Wikipedia talk:2016 main page redesign proposal/draft/Mrjulesd and Mathmensch
I presume that you are soliciting comments on this proposed design (if not, I apologise), so I'll get the ball rolling. My personal take is that the removal of the pastel tints as in the currently used version:
(a) make the page harder to navigate;
(b) make it more boring;
(c) increase the glare when viewed on a PC or laptop screen. (I cannot speak to mobile/smartphone screen appearance as I do not have such devices.)
I speak from the perspective of someone with some graphic art training, and professional design and editing experience in non-fiction publishing, and as a frequent reader and regular editor for around 10 years or so. (Yes, I know I'm an accountless IP; this is by deliberate decision.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could you describe in more detail the process by which the alleged disadvantages come about? Or could you argue why anybody else should share your perspective? --Mathmensch (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- ". . . in more detail . . . ?" – I think my comments are as clear and detailed as the discussion warrants.
- ". . . why anybody else . . . ?" – As I said, I'm merely presenting "my personal take." I'm not trying to convince anyone else by argument, and whether others do or do not share it will be a matter of fact to be demonstrated by their own responses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I came here to say almost exactly the same thing as 1.123.
- There seems to be some sort of persistent fiction that removing colors from things automatically makes them more "professional" or "modern", but I disagree. Color-coding is both useful and aesthetically pleasing. ApLundell (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @ApLundell: Do you agree with me that black on white is easier to read than any other color combination? Have you used the Google search engine (accessible e.g. from startpage.com) to find out?--Mathmensch (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- What a bizarre plug for startpage.com!
- To answer your question : No. I don't claim to be a usability expert, but I believe that undifferentiated white on black is tough to skim. Even if different font sizes are used for headers. (Which is probably why Google breaks things up with blue titles and green URLs.)
- ApLundell (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @ApLundell: Do you agree with me that black on white is easier to read than any other color combination? Have you used the Google search engine (accessible e.g. from startpage.com) to find out?--Mathmensch (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- A belief is not a valid argument. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @ApLundell: Consider color-blind people. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Accessibility does not mean designing for the lowest common denominator. (If it did, stop signs would be black and white.) And even if I turn the color on my monitor all the way down to monochrome, I personally find the current version easier to skim than your version.
- I don't even understand why you're arguing with me. I was under the impression you wanted feedback. Even if you change my mind, you can't individually argue with every person in the world who doesn't like your design. ApLundell (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @ApLundell: Consider color-blind people. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just a personal, unprofessional reaction: I like the white and the more spacious feel it gives; don't like the icons; do like giving the topics better visibility at top centre; and like the clarity of the way Help us etc. are organised. Lots of luck with ever getting anything to happen, though. Awien (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The icons had no function and thus have been removed.--Mathmensch (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)