Wikipedia in 3D
(Update: We’ve received a lot of feedback about how the new Wikipedia identity functions in different browsers, and we’re working on some minor improvements over the next few days. We’ve captured much of the feedback below, and now encourage users to visit this thread on Wikimedia Commons where you can further comment on a revised version, currently being tested on our prototype Wikipedia. Thanks!)
Later today you’ll be reading about one of the first major changes to Wikipedia’s user interface. A significant part of that change is a minor, but noticeable refinement to one of the most-recognized logos on the internet: the Wikipedia puzzle globe.
Our puzzle globe has an amazing story, and its creation and localization across more than 250 distinct language versions of Wikipedia is a collaborative design achievement. The original globe was created in 2003 following a historical logo-creation contest on Wikipedia. The original winning design came from Paul Stansifer (Wikipedia User:Paullusmagnus), a design that was then revised to reflect the international breadth of Wikipedia by David Friedland (User:nohat) — the version users around the world have grown to know as Wikipedia’s puzzle globe.
Just over a year ago we saw a need to update the beloved Wikipedia globe, both to resolve some minor typographic errors found by our volunteers, and to develop a high-resolution version with gradient qualities (it is a sphere, after all) that could be used in a variety of new settings. It was a perfect opportunity to build a new model that would be completely 3D in its design. To complete the project we would need help from a 3D designer, and we’d go back to our community of volunteer contributors to examine what the 52 or so un-identified puzzle pieces might look like.
A new chapter in the history of the logo was written as volunteers examined languages and scripts that were not represented in the previous iteration of the puzzle globe. Several small errors were corrected, and the Klingon character was replaced with an Amharic character (Klingon Wikipedia wound down in 2005). A great history of the puzzle globe, not surprisingly, can be found on Wikipedia.
The actual 3D construction of the new mark was carried out by a San Francisco bay area professional 3D animator, art director, and graphic designer, Philip Metschan. Through his career Philip has worked for Industrial Light and Magic and Pixar, and currently he’s also a visualization and concept artist for the DIRECT program.
The results are fantastic, and now you can see many new languages and scripts represented. The final state for our puzzle globe is quite similar to the original. The ‘hero’ version closely resembles the shape, and orientation of the original.
You can review more details about the revised identity, and see some of its current physical manifestations, here.
Aside from the puzzle globe, you’ll also notice a small refinement to the text underneath the puzzle globe. To facilitate the incredible work of our volunteers in localizing the Wikipedia identity into over 250 languages and character sets, it was decided to use Linux Libertine (an open-source typeface) as an alternative to Hoefler. ”The Free Encyclopedia” tag line has also lost its italics to facilitate better on-screen reading (although we’re pretty sure everyone on the internet knows those words by now). You can see the incredible volunteer effort of localizing these new Wikipedia identies unfold here.
This is a small part of the next steps for Wikipedia in terms of look and feel, but we hope the revised logo is a useful and more practical tool for our volunteer chapters and volunteers around the world. We’d love to hear your feedback as well, because like any great and visible logo, small improvements are always in store.
Our thanks to the whole usability team, Philip Metschan, and the dozens of volunteers who have helped make this project a reality. We also recognize the original efforts of David Friedland, Paul Stansifer, and those early pioneers who brought this identity to life in 2003. We hope it’s a lasting tribute and a testament to the incredible impact this symbol makes on millions of people every day.
Jay Walsh, Head of Communications
Nice idea, poor execution. Re-render it with more depth to the joins between the pieces, and better lighting. Also increase the globe size relative to the text – it’s too small now and looks fug.
I like the look of the new globe. It looks smoother but I wouldn’t say it looks flat. The slightly different sized pieces match a real puzzle and diminished bevel effect matches the cleaner look of the layout.
It would be nice if the globe were a bit bigger, but that is probably just my built in aversion to change.
omg :( the idea of a 3D globe is great but the render is crap, it is too small and not 3D enough between the pieces … suppose no one cares, but where was the public discussion on changing? I for one, missed it.
I agree with some of my fellow Wikipedians. The contrast between puzzle pieces should be improved.
Change is good, but not *this* change.
:The main problem is the lighting, which has made the interior that is visible from this POV a dark gray, almost black — much darker than the previous mid-gray the one visible interior piece used to be — which carries too much weight in the design. Further, the more-focused lighting has made the bottom right of the globe darker, whereas the previous, broader lighting kept a light color spread out more.
:It’s also smaller (I think?) and the pieces are thinner (I think?) which may just be related to what other people have said about the inferiority of the joinings.
:Also, the 3D sounds nice in concept, but I’m not sure what the superior functionality it brings truly is. If, say, the globe rotated whenever you moused over it, that would be “cool” — in a 1998 Geocities kind of way. So why have it?
:Also, I know the search box was never that prominent and the move shows that it needs to be more prominent, but the move didn’t help all that much. How about a second move to place it large and in between the Main Page/Discussion tabs and the Read/Edit/History tabs?
The search box needs to be more prominent. Please.
All that fuss about it looking “flat” and “dull”, but I don’t see any notable change.
The only reason it must look a little different is because the background image is gone and the logo is a little smaller.
It’s too washt out. But I would like that animated spinny GIF! A globe from the inside or a sheerish outside globe would be well.
A cloud is thin and metal is thick; it’s shallow and deep or broad and slim.
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/nice
Bad idea… Bad implementation… Old logo forever.
Idea is great, but render is awful. Even a pendant from Le Futur (http://www.lefutur.ru/_upload/catalog_img/b_1322.jpg) looks better and much similar to Wiki-globe.
I think the idea of creating a “true 3D model” of the puzzle ball is a great one, and I applaud the effort that’s gone into it, and the result.
I think the new logo suffers in comparison to the old one because:
(1) Ball is slightly smaller in comparison to the text
(2) Edges of the puzzle pieces are much less distinct
(3) Lower contrast between the symbols on the ball and the ball background
Note that I’m not saying the new logo is “worse”; I say it *suffers in comparison*. You compare the two side by side, and that’s the reaction. I suspect it’s a human biology thing – our programming makes us give more recognition to bigger and higher contrast.
For comparison, some links:
Old logo (2003 puzzle ball):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png
New logo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg/1000px-Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg.png
If people think the above three points are a problem, I think the model could be adjusted to address the issues. I don’t think that would be counter to the spirit of the new work. Indeed, it might even build upon it. For example, instead of drawing in the “carved” lines where pieces meet, the pieces themselves could have their edges beveled. That would change the lines from a simple stylistic touch to an actual feature of the model.
Again, this is not intended to be dislike of the new logo. I’m trying to identify the reasons behind the reactions of some, and offer possibilities for change. Change is good. Wikipedia is a wiki, after all. :)
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~ User:DragonHawk
The new logo is uglier than the old one. It’s smaller, it has bad colors and bad light.
I prefer the old logo, I hope it returns.
It looks like planet that is blown up at end of times. Where’s rest of missing fragment skulls?
Can we please get a reply from the team that implemented the 3D logo? There are many troubling issues brought up above that deserve a response. Thank you.
I have been using vector for a short while now, and the only change I see is the logo. Let me say I don’t see ANY reason for making it smaller. It was fine in its original size. That’s my biggest complaint.
Until it’s changed, I’m using my own personal css settings to change it back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#New_logo contains all the en.wiki discussion about the new logo. We’re generally not happy with the problems. Great ideas, but bad implementation of details.
The search box shouldn’t have been moved. I guess putting “Donate to Wikipedia” where it used to be (and “Interaction” open by default) is the reason for the change, and the reason why it won’t be moved back to where everyone has been used to having it for all these years.
I just want to chime in on the new logo. The previous logo, which I created, was certainly not without its flaws, but the new logo suffers greatly on an aesthetic level: it is too small, the anti-aliasing is very low quality, and most importantly, the sense of texture created by the edges of the pieces is completely lost. Finally, I am rather disappointed I was not included in the process to revamp the logo. No attempt was made to reach out to me to let me know this process was even being undertaken. Very poor job on all accounts.
Are 3d model and textures in public domain?
New logo is not designed properly, IMO.
Can you upload the 3d model and textures, so someone from the community can do a more pleasing design?
If Wikipedia is user generated, why not the logo? I bet there are thousands of talented designers dying for a chance to tweak it.
Make a page with comparisons of various versions around the same concept, make it democratic. This logo sucks!
Since I don’t contribute, my only concern is how easy the site is to read: if you have to increase the minimum size of font IT’S WAY TOO SMALL!