3 ms·

Whew. I was fearing this was yet another http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/ http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/ but fortunately I was wrong.

• gkoberger 12y ago
  While I 100% agree with the original article, this redesign actually isn't bad. They actually did a good job staying faithful to what makes Wikipedia important. That being said, I think sites like HN, Wikipedia, Craigslist, Reddit, etc are iconically ugly rather than generically pretty -- and that's good.
  • davidgerard 12y ago
    No, it failed a pile of really obvious client requirements: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-August/121650.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-August... This is the page where we try to be polite about designers' crappy redesigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesign...
  • tomek_zemla 12y ago
    I think it is always such a difficult design decision when to leave a popular site as is i.e. 'ugly' and when to introduce some improvements. While I agree with the general comments here that any redesign to giants like Wikipedia, HN, etc, should be really thought out carefully, it is also difficult to believe that there is no room for improvement! Do all these sites really have such amazing interfaces that should not be touched?