I quite like it. Sharp, modern, some color but not too much. I would support this redesign. The only thing that appears odd to me is the space between the featured picture and its border. The white space there is significantly less than the white space between picture and border in other sections. Would it be possible to increase it a bit or, ideally, make it match the white space used in other sections? Done~ RobTalk 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support Rob. I've adjusted the padding to make things a bit more even, thanks for pointing that out. We'll see how thing pan out. My main beef with the current main page is that it is over-colored and heavy on the eyes, but unfortunately Edokter design, in my opinion, makes some aspects of this worse. Sometimes "less is more" and I think this may well be the case here. The current trend in design is simplicity and cleanness, and I think this design is an example of that. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 11:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new coat of paint, but nothing more. One of the main arguments for a new main page is to abandon obsolete design techniques like tables. One question: did you intend the blue gradient background in your headers? They only show when the NewMainPage gadget is enabled, due to id="mp-itn-h2". IDs are unique and should only appear once in a document, so you probably want to remove them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well thanks for pointing that out, I have renamed the ids not to conflict with your gadget. My main point is that this is far closer to my idea of the aesthetics for the "look and feel" of a replacement Main Page. I am sorry if I am the fly in the ointment, but this is the sort of design I would like to see. Heavy CSS styling, in my view, looks antiquated and out-of-touch with modern design elements. Look at any major UI developments and you might see what I mean.
In a way we're both right; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so there is no absolute right or wrong in this area. I am happy to be judged by consensus: if your design is more popular with editors then that is fair enough. But I'm hoping you will be open to consensus if a choice between designs arises. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 11:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce header height to that of current Main Page[edit]
Keeping the header height minimized is critical for maximizing visibility of page content. I've reduced the header by removing the extra padding and by reducing the font size of the title. The Transhumanist 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well it seems to have less "air" to it now, but overall it's not a major change. Maybe I just need to get used to it. Any views from anyone else? --Jules(Mrjulesd) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the padding on the top is much larger than the padding on the bottom of the header. I think the proper padding is probably somewhere in the middle, but they should be the same. Or my eyes are playing tricks on me, that's possible too. ~ RobTalk 01:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that there is, in CSS, intrinsic padding that can be varied with the CSS line-height property. Line heights scale with font size, so there is a lot more space around the larger "Welcome to WikipediA" font. If you take that into account the actual padding is the same top and bottom. --Jules(Mrjulesd) 13:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2010, Linux Libertine was adopted as an open-source substitute for the Hoefler Text typeface in the redesign of the Wikipedia logo, making it possible to localize the Wikipedia identity into more than 250 languages and character sets.[1] The "W" character, which had previously been used in various other places in Wikipedia (such as the favicon) and was a "distinctive part of the Wikipedia brand", had "crossed" V glyphs in the original logo, while Linux Libertine has a joined W letter shape. As a solution, the "crossed" W was added to Linux Libertine as an OpenType variant.[2][3]
References
^Walsh, Jay (May 13, 2010). "Wikipedia in 3D". Wikimedia Blog. Retrieved February 20, 2012.
Done~ RobTalk 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
