowing us to easily land on our intended place. Thanks again, hydnjo talk 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With so many issues on this project it's nice to know that some of them solve themselves.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I'm to think that it all happened by itself - I think not HTH.  Somebody done it!  ;-)  hydnjo talk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really trying to just wrap this up. It looks like I was counter productive. Anyway, don't you think our time is better spent elsewhere?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine, so it was you then.  hydnjo talk 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's a wrap!  ;-)  hydnjo talk 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, it wasn't me. It's just that this will be stored in the archives, forever taking up server room...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then... (deleted to conserve server space)  (smile deleted) hydnjo talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Laugh deleted)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice job

message: I have posed the main page drafts to the people who are working on the German Wikipedia usability tested, for their thoughts and advice.  Here's the link to the discussion, with some good points to consider when combining the well-liked aspects of the various draft designs into a final design(s).  http://openusability.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=974&forum_id=438. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. At least it isn't in German. Also, one of the users brings up stylistic differences between the stable (I prefer the word "static" but whatever) versus the dynamic content. This is what I've been saying all along. I like what Draft H does: Keeps the intricate boxes for the dynamic and a simple grey box for the static.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability experts 

message: how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baastalk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeahhh! I don't mean First time here? exactly but something recognizing a first-timer and extending our helping hand. That's been missing ever since I got here. We've come to a place where we are not just an enclypedia. We're a web-destination for many many newcomers and our front page has yet to recognize this.  We should have a prominent link on our Main Page which hand-holds through their first experience.  hydnjo talk 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so long as it isn't a blatant ad but a place ofr the interesting but uninformed user to start.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsebar items 

message: New! Header poll Kevin Baastalk 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New header poll 

message: I found some time to go through the drafts and jot down some thoughts on drafts A-L and the Main Page (with the subtitle: "13 versions of a Main Page for the English Wikipedia"). Please incorporate these into any designs if any of it helps.
- Two search boxes could confuse people. My first reaction is to hesitate and wonder which one I should use to search. Then I might give up and go away. Personally, I favour a more prominent position for the search box in the banner (as in several of the drafts), but getting the search box removed from the sidebar is difficult. Other wikipedias would need it.
- Top part of page (welcome message etc). I like the layout from drafts G and H, mainly because the layout is not too different from the current main page, but the portal links and meta-links are clearly separated from the welcome message. The search box is a great idea.
- Portal links. I prefer text to icons.
- Feature boxes. Like the main page colours and layout and font sizes. Don't like the smaller fonts in drafts G, J and L. The only improvement I would incorporate from the drafts is making the headers a darker colour bar, which makes the four different features stand out.
- Features. There was something nice about the Main Page today. I couldn't quite figure it out. Then I realised it was the Featured Picture bit. I would love to see this become a daily feature.
[One problem with G is that it doesn't use the words "Today's featured article" - it just has the date. Also, it has the wording "Second feature" - which is a rubbish name for a feature box.]
- Number of features. I prefer the drafts with four features, rather than six. Six feels like the page is getting too full. I agree that the community area should not be in a feature box. I would personally drop the "On this day" feature from any personalised main page and just have the featured article, in the news, Picture of the Day, and Did you know (four features in total).
- Stuff at the bottom (currently languages and sister projects). The layout I like best is the ones in boxes. ie. three boxes for "community", "languages" and "sister projects". These areas should be "off the fold" and small - really just a collection of links like at the top. Not too much explanation, and not too chatty. Several drafts talk too much in the "communnity" section. The links by themselves sound interesting enough if people really want to click on them.
[One problem with the languages bit is that the "show"/"hide" link is not very obvious and is easily missed. Also, there is no link to the multilingual portal - something I have commented on elsewhere].
- General comment. Most layouts suffer from areas of white space and boxes not sizing properly. This really should be standardised, as sometimes it can look awful. Is this a limitation of the software?
- Overall, my vote goes for draft H (and I've just voted for it). If I were to tweak it, I would replace "On this day" with "Today's featured picture" (OK, that is a major redesign, not a tweak!), and I would put the three bottom sections (communnity, languages, sister projects) in their own boxes (still white) to make the separation between them clearer.
I hope to find time to do my own personal "main page" for my user space at some point. For now I'm looking forward to seeing what the final draft here will look like. Carcharoth 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think Draft H is a great way to start the open editing session, but it can, will, and must be improved.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on the drafts 

message: It would be nice to discuss the draft (number 7?) that is currently being edited in an open-editing session. I'm just going to watch and comment from the sidelines, but doesn't this talk page need archiving first? I'd do it, but I've never done something like that before, and not with such a large page. Carcharoth 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though only when the voting is finished, of course... Carcharoth 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The voting is finished. I'll do it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please archive this talk page?