almost 9 years ago from Brent Riddell, Head of Design @ pepper.com
Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutanhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan
So no more unsolicited redesigns thanks ;)
And also has a Wikiwand: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Orangutan
The design of it is great!
Yes. This is much better
Meh.
It's over designed, and often very very sluggish when doing simple things like scrolling. It gets in the way too much.
OP's solution is much nicer. Looks great too.
I like the readability of Wikiwand, but not disparaging the .m. It's just an alternative. E.g., think beautiful pages with these great posters: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Canyon
Can't go back to the old Wiki, been using Wikiwand since a month now
Me too.
I vote for wikipedia to make this the default site.
..If all you do is read, then I guess it's better. But wikipedia is more than that. So much functionality has been stripped off on the mobile version.
Love the m. version! Thanks for sharing!
Chrome hack to default to the m. version?
It depends on how you use it. I guess people switching languages like me and not reading the whole page but only parts we get interest for must prefer the desktop version as it's more condensed and links are available directly from the sides.
yeah thats true, should be some way to set it and the language to default maybe? Looks good on a TV too :)
nice find :) +1
Yeah, I notice this the other day when I was using wikipedia on my phone. Did they just launch this quietly?
Unsolicited? Wikipedia? Er...
haha nice one :)
My wikipedia already looks awesome. I've been using http://www.wikiwand.com/
Looks awful and barely usable on my machine. Scroll is jerky (low framerate), that font is horrid, nav bar has elements in different sizes, etc.
lol are you using a technology device from the early 90s? Angry much bro... It's actually well done. You don't have to use it though.
It's a brand new iMac, so no...I'm not using a technology device from the early 90s.
Frame rate is awful on scroll. Probably because the site is trying to be overly snazzy in the sidebar with fade effects and "clever" indexing...when most users probably just want to read the content of the article.
I'm not angry at all, just think it looks awful and functions badly. It's not designed to be better for the user, so in my opinion it's not well designed.
Just because something isn't designer "better" doesn't mean it isn't well designed.
It's a brand new iMac
Seriously? And you are having trouble scrolling? I am using a POS HP Envy from work and everything is perfect.
Also, it is designed to be better for the user. The readability is much better with the smaller width of the container. Its more visually interesting with nice picture placements. And I can keep track of where I am at in the article at all times as well as jump to different areas at any time with the sidebar.
Maybe the intention was to be better for the user, but I don't think they succeeded. Readability is worse for me, and it's not visually interesting for me, just visually distracting.
Well as far as UX design goes, they did a great job imo.
They actually did improve a few elements from wikipedia (other than the overall layout). The search is better, links to other articles have a nice little preview tool tip, and the sticky table of contents makes it a lot easier to navigate the site.
Design is subjective, so I can't argue with you about that, but I think it looks nice and adds a lot to the page. I don't find myself distracted by them.
The scrolling is sluggish for me too and I'm on a top of the line 15" retina MacBook Pro with a 27" display attached.
Login to Comment
You'll need to log in before you can leave a comment.
LoginRegister Today
New accounts can leave comments immediately, and gain full permissions after one week.
Register now