Talk:Main Page/test

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 2007 New main page layout with details of books 2 Using columns? 3 Current Version 4 Image Warning

[edit] 2007 New main page layout with details of books

Comments? See also Wikibooks:Nearly_complete, ideally this would be the source for "Some excellent Wikibooks that are complete or nearly complete". RobinH 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the improvements is that they have hiddent the books! RobinH 11:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The books weren't hidden they were made to show in a fixed area and scroll. I've tried something else now. Each time it loads shows a different good book. --darklama 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am worried that this approach is hiding what we do at Wikibooks. We create books to be read.

Here are some examples of commercial ebook sites:

http://www.ebooks.com/

http://www.free-ebooks.net/

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.ebookimpressions.com/

They tend to show their books as the most important feature.

RobinH 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like the way the books are presented. Thats why I changed it previously and was trying different things. I believe the "library catalog" should remain side by side with the welcome box as it was previously. I was trying to make the "featured books" more consistent with how websites such as those listed above do so. None that I could tell, present as many featured books, do so without an image for the book, divide the books into subsections on the front page, or make there list of book categories completely unaccessible without scrolling. In other words, I don't think the changes make it look any more like a professional ebook website.

To me it looks like you may of just simply reverted back to an earlier version. I'm worried that the current state of this module looks unprofessional and wonder whats the points in trying to show our best books if we also don't show our best in designing the front page. I really didn't want to have to say anything like this and I hope it doesn't come off the wrong way. I prefer do or improve than explain why I don't like something. --darklama 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a test page and the list of books that I have included definitely needs an improved presentation, as you say. At present there are only about 40 books that could qualify as "nearly complete". I would like to suggest that we use this moment, when there are not many good books, to work out how to display books so that readers are attracted to them. In 6 months to a year we will need to have displays of books in the individual departments and only a few featured books on the front page. However, at this moment we have the opportunity to work out how to display individual books on the front page itself. We can then use this method of display later in the individual departments.

So, what I am asking is that you, or someone else who is good at laying things out, should work out a way of displaying individual books. Obviously this should involve a picture and a summary but should be neater and prettier than my crude table! RobinH 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Derbeth made the following comment: First of all, the table with "excellent books" (is "excellent" the best word? Aren't we exaggerating?) leaves too much space in left and right; this looks odd. Perhaps the solution is to make a two-column layout to use all of existing space? Look how long is the page now; it should be not like that, especially when category selection is deep on the bottom.

Secondly, I don't think that putting PDF's in front is a good idea. We are wiki and should be focused on wiki materials. PDF's are: inconsistent in look, require user to download a large ammount of data at once, may be seriously outdated and are something "external" to our project (internal links, categories do not work). I think that part of Wikipedia success is that you read and simultaniously fix mistakes you find. Showing out non-editable form of our books would be a shot in our foot in my opinion. So, the order should be the opposite: book titles should lead to books on our wiki (cover pages when possible), and links to PDF versions should be given as an option.

Less important things: table with Wikijunior books has an inconsistent look with the rest of the page. "Search and browse" with category selection together with list of sister projects leave to much white space on left and right. They should be aligned more horizontally; be wider but lower.

Things I particularly like are book descriptions with cover images; this brings some diversity to the main page. --Derbeth ^talk 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have to "lay out our stall" to be successful. We need to implement your suggestions:

1. Replace "excellent etc."

2. Make the display 2 column

3. Make the link to the editable version with a "(PDF)" link. ie: "Special relativity (PDF)"

4. Wikijunior should have same layout.

Good ideas. Unfortunately (or fortunately from my point of view!) I am just about to go on holiday. RobinH 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using columns?

I like the idea of using two columns on the main page. Instead of the current setup, we could have the "Welcome!" message on the left, and a list of books on the right (likely a partial, randomly generated list of books, instead of the complete list). At the bottom we could have then the links to our bookshelves, and then the links to the sister projects. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather see welcome and the bookshelves at the top for the left and right column for the first row, followed by a partial and randomly generated list of books following using two columns followed by the sister projects links last. Neither the welcome nor bookshelves take up much screen space and should be easily accessible from the top. --darklama 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Version

I really like the current version, With the two columns up top, the 2x2 grid of books underneith, and then the sister project links. It looks very good on this screen, but I am currently on a wide-aspect screen, so more things are showing then they would on a smaller screen (the lab on campus has very large monitors). I think we are definately moving in the right direction. All we need now is to write short summaries of all our good books! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version looks better. However, with only 40 completed books we could, and should, put all of these books on the front page. I have provided an example in the Humanities and Arts department of how the departmental pages might be arranged if only a short listing of books is provided on the main page. Each department would have a full list of its best books up front. Eventually this might be extended into the page for each subject area with only the best at the departmental level. (The list of books in the arts dept is not complete) RobinH 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea alot! every department should contain, right on the bookshelf, listings of the best books. This could include little blurbs like cover images and summaries. If we had a standardized system for displaying these blurbs, it would be a trivial matter for a bot to read them, and create templates for inclusion on the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, i'm going to create a suitable template for this. Book blurbs like this could be written in the template, and then all references to that template on the bookshelves could be easily picked out by a human or a bot, for inclusion on the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the look of the proposed front page listed here, and i also believe that this is the way forward. I think that giving each bookshelf it's own set of featured books as demonstrated at the arts and humanities departments would be a great help to the project and would ake it more accessible to those who wish to read rather than edit, whilst still maintaining the editor functionality. Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm only quickly scanning the comments here, but I like Urbane's idea of having some good book for each bookshelf, at least for the most part. I like this page a lot and think it looks nice. I'd have no problem with it becoming the new main page if we could add a few more good books to it. -withinfocus 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

→ tab reset

I think we should restrict books listed on the main page to one book per department in order to show that Wikibooks has a broad range of textbooks. Each department could pick what books to show on its department page and than one book picked from that list could be used for the main page. Alternatively each time the page is loaded a different book is picked from the books listed on a department page. --darklama 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? When there are so few completed books we could list them all. RobinH 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have had a go at a layout, attempting to take onboard the comments and criticisms displayd on this page. Could people please take a look and comment. Thanks. It can be found at: User:Urbane/Sandbox. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like that version! Dedicating the whole right side of the page to completed books, and the left side to navigation is a good idea and it guarantees that books will be immediately visible for the readers. I would like to see the headline changed from "Completed Books" to "Good Books", but that's a minor complaint. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor - doesn't render in my firefox at least - I get one column above another one offset (looks good tho) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing it in firefox too, and I dont see an issue like that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I take that back, when i adjust the size of the window it doesnt render properly anymore. Maybe make it a table instead of floating divs? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have converted it to a table, does the page still render incorrectly for you? Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It renders fine now. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the "completed books", "features books" and "wikijunior book of the quarter" should all be on the right side. Books are always evolving and never in a state of completion. Featured books is the name of the project, so that should be the heading given to it. I think the edit column should be removed. I don't think the link to test2 makes sense, it was never intended to replace the community portal or directed at contributors only as seems to be implied. Other then that I agree it looks good. --darklama 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Renders fine now - full & windowed (at home, I'll try work tomorrow). The "sister projects" section looks a little odd as it "unbalances" the columns? Good tho --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. Why not transfer it to here and to the main page? RobinH 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and transfered the contents of Main Page/test2 to the main page since its not so different from what was already the main page, the basic layout seems to be agreed on and Urbane's version seems to still need some work. At least this way in the mean time there are more featured books on the main page and its only a matter of editing Template:Main Page featured books to whatever gets agreed to. --darklama 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 ! It looks good! --Remi 12:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, good change, and it gives us time to really get a better version ready, if we still want to make improvements. Small steps forward are always better then nothing at all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Warning

The following images have been deleted from commons, or have been marked for deletion. Please remove the images from the article, or join the discussion on commons. This messages was generated automatically by CommonsTicker.

-- CommonsTicker 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)