Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Blank page 115

Discuss the redesign here...do you like it, dislike it, or otherwise? Suggest changes. And for pete's sakes, someone please point me in the direction of an events calendar somewhere. Ral 315 W_S 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Love it. Gives that impression of a broadsheet newspaper, which gives it that sense of authenticity. But the header should go across the whole top, above everything else. And perhaps short explanations of when the links such as "newsroom" mean.- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on all of that; thanks for your input. Ral 315 W_S 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor resolution

I like the design a lot, but it doesn't resize to fit on 800x600 monitors, which are currently still used by at least a third of internet users. Could the column widths (or at least that of one column) be recoded using percentages instead of pixel widths to allow reading without horizontal scrolling on smaller monitors? -- Avocado 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on possibly doing so. I was aware that this was a problem, I'll try and fix it now. Moving the picture up, this probably won't be a problem anymore. Ral 315 W_S 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ral 315 W_S 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works great now! -- Avocado 01:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At higher resolution, the right hand panel looks very empty. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That I'll fix as well, but I'm currently on a monitor that doesn't support higher than 1024x768, so it may take some time. Ral 315 W_S 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed, someone tell me if I'm wrong. Ral 315 W_S 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would abbreviated dates and ndashes be out of the question for the calendar. This goes to making it further 800x600 friendly, and/or reducing right column width. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that... Ral 315 W_S 20:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borders visible

I think the new designs look very nice, I would only advocate that there are some black borders around the different columns. In any case, It's good to see that the Signpost didn't just die off when User:Michael Snow left... Good job guys! Jacoplane 22:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can make black borders work. Ral 315 W_S 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old version

The new one doesn't fit on one screen and fails the keep it simple test.Geni 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seconded. I don't use 600x800 but i have sidebars which take away my browser space. Broken S 23:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thirded. call me old-fashioned, but I really like the simplicity of the original design. Kaldari 23:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix the 800x600 problem and see if it's any better. This is still a working design. Ral 315 W_S 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not good on a 1024*768 That hudge blank space is anoying you are going to lose stories off the bottem whatever. Perhaps an idea that is before it's time.Geni 00:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it on 800x600 now...Geni, can you tell me if your problem is still there now in 1024x768? Ral 315 W_S 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current version. Simple and uncluttered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fifthed. Ambi 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns...are there any ways that this design would be "less cluttered" and "approved" by you? The things I hated about the old design were that while simplicity is good, it doesn't offer the unique benefits of an explanation of each story below the link, among other things. Ral 315 W_S 20:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs them - see comment below about Googleish simplicity. Ambi 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but I agree that it's better if it fits on one page. Maybe try the story previews with a smaller font? Or perhaps less white space between the entries? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can try that too. But I can't guarantee that it'll always fit on one page...and IE handles divs differently than Firefox, creating a larger white space...again, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your comments. Ral 315 W_S 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with Geni. Take a page from Google's book: leave the fanciness out in favor of elegant simplicity and ease of use. — Dan | Talk 21:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for your work, Ral, but I really do think that the current version has everything we need. For me, I prefer the simpler stuff. Glitzy websites and advertising have always made me feel infantalised (one reason I use the cologne blue skin). Ingoolemo ^talk 08:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful!

I love it. It's groovy. It's beautiful. I look forward to the signpost every week, and did not think it could get any better. And I've been proved wrong. Bravo!--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calendar

There's a calender system here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cdamian/calendar If you were just looking for a place where events are listed, there's Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on. Jacoplane 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great once you get used to it. One feature I would like is a header like the "Also this week:" footer in the current Signpost (without the "Also this week:" :-). It would allow users to flick to a story they want without scrolling down. The West Australian does this, for example. - Dstudent 10:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Perfect

If something were done to eliminate the white space to the right of the 'Other stories this week' section, this would be a wonderful design. - Pure blade | ^☼ 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]