3 ms·

If it ain’t broke... I don’t really see how wikis could be improved by any modern design trends. They function well and are designed to be accessible by everyo

If it ain’t broke... I don’t really see how wikis could be improved by any modern design trends. They function well and are designed to be accessible by everyone on as many platforms and devices as possible.

throwaway13000 7y ago
Functionality wise, yes, there is not much improvement required but looks like, fonts can be improved, spacing/whitespaces can be improved. We could have pagination. We could have some themes which remove sidebars, we could have wiki's that may be embedded in larger site and hence can reuse their stylesheets etc
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  Why pagination? I think commercial sites are just paginated to make you click more times so they can tell the ad network that they gave more impressions.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
  > We could have pagination. Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books. The only, I repeat ONLY, reason to use pagination on a web page (That isn't incredibly long, such as a table with hundreds of rows) is so you can serve more ads.
  - fabiomaia 7y ago
    > Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books. I like this.
  - narshaven 7y ago
    Very much agree with your thoughts.
dstroot 7y ago
> If it ain’t broke... Many of the comments below agree with this point. However I think the OP’s question is worth exploring. Good design that leverages fonts, colors, spacing, layout, etc. is supposed to make sites more usable and enjoyable. Why can’t we have a wiki that is easy to use/edit and looks nice and is accessible? These are not mutually exclusive are they? That being said, my recent wiki experience has all been using GitHub.
- yur3i__ 7y ago
  The current way wiki design is exactly that.
- brianush1 7y ago
  To be fair, Wikipedia has some themes that look very nice and modern, it's still accessible, and the visual editor makes it easy to edit as well.
  - skaffolder 7y ago
    I suppose that the standard wiki makes it easier to recognize

throwaway13000 7y ago

Functionality wise, yes, there is not much improvement required but looks like, fonts can be improved, spacing/whitespaces can be improved. We could have pagination. We could have some themes which remove sidebars, we could have wiki's that may be embedded in larger site and hence can reuse their stylesheets etc

PaulHoule 7y ago
Why pagination? I think commercial sites are just paginated to make you click more times so they can tell the ad network that they gave more impressions.
Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
> We could have pagination. Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books. The only, I repeat ONLY, reason to use pagination on a web page (That isn't incredibly long, such as a table with hundreds of rows) is so you can serve more ads.
- fabiomaia 7y ago
  > Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books. I like this.
- narshaven 7y ago
  Very much agree with your thoughts.

dstroot 7y ago

> If it ain’t broke... Many of the comments below agree with this point. However I think the OP’s question is worth exploring. Good design that leverages fonts, colors, spacing, layout, etc. is supposed to make sites more usable and enjoyable. Why can’t we have a wiki that is easy to use/edit and looks nice and is accessible? These are not mutually exclusive are they? That being said, my recent wiki experience has all been using GitHub.

yur3i__ 7y ago
The current way wiki design is exactly that.
brianush1 7y ago
To be fair, Wikipedia has some themes that look very nice and modern, it's still accessible, and the visual editor makes it easy to edit as well.
- skaffolder 7y ago
  I suppose that the standard wiki makes it easier to recognize