• Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, 7 years ago

    my favorite part is that he changed the content of the article to fit the "redesign". that'll scale well.

    23 points
  • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 7 years ago

    While it's very clean, it's also devoid of information on the subject. It's easy to be clean when you remove 90% of the relevant information from a design.

    8 points
  • Daniel GoldenDaniel Golden, 7 years ago

    Warning, there be sharks in these waters.

    6 points
  • Brian A.Brian A., 7 years ago

    I've said it before: Being creative for the sake of being creative is never a bad thing.

    That said, Dribbble is probably the worst (or best, depending on how you view it) place to post this sort of thing. There will be no constructive feedback, only "Great job man!" and "Awesome!".

    I get that it's only for fun, but I would have been a lot more impressed if he had decided to refine what already exists to incorporate more good practices and create a tighter aesthetic.

    5 points
    • Diego LafuenteDiego Lafuente, 7 years ago

      I agree. Mosf of these designs come from Photoshop. One itself can't see how it feels like on the browser. This is the main problem I see on unsolicited designs: they look like you stood on the best article, profile page of the internet when the reality is mostly, the inverse.

      I love unsolicited because it's nice to see some wide-popular stuff with another look but, then you find out it's only 1 article, it sucks as a concept.

      1 point
  • Caleb SylvestCaleb Sylvest, 7 years ago

    Wow, after reading all the comments here I think about what a sad time we are living in as designers. It seems like everyday I see people tearing someone apart online, complaining about the "fake" or "unsolicited redesign" and the state of presentation of work (like on Dribbble). But what good comes from this?

    Why is it so wrong for someone to redesign a real site for fun, or for a school project?

    What happened to practicing your profession?

    Why can't we be encouraging, and offer constructive critique?

    What if we first inspect our own motivations before speaking?

    3 points
  • Diego LafuenteDiego Lafuente, 7 years ago

    I won't offend any designer from the community, but to me, Wikipedia is the most functional design ever. Yes, the white space isn't curated, maybe there's an overload of information bad vertical aligned, but it's pretty much damn functional and one of the most visited websites on Earth. Make it a bit pretty and we get huge risks, imho.

    3 points
    • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, 7 years ago

      It really needs some thought and work into the design to make it better though. As far as accessibility goes it stinks in many ways.

      The wide line lengths make it very difficult for me to read articles of any length. My younger brother has a form of dyslexia that makes it difficult to read high contrast, and then you add the tight lines.

      The proposed redesign that wikipedia had internally was great and resolved these issues, but no one knew about it except a violently vocal minority of core editors who shot it down. So we need as designers to get involved in those discussions so that the greater wikipedia community can benefit from the new design.

      or the designers at wikipedia need to ball up and A/B test and find a different way to work with the community, that may not be a good idea though.

      0 points
  • Ed ChaoEd Chao, 7 years ago (edited 7 years ago )

    I'm sure you'll get more than your fair share of "unsolicited redesigns" type feedback *. So here's a happy "cool beans" :)


    3 points
  • Simon LarocheSimon Laroche, 7 years ago

    I really like this design by 1910.

    1 point
  • Patrick NeufmillePatrick Neufmille, 7 years ago

    I prefer the original version. This one feels forced. There is something extremely utilitarian about the current design that just cannot be duplicated and that feels just right (to my eyes).

    Good effort though.

    1 point
  • Adam T.Adam T., 7 years ago (edited 7 years ago )

    Give the dude a break. I mean, he says right in the description on Dribbble:

    "As I told you, with my thesis, I haven't had time to dig it, but I wanted to propose new ideas. (I know I don't have any idea about the whole context, but relax it was just for fun)."

    relax it was just for fun

    0 points
  • Nick TassoneNick Tassone, 7 years ago (edited 7 years ago )

    After reading this article on FastCo about the "redesign that almost was" I'm finding unsolicited designs like this to be way too far from what reality would require. The changes in the redesign from wiki (as seen in the article) are way more minor than this redesign and the backlash from the community was so extreme. I know it's often said but I just can't see the value in arbitrarily redesigning something and not taking real-world use into consideration.

    0 points
  • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, 7 years ago

    Things like this are neat, but what i've discovered about wikipedia specifically is to redesign their interface will require some substantial back end changes to how the content is input and rendered.

    I think it could be done, but they would have to launch the new design on pages as those pages get updated. It would be a massive undertaking and planning the changeover would be a huge process in itself.

    0 points
    • John HowardJohn Howard, 7 years ago

      Honestly, you can say that about so many huge website relaunches and redesigns. It's all for fun. When practicality sets in, you find out how daunting of a task it can be.

      0 points
      • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, 7 years ago

        yes and no. The thing about the wikimedia engine is how it processes into templates etc. The templates are written in the language, etc etc. How do you attach a piece of data to another, this photo goes with this paragraph. They need to work out some serious technical limitations in their engine to be able to redesign.

        So yeah you are dead on, to redesign the wikipedia means redesigning the entire wikipedia engines presentation layer. This isn't something we can ignore as a designer right, so we can work with it, or force more work depending on the approach.

        1 point
        • Corin EdwardsCorin Edwards, 7 years ago

          No, mediawiki uses a markdown like language that follows what you see is what you mean principles, so wikipedia's content is written in such a manner as to be entirely redesigned, en masse.

          Mediawki software includes a skinning extension that determines Wikipedia's look and feel and allows for alternate skins to be used in it's place. A redesign of wikipedia is limited by the will of it's editors not by any technical limitation.

          This redesign would be much more compelling if it was implemented as an actual skin dealing with real content across millions of pages. That of course would be more work and wouldn't let you cut out huge swathes of content to fit within a design. And would probably force you to put the sidebar somewhere...

          0 points
          • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, 7 years ago

            yeah I've done wikimedia skins and had my own installs before. The engine is getting quite old and is actually still quite limited. I actually just tried to do a wikipedia skin based on the 1910 concept.

            Maybe I missed something, but It wasn't possible to change the markup produced by wikipedia, so I had to try and use their makeup as it was. Though I remember having more control on a self install. Maybe I need to dig back into it again.

            Honest truth, if someone redesigned the site as a working skin, then people could just install it and use it and it wouldn't matter what the official wikipedia skin was.

            1 point