If we ignore opinions on the design elements (logo, etc) for a moment, does anyone have enough Wiki-expertise to convert this graphic version into some basic shell? I don't know how customizable the wiki code is for things like partial-expandable lists (for showing the rest of the items under Featured, or Recently Added after the first couple).
I know a lot of this can be done easily with CSS but I don't know how to do that within the wiki language...
Let's first reach some sort of general agreement that this is the design we want. While I am in favor of it's complete freshness, other users may not be. One thing I hate is the blob of bright grey paint on the left hand corner. I'd prefer some sort of musical symbol on both sides, perhaps.
Expandable lists can be done with either collapsible tables (which would look awful) for with TreeView extension. This would be the ideal extension to have in order to implement this. Everything else can be done via CSS. The problem is the following:
In order for the main page to make any sense, the rest of the site would need to have the same general idea (Composer pages, work pages). Right now they are designed to compliment the main page. Are you up to that as well?
It also poses the following issue: is anybody strongly opposed?
Look, the current main page needs a lot of work. It's sloppy, the colors don't complement each other, and it looks like a colorblind first grader made it. Sorry Leonard, it was probably not this way when you designed it and had the conception in mind. However, that is exactly what it has become.
EDIT: A smart colorblind first grader.
We need either a new look, or a more organized (use tables!) main page with the same design. I know when I first used the site, I didn't even know where to start it was so busy, and it still is.
Sorry, but I'm afraid I am of the opinion that the current design is very much broke. Indeed, I have to squint at it just to see what's on it, though no matter what it is always hard on my eyes. The new proposal needs a fair amount of work, yes, but it is considerably closer to legibility for me. To be blunt: the old design is unnecessarily busy (we need to get rid of that picture and all the dark background colors), and contains way more information than it needs to. The new design should be dark text on a light background with a title/header (with some sort of simple logo-ish design), and should include the statistics and languages, featured, new additions, news, and the copyright disclaimer (which is necessary for legal purposes). (In my opinion, there should be no shading whatsoever, although that is unlikely to happen.) They should be sharply delineated, and the centerpiece of the page should be different navigation links (browse by name, time period, nationality, etc.). In terms of space, some of those sections might benefit from being collapsible (news, for instance).
I should note that I am partially colorblind and in general have issues with visual coordination/organization, so I may well be in the minority here...
I think the new design benefits greatly from the removal of the "Browse" buttons which are unnecessarily redundant with the side navigation menu. If someone comes to a webpage for a library, the first thing they want to see is a way to search that library and I think that needs to be primary. For other features like browsing or searching by specific criteria, users will naturally check the side navigation where things like that are always listed on every website from google to wikipedia to whatever.
icactus wrote:I think the new design benefits greatly from the removal of the "Browse" buttons which are unnecessarily redundant with the side navigation menu. If someone comes to a webpage for a library, the first thing they want to see is a way to search that library and I think that needs to be primary. For other features like browsing or searching by specific criteria, users will naturally check the side navigation where things like that are always listed on every website from google to wikipedia to whatever.
The current 'Browse' box was, if memory serves correctly, added after it became clear that many people were not looking at the sidebar at all and therefore not finding the 'browse' links there. They are redundant, but I don't think they're useless because of it - though now that I'm thinking of it, I'm not sure how many people actually ever see the Main Page anyway...and I don't agree about Wikipedia, really. Only contributors to the site have any practical use for the links in the left sidebar; you can find everything by searching for it and/or using the navboxes in the articles themselves. How many people ever need to use 'Help' or 'About Wikipedia'?
I should also note that we had what is now a rather old thread about the subject of a new Main Page design last fall, though it didn't get very far (obviously ).
I think once the main page is concentrated down a clean version the side navigation should seem more visually relevant since it will not have to compete with a cluttered main page. I just dont think there is justifiable space for the browse boxes. Also, there is room below the fold for secondary information on the main page so there may be some way to work it into that sort of space, but I really think we should minimize the content about the fold to maximize effectiveness.
I have a functional test version up that still needs a little design love (of the css variety) but is basically a functioning version of the graphic i made: http://imslp.org/wiki/User:Icactus/sandbox2
I don't expect everyone to love it, but we can agree that it makes the website much easier to navigate. Other points are negotiable.
I am having technical problems with this page. It may be that I'm on a short holiday and working from a netbook rather than from my normal laptop, but the one graphic is covering the main headers so I get "MSLP" and "cci Music Library". If it is not going to be functional on most screens, we need to change the design.
Apart from that, it is now so functional that it doesn't look good, in my opinion. If we decide to scrap the painting (which I wouldn't like to see, and I take it others like it as well), then we should go for something artistic, and we have many designs from sheet music cover art, for example the scroll work on the Wiedemann Staccato Etudes.
In other words, I wouldn't vote for "purely functional, no art".
The one thing I would vote for is getting rid of all redundancy to make enough room on the page for everything.
Yeah, no design is going to display properly on all screens until the CSS can be addressed to set fixed properties and floats, etc.
While I do think the painting needs to go the way of the dinosaurs that doesn't mean we can't have some flair on the page. I think you're on to something with the scroll art concept.
I hoping we can first agree on the clean layout and then decorate/add color as desired.
I'd appreciate suggestions on adjustments but there's only so much that can be done by committee unless other people submit a picture of what they'd like to see or something equally constructive. I hope we can get past the point of clinging to the old design just because it's familiar to some.
).