Wikinews

Wikinews:Main page poll

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to participate in the poll.
The results help Wikinews improve as a website.


Which headline format do you prefer?

To vote:

  1. Click the [edit] link next to the option you choose
  2. Vote by adding # ~~~~ at the bottom.

You can leave comments with each vote or in the "comments" section at the bottom.

Large image with text

edit

Example:


 
Shooting reported on campus at Northern Illinois University
Seven dead in campus shooting at Northern Illinois University
  1. Supportive but needs greater cross Internet browser functionality and cross operating system as well. --Nzgabriel | Talk 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Supportive I enjoy viewing the larger images, rather than a paragraph... 203.63.185.102 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Supportive, though I do feel it needs some tweaking. 62.16.243.119 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, needs some small tweaks. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I am a little worried that it prevents us using some stories as a lead where there is no appropriate picture. However, the main page looks much better with it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It looks incredibly better and it looks more professional...but does need to be tweaked to be more "user friendly." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support but I think that idf we can't fix compatability issues soon we should make a temporary revert to the previous version. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support maybe reduce a bit? - Jurock (reply here) 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Needs tweaks. --TUFKAAP 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The large image takes up nearly half of my computer screen. If the image and headline story changed multiple times a day I would be less opposed, but one story or 24 hours plus is too much for this amount of dedication.
  11. Support IF we make it smaller, so that the main page balance is restored. It doesn't seem to work on all OS / browsers... that should be addressed too. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support subject to the above concerns being addressed and the desire to use this not getting in the way of using stories without appropriate images as the lead. Adambro 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I was very pleasantly surprised the first time I saw these images. As for cross-os support, it works perfectly in Safari on my iMac. 75.143.77.70 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks great, makes the main page look more fun. Could be a tiny bit smaller though. TheFearow 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The large image attracts people to read the story. The article summary should always be short. —FellowWiki Newsie 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. user:Gopman1 Support This one catches your eye more.
  17. 75.205.246.184 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Thupport for Wikinewsies Everywhere Thunderhead - (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support It gives Wiknews a cool and much needed attractiveness, and since the front page is the first thing you see, it is important that it has an attention grabbing design. —TheVault 23:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose With all due respect, it looks highly amateurish. As soon as any aspect of image production or graphical design gets implemented (as we see here with text styled and overlaid across the image), very special attention has to be paid to making sure it sends the right message. Unfortunately, to me, the message for that design is "amateur". Dave420 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Presenting images without overlayed text allows the visual language to speak for itself. Therefore: a (single) very brief caption 'left aligned' in a modest border to describe the picture's context is a suitable decision for respecting the readers' intellect, and showing that the descriptions are cues to the article (not the article itself), and a sign of rejecting any sensationalist overkill in favour of 'clarity'; thus creating signs of consideration and integrity which leads to the golden feelings of trust and commitment within readers and editors. 194.112.32.101 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarify I don't understand what your opposition here means. irid:t 16:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Idea Allow the elements (the grid, aerial viewpoint, vortex, the single colour) to describe a visual story, ie remove the text from the picture space and place a brief caption at the foot of the image (à la option #2). The success of a clear textless image (option #1) depends on the quality of the image, which in the case of the current felix image is a poor, flat, grey, distant, and a overused satellite machination. A radical solution to the problem of producing high quality photography would be to reject all photography in favor of requesting b/w illustrations or expressionist sketches; this would make a good foil (compliment) to the precise and robust writing of the reports by the analytical readers/editors, and grant a platform for the artists shuffling through this mortal wiki system. 194.112.32.101 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I think it looks very professional and is much more appealing than the small image w/ text. I also like what has been done with the "Breaking news" logo. 72.196.226.14 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Suppott I vote for the first only because it's an improvement, not because it is the best that can be achieved. See Comments below. Shir-El too 08:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SupportGood. Djmckee 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Its cool, but needs tweaking. specifically, at some resolutions there is a giant whitespace to the left of it. I would imagine it causes problems at lower resolutions (If i remember, I think there is some trick with css that can fix such a problem (and if not, definitly something with js) but i can't remember what it was off the top of my head. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support 159.148.202.14 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally summary-with-image format

edit

Example:



 
Shooting reported on campus at Northern Illinois University
Seven dead in campus shooting at Northern Illinois University


  1. Support - I also like this format better. I mean, the other format has less words and and bigger picture. Do you really need that big of a picture? A smaller picture is sufficient. Plus it allows for more text. Mr. C.C. 06:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 210.214.40.18 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 128.180.197.148 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Clean, concise, doesn't pretend to be branding, a beneficial use of space. Dave420 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The smaller picture formatt works much better. I find that at home the site has always loaded a bit slow on my highspeed lite connection, but with the recent advent of the large picture it takes even longer and sometimes almost freezes my computer. User:209.53.157.131 20:10, 4 September 2007
  1. 85.210.14.58 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both

edit
  1. At this point I don't see why we need to use one format all the time. I really like the image format, but there are clearly some times where this format would not work. Imagine a breaking news story where we had no picture - I don't think overlaying the text over the "breaking news" image would look that good. We should allow for both, as far as I'm concerned. Ral315 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I completely agree with you. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. By choice, i do not like headlines as it's a way to promote a news over others, and it's not fair as it's a way to influence readers. But i agree that both could be of some use, even if i prefere the second less big. Jacques Divol 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Use both as needed. --209.6.227.51 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We should use the second one if no picture is available. —FellowWiki Newsie 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Use the second one if there is no image/image is too small and increase causes pixelation. —Meekel 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I moved my vote from no huge pic to both. (The hige pic is growing on me!) Eric Wester 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with the first person and most of the other people.
  9. A healthy balance never hurt. Use the one that fits best for the situation.
  10. I agree as well..what ever suits the situation best. --RuMoR (T~C) 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

For the upper version we must carefully choose photos, as this one is pixelated because of its size. --TheFEARgod 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the whole thing should be about 5-10% smaller. It looks good but it is overpowering the rest of the content. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I think the whole main page looks crappy - we should model ourselves around good pages - the best news site I have ever seen is at http://www.abc.net.au/news - they have stuff we will never have (ie tags and embedded video / maps/audio) but, the design and colors are far more newsy then this, 124.168.80.40 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (User:Symonde09)[reply]

There are consistent comments that the large image does not work on certain operating systems or browsers. Apparently we got it screwed up in IE6, and there's a consistent font problem in Ubuntu. I've fixed the IE6 problem, and the font issue is fixed by just using smaller fonts than what you think fits in the space. I've again run browsershots on the front page and it looks good on all browsers. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was really needed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This new photo design is growing on me! Eric Wester 02:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should get that removed. Soon. Schedule an appointment. irid:t 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being rude, but the top version looks like it's from a website 10 years ago. If Wikinews is to gain any credibility, it must stand out for its ground-breaking ethos, not its eye-breaking lack of graphical design. I appreciate it's easy to switch out the image and change the text, but as the front page is viewed more times than its updated, it seems highly counter-productive. Having a smaller image to the side of text, as most websites have figured out is best, really is a good use of space. Also, for folks with smaller screens, devoting massive amounts of space to what is (in this example, and others) stock photography and clip-art, doesn't make a lot of sense. I say this with all due respect! I'm not trying to rag on anyone :) Dave420 09:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the comments are in general very much dependent on which version of the lead is currently visible on the poll... -- IlyaHaykinson 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best of both elements should be combined: i.e. smaller photo, subtext not overlay, and a 'Bearking News' Box SIDE-BY-SIDE with photo. Obviously some form of imaging would break-up the text/monotiny. I vote for the first only because it's an improvement, not because it is the best. Shir-El too 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have lived with the large image format for a while, I have mixed feelings about it. To me, sometimes it looks excellent - really stylish. But other times it looks amateurish. The traditional version was consistent, though with not as much impact perhaps as the large image. The large image template needs to be a bit more user-friendly for luddites like me. Jcart1534 11:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Main_page_poll&oldid=483231"