On 05/09/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Wikipedia's logo is quite distinctive,
changing that would probably be
a step backwards. But Monobook could do with a change.
Our logo is an INCREDIBLY powerful brand. I hope we can start selling
3-D puzzle globe keyrings soon ...
I like Monobook a lot, actually. I used Classic before, but I think
Monobook is fundamentally well-designed. Flashy is not a virtue.
Monobook looks clean, sensible, clear. It's perhaps one of the biggest
things that got us where we are today - it *makes the content look
reliable*. It has astonishing levels of recognition (you'd be amazed
how many people think any random mediawiki install belongs to us,
"because it looks the same" - monobook default)
Tweak - sure. itwp has a nice subtly different colour scheme going on,
I believe, that sort of thing is worth playing with. But throw it out
and start again? You'll confuse a lot of people.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk