Here's Wikipedia's stance on unsolicited redesigns

This feels unnecessary and malicious. Unsolicited redesigns can be done for a variety of reasons and in general its something I encourage young designers with little or no portfolio work to do. Most people understand that real design takes more than a visual update and they aren't actually completely overhauling the website.

Most of the time, yes, it is done for the designer's benefit. They are using it to demonstrate a tangible example of their ability to work. A well-known subject and set of components that potential employers and clients are familiar with gives them an advantage. Also, sometimes its just fun to redesign something visually.

Personally, I enjoy looking at unsolicited redesigns , I think overall they are healthy for the industry and fun. People need to calm down.

i'm sick of "unsolicited redesigns" as much as everyone else, but this is just plain mean-spirited.

Hey lets bash students and put down anyone who wants to try and see things differently!! God forbid someone do an exercise for themselves in order to strengthen their creative sword.

Y'all are just jaded. I'm a strong believer that you don't need an official brief to try shit.

"And don’t call yourself a UX designer. You probably don’t know anything about UX. I know I don’t. Changing the color of a button to attract the eye is not UX. Whitespace is not UX. Oh, and not distinguishing visited from non-visited links is definitely bad UX."

So much bullshit in just this paragraph, I feel nauseated.

At least he added some value to his portfolio, your rant adds nothing to you, the community, or the universe.

This was a painfully mean and arrogant post. All designers create flawed work, even those not working unsolicited redesigns.

Designers who create unsolicited redesigns can learn from feedback that doesn't have to be this scathing. I happen to agree that it isn't a rigorous enough attempt to design Wikipedia, but I think we can all articulate that in a less destructive way than this post did.

i kinda agree with below, not the nicest article, but at the same time someone needs to say it. i started doing redesigns like this for practice, then i stopped once i got comfortable and started understanding that the design isnt all the visuals, but the experience it provides. Concepts are great, just the next one I do will have research and tests to back it up, and of course this would be for funzies.

You guys take offense at the oddest things. Things I see as mean-spirited, you love. And vice-versa.

I've read meaner things in children's books. I've also read it before and before. It was a decent write-up to me.

Why you mad though?

DN People,

This thing isn't new. It's was the same yesterday, last year and in 1999. Unsolicited designs is a common practice. It's not now, it was the same. The main difference now is there's a lot more websites that powers the message. That makes you think right now everyone wants to redesign Wikipedia.

https://www.google.es/search?q=wikipedia+redesign&oq=wikipedia+redesign&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61j0j69i60l2j0.3359j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

There are toons of redesigns proposals. Some are well argumented, others, jesus.

A great article that helps explain why many "redesigns" are fluff: http://signalvnoise.com/posts/3740-reading-the-difference

Ironically, the wikipedia concept mentioned in the article which provoked the rant is also posted on DN and (currently) just a few positions below this.

Slightly aggressive, but it's a pretty fair comment on design culture.

It doesn't do designers any favours when the wider community continues to see us as people who prefer to make beautiful noise rather than solving actual problems.

Sometimes browsing web design related forums/blogs/communities is like browsing the Hypebeast forum. Haters all around.

It doesn't really seem malicious, it's why it's called "unsolicited."