Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Vote6K

I have gone through all the comments and suggestions on this discussion page, and have made an attempt towards a "consensus" draft design, with five features, browse icons and a search box, with green and blue/purple colors, and have revised the browse bar items (got rid of "glossaries", "overviews", ..). and added some different items. Please comment on it, what do you like or dislike about it (or 'vote' if you want). Or, if so incline, take this design, tweak it and come up with something better. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on a similar attempt, but I was planning to wait until after the discussion period had ended before posting it. To be honest, I think that you've missed the mark on a few elements:

1. While many users support the inclusion of icons, the voting (especially that of previous rounds) has made it very clear that many users oppose this element.

This is an attempt to accommodate both the browse topic links and the search box, and provide a different mix of elements. My tally so far shows 84 prefer the search box, while 95 the simple browse links, and 56 for the icons. If people don't like it, then that's fine with me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

2. We reached consensus a while back that the positions of "On this day..." and "Did you know?" should be swapped.

These can easily be swapped. They're interchangable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

3. There is clear support for the inclusion of "Did you know?" and "Today's featured picture" every day, and a five-feature layout appears to be the best solution, but I haven’t seen any support (aside from yours) for a non-uniform number of features per column (which necessitates the removal of text-based content). Conversely, numerous users (including former proponents of both the four-feature and six-feature layouts) have supported the inclusion of a separate box for "Today's featured picture."

Actually, I didn't remove any text-based content. Though, I slightly expanded the amount of "Today's featured article" text. I just want to put this 5 feature solution out there, for consideration. Though, I'd be just as happy with yours. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You omitted most of the text from the "Today's featured picture"/"Picture of the day" section. —David Levy 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. It seems from the discussion that we should aim for five features, and include both the search box and portal links. This is just a different way of working all these into the same space. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The crazy part is that the draft that I've been working on (which I haven't uploaded yet) includes the same gray headings in the bottom section (except that I've used a hexadecimal value of #eeeeee). —David Levy 20:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was somewhat reluctant to put up yet another option. Though, I would like the added feedback on this mix of features. I'm not really into making this a competition, though and prefer moving us all in the direction of consensus. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the key things here is the browsebar items, and getting rid of "glossaries", "overviews", ... and making these links more useful. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I took your concept and took a stab at a better browserbar here: User_talk:Kevin_baas/main_page_proposal2 Kevin Baas^talk 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This doesn't reflect the results of the straw poll above at all. Over 117 votes were placed for drafts without portal icons, and many of those mention this specifically as their reason for voting on their favored draft. Also, the icons were available in near identical drafts when they placed their votes. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that icons were consensus? Also, you've reverted all the changes to the browsebar/header, even though expanded link coverage was shown wide support in the poll above. Why are you trying to take us a step backwards? --Go for it! 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is strong interest for both the search box and browse links. This is an attempt at providing both, as is Draft J, Draft I.
    • If icons are out, then I suggest we go with something like Draft H. Though the browse topics might be overlooked...
    • If we choose the browse links, as in Draft A, Draft B, Draft C, Draft D, then where do we put the search bar? or do we omit it?
  • As for the browse topics and links, let's discuss further below. I have attempted to summarize the discussions and votes into tables, User:Kmf164/Workshop and posted here at the bottom, summary of the portal topics and links. I think we need more discussion about this. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• I like "Participate in Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 1,000 articles". Can we make a separate portal for beginners? And also for kids? --Gogino 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes --24.18.171.99 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)