Revision history for WhyAreWikisSoUgly


Revision [9923]

Last edited on 2011-02-08 11:02:46 by DuncanSkjaret
Additions:
DuncanSkjaret


Revision [9922]

Edited on 2011-02-08 11:02:28 by DuncanSkjaret
Additions:
This reminds me of [[http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-shudders-at-large-block-of-uninterrupted-te,16932/ that one The Onion article.]] Anyways, I agree with the OP mostly - there's nothing about improving the aesthetics of a wiki that HARMS it per-se (I'm trying to create a wiki skin based on Art Noveau typographic styles, though nothing is really coming of it), but the handful of options we have on the basic wiki setup are more than enough for any purpose I can think of.


Revision [9873]

Edited on 2011-02-07 20:59:49 by MelRemick
Additions:
I agree in principle, but I also think that basic formatting can enhance not only the esthetics of a page, but also its usefulness. Given the lack of visual cues, organization is even more important to the functionality of a wiki page. Functionality is what wikis are about.
Deletions:
I agree in principle, but I also think that basic formatting can enhance not only the esthetics of a page, but also its usefulness. Given the lack of visual cues organization is even more important to the functionality of a wiki page.


Revision [9872]

Edited on 2011-02-07 20:57:53 by MelRemick
Additions:
I agree in principle, but I also think that basic formatting can enhance not only the esthetics of a page, but also its usefulness. Given the lack of visual cues organization is even more important to the functionality of a wiki page.
MelRemick


Revision [8371]

Edited on 2010-02-08 05:38:54 by EmilyCarlson
Additions:
Graphics and varied displays can add meaning to text. Taking a lesson from Amelia Bedelia, for example, a picture can describe in a concise manner what words would have clumsily, or at least not as humorously, tried to display. Wordless books work. Perhaps a wordless wiki (FlickrWikr?) is unreasonable, but some additional formatting features are not. Colored text can help to display meaning at a different level. It is often true that gray makes me feel drab and business-like whereas red is energizing or noted as a warning. More importantly, however, I find that different formats and styles help to organize text efficiently.
EmilyCarlson


Revision [4390]

Edited on 2008-03-10 20:44:37 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Consider WikiMinimalism
Deletions:
A street myth. Wikis are words in progress. The minimalism of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.
The wiki is less of a //presentation//, like the blog, and more of a //representation// by mode of language. Wikis are like representatives of ideas and knowledge of the many.
Wikis have a movement via linking that would be interrupted by the presence of graphics.
Since they are a collaborative effort in the most part, they would be all jammed and crammed with all kinds of pictures and colors that would detract from the ideas represented.
== Analogies ==
- The White Stripes
- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ting_Tings The Ting Tings]]
- haiku or limerick, or Imagism
- Full screen mode text editors, like [[http://hogbaysoftware.com/products/writeroom WriteRoom]] or [[http://they.misled.us/dark-room DarkRoom]]


Revision [3856]

Edited on 2008-02-22 10:03:38 by ElizabethBarclay
Additions:
I am always a person who is more attracted to graphics, color, pictures, and overall a visual concept before I read anything on a page. With making a MySpace page you can decorate and make a graphical page that captures the eye's attention and draw you in. However, with a wikki it is plain and overall to me, boring. You can write and add pictures, but there is no color or graphics. The visual concept is gone. For someone who is like me, the wiki kind of turns you away at first. They are very bland and everything is just black and white.
Deletions:
I am always a person who is more attracted to graphics, color, pictures, and overall a visual concept before I read anything on a page. With making a myspace page you can decorate and make a graphical page that captures the eye's attention and draw you in. However, with a wikki it is plain and overall to me, boring. You can write and add pictures, but there is no color or graphics. The visual concept is gone. For someone who is like me, the wiki kind of turns you away at first. They are very bland and everything is just black and white.


Revision [3855]

Edited on 2008-02-22 10:03:12 by ElizabethBarclay
Additions:
I am always a person who is more attracted to graphics, color, pictures, and overall a visual concept before I read anything on a page. With making a myspace page you can decorate and make a graphical page that captures the eye's attention and draw you in. However, with a wikki it is plain and overall to me, boring. You can write and add pictures, but there is no color or graphics. The visual concept is gone. For someone who is like me, the wiki kind of turns you away at first. They are very bland and everything is just black and white.
ElizabethBarclay


Revision [3700]

Edited on 2008-02-18 10:44:28 by ZachOlson
Additions:
ZachOlson


Revision [3699]

Edited on 2008-02-18 10:44:18 by ZachOlson
Additions:
=====Why are Wikis so Ugly?=====
When we experience something new, for most of us the first thing we experience is visual. We quickly form a gut, glandular reaction based on the way things look. Wikis are not visually attractive to most people. They are mainly black text on a plain background. Neither, though, is the novel, or the poem visually attractive. They possess beauty in the ideas that they represent and the experiences that they can give us through imagination and the power of the mind.
Wikis are not ugly because they don't have beauty; they are ugly because the viewer has chosen to evaluate aesthetic quality based on aesthetic characteristics that wikis never had. The flaw lies not in the wiki, but in those viewing it. Quality of any thing, even aesthetic quality, should be evaluated on whether or not it accomplishes that which it seeks out to do. Wikis never tried to look pretty. Wikis exist to give multiple minds a place to converge and think together on a topic. Wikis give us a unique way to communicate and work.
Those who see wikis as ugly have mistaken simplicity for being simple. Evaluating the beauty of a wiki based on visual aesthetics is like evaluating the quality of a ship builder based on how well he sails. It doesn't make one lick of difference whether or not John the shipwright can sail. All that matters is that the boat floats. Wikis float, and float well.
The beauty of a wiki exists in its simple elegance. The beauty of a wiki is in the stripped-down, lightning fast mode of GroupThinking. The beauty of a wiki is in the content, the ideas, and the inspiration. Wikis have aesthetic value; it's just not a visual aesthetic. Don't hate a dog for not being a cat. A visual aesthetic in a wiki would only serve to weaken its beauty. The beauty of a wiki is not in sensory delight, it is in utility, and so images should only exist for utility's sake. It doesn't make a difference whether text is black, blue, red, or green, unless the colors serve to organize and enhance a message; an idea.
The aesthetic of the wiki is an aesthetic of the mind, and it is beautiful.
Deletions:
=====Why are Wikis so Ugly=====


Revision [3629]

Edited on 2008-02-18 06:18:48 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
see also TheWikiAndTheBook
Deletions:
TheWikiAndTheBook


Revision [3628]

Edited on 2008-02-18 06:18:25 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
The wiki is less of a //presentation//, like the blog, and more of a //representation// by mode of language. Wikis are like representatives of ideas and knowledge of the many.
Deletions:
The wiki is less of a "presentation", like the blog, and more of a "representation" by mode of language. Wikis are like representatives of ideas and knowledge of the many.


Revision [3627]

Edited on 2008-02-18 06:17:57 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
A street myth. Wikis are words in progress. The minimalism of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.
Deletions:
A street myth. Wikis are words in progress. The minimalim of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.


Revision [3626]

Edited on 2008-02-18 06:17:45 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
A street myth. Wikis are words in progress. The minimalim of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.
Deletions:
Wikis are words in progress. The minimalim of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.


Revision [3579]

Edited on 2008-02-16 09:28:47 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
- haiku or limerick, or Imagism
Deletions:
- haiku or limerick


Revision [3578]

Edited on 2008-02-16 09:27:59 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
=====Why are Wikis so Ugly=====
Wikis are words in progress. The minimalim of wikis helps writers and the readers focus on the content.
The wiki is less of a "presentation", like the blog, and more of a "representation" by mode of language. Wikis are like representatives of ideas and knowledge of the many.
Wikis have a movement via linking that would be interrupted by the presence of graphics.
Since they are a collaborative effort in the most part, they would be all jammed and crammed with all kinds of pictures and colors that would detract from the ideas represented.
== Analogies ==
- The White Stripes
- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ting_Tings The Ting Tings]]
- haiku or limerick
- Full screen mode text editors, like [[http://hogbaysoftware.com/products/writeroom WriteRoom]] or [[http://they.misled.us/dark-room DarkRoom]]
page started by JessicaTheroux
Deletions:
Wikis are words only. I think it is so the writers and the readers don't get distracted by all of the graphics and colors and all the bother to go through creating them. I think that the wiki is less of a "presentation", like the blog, and more of a "representation" by mode of language exclusively. Wikis are like representatives of ideas and knowledge of the many. They are like political representatives in that way I guess. Wikis have a flow to them that would be interrupted by the presence of graphics. Since they are a collaborative effort in the most part, they would be all jammed and crammed with all kinds of pictures and colors that would detract from the ideas represented.
JessicaTheroux


Revision [1562]

Edited on 2007-02-19 06:07:19 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
TheWikiAndTheBook
Deletions:
The more I learn about Wiki's the more I see the similarities between the Wiki and a book. When talking about blogs in class the focus was on 'genre' or whether or not it was a blog, notebook, or journal. Wiki's to my uderstanding seem to have more similarities to books and traditional ways of writing. There is an index, it is a collective effort centered around a central theme, rather than the random thought of the day which a lot of blogs cater to. The likelyhood for editing is greater, since things are always changing due to community interaction. Pages are being added and new titles are being created. The way things are written or laid out is more the focus "In wikis, the process becomes the product"(Mejias). I like the simplicity of the Wiki. Like books it leaves a blank canvas and pictures, colors, and different fonts can be used to express ideas and illustrate points, sometimes it is through simplicity that one is forced to be their most creative. Necessity is the mother of invention, what better way to invent than using only the necessities.
AmandaBertilson
I agree with what Amanda says, but I also immediately thought that, with the idea of starting my own Wiki and contributing, it was a "challenge!" I mean, what better way to try to get people to be interested in your page than by trying to make what you have to say be more of a propaganda-ish look/way. The words are the persuasion, not the flashy banners or images. The words set the tone. It can really stretch the limits of the person themselves, rather than the Wiki. It's like you said, Amanda, "one is forced to be their most creative."
MalloryMeredith
I think that if we take the idea that a Wiki is somewhat book-ish then we have to think about what makes books interesting. I'd probably say that Wikis are like non-fiction in my mind. So it makes sense, then, for Wikis to be simple and straightforward, because that's what people are usually looking for in the realm of informational non-fiction. It's all about information, and if there's anything stopping you from getting to that information as quickly as possible, then it needs to go. I guess I don't totally understand the argument. It seems to me the most important thing is that the Wiki you're reading has information you want to get out of it. If it does, then what it looks like should be irrelevant. If it doesn't, then how are colorful banners and flashing lights going to make it worthwhile?
OrieHouse


Revision [1540]

Edited on 2007-02-18 23:20:36 by OrieHouse
Additions:
I think that if we take the idea that a Wiki is somewhat book-ish then we have to think about what makes books interesting. I'd probably say that Wikis are like non-fiction in my mind. So it makes sense, then, for Wikis to be simple and straightforward, because that's what people are usually looking for in the realm of informational non-fiction. It's all about information, and if there's anything stopping you from getting to that information as quickly as possible, then it needs to go. I guess I don't totally understand the argument. It seems to me the most important thing is that the Wiki you're reading has information you want to get out of it. If it does, then what it looks like should be irrelevant. If it doesn't, then how are colorful banners and flashing lights going to make it worthwhile?
OrieHouse


Revision [1271]

Edited on 2007-02-15 19:56:41 by MalloryMeredith
Additions:
The more I learn about Wiki's the more I see the similarities between the Wiki and a book. When talking about blogs in class the focus was on 'genre' or whether or not it was a blog, notebook, or journal. Wiki's to my uderstanding seem to have more similarities to books and traditional ways of writing. There is an index, it is a collective effort centered around a central theme, rather than the random thought of the day which a lot of blogs cater to. The likelyhood for editing is greater, since things are always changing due to community interaction. Pages are being added and new titles are being created. The way things are written or laid out is more the focus "In wikis, the process becomes the product"(Mejias). I like the simplicity of the Wiki. Like books it leaves a blank canvas and pictures, colors, and different fonts can be used to express ideas and illustrate points, sometimes it is through simplicity that one is forced to be their most creative. Necessity is the mother of invention, what better way to invent than using only the necessities.
I agree with what Amanda says, but I also immediately thought that, with the idea of starting my own Wiki and contributing, it was a "challenge!" I mean, what better way to try to get people to be interested in your page than by trying to make what you have to say be more of a propaganda-ish look/way. The words are the persuasion, not the flashy banners or images. The words set the tone. It can really stretch the limits of the person themselves, rather than the Wiki. It's like you said, Amanda, "one is forced to be their most creative."
MalloryMeredith
Deletions:
The more I learn about Wiki's the more I see the similarities between the Wiki and a book. When talking about blogs in class the focus was on 'genre' or whether or not it was a blog, notebook, or journal. Wiki's to my uderstanding seem to have more similarities to books and traditional ways of writing. There is an index, it is a collective effort centered around a central theme, rather than the random thought of the day which a lot of blogs cater to. The likelyhood for editing is greater, since things are always changing due to community interaction. Pages are being added and new titles are being created. The way things are written or laid out is more the focus "In wikis, the process becomes the product"(Mejias). I like the simplicity of the Wiki. Like books it leaves a blank canvas and pictures, colors, and different fonts can be used to express ideas and illustrate points, sometimes it is through simplicity that one is forced to be their most creative. Necesity is the mother of invention, what better way to invent than using only the necessities.


Revision [1260]

Edited on 2007-02-15 19:23:51 by AmandaBertilson
Additions:
The more I learn about Wiki's the more I see the similarities between the Wiki and a book. When talking about blogs in class the focus was on 'genre' or whether or not it was a blog, notebook, or journal. Wiki's to my uderstanding seem to have more similarities to books and traditional ways of writing. There is an index, it is a collective effort centered around a central theme, rather than the random thought of the day which a lot of blogs cater to. The likelyhood for editing is greater, since things are always changing due to community interaction. Pages are being added and new titles are being created. The way things are written or laid out is more the focus "In wikis, the process becomes the product"(Mejias). I like the simplicity of the Wiki. Like books it leaves a blank canvas and pictures, colors, and different fonts can be used to express ideas and illustrate points, sometimes it is through simplicity that one is forced to be their most creative. Necesity is the mother of invention, what better way to invent than using only the necessities.
AmandaBertilson


Revision [1204]

Edited on 2007-02-14 15:43:51 by MalloryMeredith
Additions:
//"So my words have to be more precise to convey the meaning I want to present.//" I find this intimidating. I don't feel as though I am a particularly good writer, I know my grammar skills are lacking at times, etc. Maybe that's why I've adapted so readily to blogging... I can make it up as I go (made up spellings like purty) and it feels more like I'm writing in a journal or some other very laid back style. With wiki's, especially since I've only used them for classes, I feel I have to be more precise and I (usually) edit and spell-check before posting.
Deletions:
<i>"So my words have to be more precise to convey the meaning I want to present.</i>" I find this intimidating. I don't feel as though I am a particularly good writer, I know my grammar skills are lacking at times, etc. Maybe that's why I've adapted so readily to blogging... I can make it up as I go (made up spellings like purty) and it feels more like I'm writing in a journal or some other very laid back style. With wiki's, especially since I've only used them for classes, I feel I have to be more precise and I (usually) edit and spell-check before posting.


Revision [266]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2007-01-07 15:45:24 by MorganAdmin
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki