Grants talk:IdeaLab/Make Wikipedia beautiful

What does this have to do with Inspire?

I like the idea of modernizing Wikipedia (although it's already in the process of that), especially with respect to its aesthetics, but I don't see how this has any relationship to the Inspire campaign unless you are implying that women are somehow greater appreciators of aesthetics and visual design (which would be sexist). I'm all for improving Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, but this Idea may be better suited for the general IdeaLab and not the Inspire IdeaLab.

You are probably right, I've moved the proposal to the general IdeaLab. --Felipe (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Defining the Goals by establishing the Problem

When it comes to this Idea's goals, I can understand the need for aesthetic changes, but the premises need to be more thought out. Simply labeling Wikipedia and the source editing system as "ugly" is highly subjective and hardly a coherent argument. That's like saying we need more women because they're "pretty", or more counterculture youths because they're "cool": these are quality judgments, sure, but they're based on the perceptions of the agent or entity. You need to define exactly what "ugly" is, or at least replace it with a more objective and general term. Then, you should support this conclusion with argumentation, such as why you consider Wikipedia to be this way and how this impacts performance or interaction between the site and the agent. Only then might your conclusion of Wikipedia's aesthetic appeal serve as an adequate premise to posit as part of the problem, and thereafter argue for a solution or goal. At this time, simply asserting that Wikipedia is "ugly" doesn't mean much because many people may disagree or view Wikipedia as just the opposite.

For example, you could argue that Wikipedia's design is not conducive to modern editing because it still relies heavily on source editing as the main method of changing a page. Another issue could be that editing on Wikipedia has a steep learning curve due to how the editing process works, and the lack of a comprehensive tutorial initiating new Wikipedians into the site inhibits community growth. Another point could be that the current layout is outdated and doesn't take full advantage of the capabilities of modern site designing. In this respect, you can point to the trend of minimalism, simplicity, and interactivity on sites; and how many sites like Google+ and Duolingo (for example) seem to have an affinity for rounded edges and corners as an aesthetic element (which may have to do with something called "contour bias" and how humans enjoy rounded designs due to their lack of perceived harshness).

Having said that, I strongly support aesthetic changes to Wikipedia, especially with respect to an expansion of themes and skins (dark theme, anyone?). I'm not sure whether this is pertinent to the Inspire campaign, though.

–Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there already a means to change the visual template? I personally come here for data, not the prettiness of the site. 72.191.61.91 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is the VisualEditor, but it's still in Beta and may not be up to whatever standards the proposer of this Idea has. Moreover, it doesn't apply to all editing, since some edits must be accomplish via Source Edit only. I come to Wikipedia for the information, as well, but aesthetic improvements can also be welcomed. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Design

I agree that the history of MediaWiki (and by association Wikimedia movement wikis) has been more on the functionality of the software and less on creating a cohesive aesthetic. This idea is very interesting and close to my heart. I'd like to provide three points of consideration. I hope they can be helpful.

Discovering what can be improved, and how, requires those involved to understand that design is not just 'making something beautiful'. Design without focus is just drawing :). Make sure you set measurable and actionable goals with your project. One of my favorite books is "Design is a Job" by Mike Monteiro. I suggest you read it. It's fairly short, but touches on what good design accomplishes.

Second, "Design is the rendering of intent" - Jared Spool

So, for this to be a successful proposal I suggest you really whittle down the focus on intent. What do you want to accomplish? Making something "beautiful" is far too abstract to be measurable. Are you trying to increase editorship? Are you trying to make things more accessible to the visually impaired? Are you trying to make mobile editing easier? What is your design trying to accomplish? (Side note - Be leery of saying you want to make it more 'modern'. What was 'modern' in the early 2000's would now be outmoded a mere decade later. Modern is always moving!)

Last, keep in mind that cultural norms will be in play when it comes to determining something what is beautiful or not. The web, and wikis, are international. I think the trend toward hiding functionality behind a hamburger button is a terrible idea. However, many of my peers use it. Something that renders well (labels and popups as examples) in LTR languages may totally break in different languages - RTL being the most apparent case. Figuring out these edges again are tied to what you want to improve and how you will measure that.

I don't want to repeat what others have said far more eloquently than I. I'll leave you with a few links and encourage you to take a moment and read through them.

• Why you need design - Mike Monteiro
• The Web's Grain - Frank Chimero
• Designing Inside Out for Better Results - Ida Aalen
• Why Japanese Web Design Is So...Different - David
• Winter - a seemingly now defunct attempt to re-invision the Wikipedia skin.
• Foreground - a Zurb's Foundation Framework-based responsive MediaWiki skin.

Ckoerner (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)