Bennett Lake Volcanic Complex

What's going on with this?

The weeks are dragging by and nothing here is happening. No designs being weeded out. No mass input being gathered. Nothing. It's just the same designs up and... that's it. Are we picking a new design or is this idea fading out? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still improving my design and I'm sure others are. Pretzels^Talk! 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way for this to get some new traction is a watchlist notification. We need fresh input, and from a large user base, because attempts to narrow down the list by individuals can be seen as arbitrary favoritism. And no body wants to get told that not enough people like their design, or want it to be the main page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not initiate a Wikipedia-wide vote, using the watchlist to notify editors? There are only 20 proposals right now, so we don't need to weed any out. First, we will need each editor who has contributed a design to finalize their proposal. Then, we post the watchlist notice and start a preferential vote using a Condorcet method of voting (perhaps the Schulze method, which was used to elect Ting Chen to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in June 2008). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless some editors still have some un-posted works in progress. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the reason that this isn't moving very quickly is because people are already used to the current main page, and don't think there is any reason to change it. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to be finalising designs, a last round of feedback would be hugely appreciated to get things perfect. I think after a clearup of the discussions, a watchlist note would be in order — but worded to imply that this is going to happen so we don't just drown in useless "I LIKE THE MAIN PAGE". Staying with the old design should be a last resort in my opinion; in comparison to other high traffic websites it's frankly embarrassing. Pretzels^Talk! 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of us do in fact like the current mainpage design. There is no reason to believe that a change "is going to happen". Please read all the discussion archives for this page, if that is unclear.

I'll specifically point to Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 2#Signal to noise ratio, which should explain why everyone disappeared. (For the record, we're in the midst of 'option 2'...).

As for moving forward: If the best elements of the designs could be merged into 2 to 4 drafts, there might be a chance of progress. But if you attempt to start a vote on 19 designs (plus the current design), it will be a disaster (for a slew of reasons. some obvious, some not). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To put it in context, this is the second time things have slowed down. What we did last time was to create a survey, which I found to be biased and it removed several designs I felt held good potential. One of the main reasons why this isn't moving very quickly is that we simply don't know who to talk to. Jennavecia, you're and administrator—and despite that the purpose that administrators are simply to serve as techs—you still hold a lot of weight in your opinion.

One of things we will need to do is to begin to merge proposals and I agree with Quiddity, however it's difficult to really vet each other designs without invoking self-promotion and so forth. I think we can organize several proposals and state that there are several variations of it: and that after the primaries we can effectively vote on which design to continue with. I've asked FT2 for his take. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What if we created a design criteria list? Your design needs to score a 4 out of 5 against it to make it into the next round of discussion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on merging designs before omitting them. To ensure that our self-selected survey is not further confounded with group think and see each other results, we should all compile our response on our own, say we come back Next Saturday (18 October 2008) by simply posting the list of what we think.

Here's the criteria:

• 1-5 with 5 as strongly support
  • Strongly oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strongly support
• For the people who have posted a design, your results can easily be biased (possibly by both consciously and subconsciously), so therefore you simply won't have a vote on your own design.
• We'll average the scores, and the top ten (50% of the current number of proposals) will be further developed
  • If there is a tie, the proposal with the most votes total will continue
    • If that still doesn't work, both are accepted
• To ensure that a proposal doesn't come out of nowhere in the first primary, we'll put a cap on new proposals on this coming Sunday (12 October 2008)
  • We'll allow new proposals in the second primary, so don't worry Pretzels just keep working and post it after 18 October 2008
• On Saturday 18 October 2008, you must post your response on that day: that way people who just come by interested, missing our warnings and so forth won't confound themselves by reading through the support and oppose.
  • If you'll be absent, post a message in this discussion to the link in a user sub-page of what you think.
• No comments should be allowed, only the number of what you think. The discussion should stay here or on the project page. This ensures that people who happen to be able to come, fails the read the instructions, on that day won't be confounded by the comments.
• We'll continue this process, until Thanksgiving or some holiday (Christmas) where a lot of users will have free time

At the generals there I've thought of Three options:

1. Like a recall people can choose to:
   1. Either "Keep the main page", "Change it to the new main page"
   2. Then they'll select which proposal they will want regardless (possibly out of five)
   3. If keep the main page is selected gathers the most votes (plurality), then we'll simply keep the main page.
   4. This allows us to divide the people into people who want change, and people who don't. If change wins, then we know simultaneously which proposal holds the most support.
2. The second option simply lists "keep the main page" as an option in addition to the four or five proposals, plurality wins. I'm somewhat against this option, since it with five proposals, they could easily divide the vote.
3. The third option is like a primary, where we select one proposal which we believe is the best, and then bump it up to the general election: however this requires extensive consensus.

This is a little long, however I think its important that we work everything out before we start. One thing I'm concerned about is that for people who have a proposal or are polarized on the issue can simply vote lower on the closest running candidate and therefore lower their scores. Under WP:AGF, I think that's a risk we'll simply have to accept unless we can find a way to conduct a random sample survey. Otherwise, if we'll agree, I'll edit the project page that on Saturday. We can put a watch page notification then as well. As a side note: I'm strongly against surveying over "elements that should be included" since each element is not independent of each other, and depends largely on the proposal and each other. Over issues like coding problems or that certain sections have not reached a consensus within their respective Wikiproject (GA, new FA design, so on) — I think we should omit that in the first round, since we're seeking general trends before any specifics (I think that should be primary number two). Thoughts? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a step back

There seems to be an assumption that changing the Main Page design is a foregone conclusion. The current design can and will be an option if this "proposal" doesn't fall off the radar. This should be noted on the project page, as the belief that the Main Page design will unquestionably change is incorrect. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, this page discusses the proposals: sort of like a primary election, and I would imagine that keeping the main page would of course be implied. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I can't seem to find another way for our actions to be legitimized and show that our change—whatever it may be—isn't unilateral. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Design rules of thumb

Ok, I'm not a professional web designer, but web design is my hobby, and based on personal experience, personal taste, and what I've seen on web design-related pages, these are my thoughts (generalizations, really).

• I read recently that less tech-savvy websurfers are more comfortable with left-column navigation than right-column (possibly because left columns don't require scrolling to see). As I am someone who prefers to browse in a non-maximized window and hates side-scrolling, this makes a lot of sense to me. Many of our readers are not terribly familiar with computers; they use Wikipedia in part to avoid Googling and navigating a wide variety of other websites, each with a different look and interface.
• Very long home pages are, in general, bad. At 800x600, a reader should be able to see all significant content in roughly the first 3-4 screens (1800-2400 pixels at exactly 600 pixels window height) or less, if possible. The current Main Page stays within this rather well, requiring more scrolling only for the sister projects, different languages, and other links at the bottom.
• Relatively shallow headers increase the amount of content visible (without scrolling) upon first loading a home page.
• Two navigation columns or sidebars tend to clutter a page, especially in the eyes of the less web-savvy visitor.
• Semi-transparent boxes may be fine for text (check the contrast) but don't work so well for images, which then overlay the page background image and look messy. Featured images especially need the higher contrast provided by 100% opacity.

So... I see that most, if not all, many of the proposed redesigns violate at least one of these "rules," especially the one about having navigation columns on the right. I find that the current Main Page, while not perfect, tends to satisfy each of these ideas. I hope that any changes made to the layout will continue to value efficiency (in terms of using the page, not in terms of bandwidth) and user-friendliness over considerations like flashy graphics, leet styling, or tons of information (possibly leading to information overload). Thanks for taking the time to read this. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent feedback. I strongly agree on all points. (And I have a similar well-read-amateur background (Zeldman is god, etc...)) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit vague and general, but you have a point. I agree with most except on the issue that the home page should be designed for very small screens, such as a window that is not maximized, I would imagine that people would more likely read articles than the main page at those sizes since they would be using it simultaneous to starting an essay or otherwise. I'm not really against, I'd just prefer you give some more rationale. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, these mostly are generalizations. As far as rationale for small-screen or small-window support, I don't have much hard data on it. I imagine it's more common among people who aren't very experienced web users, and I also suspect that as more and more handheld/wearable devices are used to browse the web, small-screen support will become quite relevant again. I have no sources for either of these claims, however; they're just ideas/expectations I have. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

640x480

While I still think we should support 640x480 or at least 720x480/576 it appears 800x600 is fine for the OLPC [1] Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's important that the site is usable on 640x480, but it would be unreasonable for it to look fantastic on such a low resolution. We should optimize for the most used resolution 1024x768, but not sacrifice upward scaling. It's also important to remember that many users with higher resolutions avoid browsing in a maximzed window. Pretzels^Talk! 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, 640x480 represents less than 1% of screen resolution uses from every stats website I've seen:

Site	640x480	800x600	1024x768 and higher
[2]	~0.1%	~8%	~91%
[3]	0%	8%	86%
[4]	0%	7%	79%

While people do still use 640x480, making a design that looks poorer for the increasing majority of people to maintain support for a decreasing tiny minority doesn't make much sense (even 800x600 is a decreasing minority, but not quite so tiny). Mr.Z-man 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that, our <gallery> tag is actually designed for 1024, and so are many of our pages. If we were to remain compatible with this resolution, not only do we have to concern ourselves with the main page, but articles as well. Wikipedia as a site is also unfriendly to very old computers (my computer from '96 has a max resolution of 800), and its browser will not likely be able to support CSS2 (which is required), Javascript 1.6 and so on. In fact when I ran IE4 on Wikipedia: the browser crashed. Ultimately I don't believe that 640 compatibility should be part of the criteria, but simply as an option. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The first step...

...in narrowing the designs down may just be to take a straw poll, to narrow it down to about 5 proposals to work off of. It's not going anywhere else, Thoughts? iMatthew (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We need to get this moving along. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely narrow down the proposals to about 5 before posting a watchlist notification. Otherwise, we'll get a strong bias towards the designs at the top of the page, as most people won't go through all 20 proposals. Or we simply won't get any input at all as people are put off by the vast number of designs. - Wintran ^(talk) 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go to ten before we go to five, but I won't go against it if its five. Anyway, are we going to copy and paste a template for the straw poll or are do we want to work out some details? To ensure that we aren't biased by other people's thoughts (when personal preference can play a key role in choosing a design, seeing other people's comments can skew our own) should be come up with what we would place as our results before we post them. That way, you've made up your mind before feeding the group-think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds

We now have 6 times as many files as in June, and 4 times the number of distinct compositions, as some featured sounds are a symphony in multiple movements, and the like.

There are 98 distinct files, and 65 featured sounds at the time of writing, and the rate of increase continues to mount. in both August and September, more featured sounds got promoted in a month than in all of 2007. So far in October - and it is only the 12th - we have again had more FSes promoted than all of 2007. A group of Wikipedians are actively working on it, and I believe that the main page space will be quite sufficient to pull us from the current ~15-20 distinct compositions a month to a healthy 30 or so. Worst comes to worse, it could be updated thrice-weekly for a bit.

However, I do not believe there is any good argument for not giving it a try on the main page, and would ask the proposals be modified to include it. A recent poll, Talk:Main_Page/Archive_127#Featured_Sounds, was strongly in favour.

I apologise this comes a bit late, but the featured sounds project was never actually asked for their thoughts on this, ad well... you know. Had we had some warning that we should have made our proposal earlier, we surely would have.

Anyway, consider it a good stress test for the proposals: How well can they be adapted to accommodate new features =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also mention (somewhere, probably multiple places) about transforming the "Featured Image" section into a "Featured Media" section, so that images, movies, and sounds, could all be displayed in that space. That idea could work in any of the new designs, or in the old design, even if no other changes were made. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)