Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is getting a new look

diff.wikimedia.org

311–320 of 529 posts

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#311
post #68
post #19

If someone asked me to critique the UX of Wikipedia, the first two things I’d point out would be that I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read (especially when they snake around floated images). Not changing for 10 years, watching as some trends fade and others become law-of-the-land, and then making two changes…

> I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) If you speak different languages, the left hand bar is very useful to switch between different language versions of an article.

There is room for improvement here. Wiki could detect language preferences based on accept-language Header. "en-US,en;q=0.9,pl;q=0.8" is a pretty good indication I want English and Polish translations to be the first one listed. Alternatively/additionally you could let logged in users define sort order/preferences.

As is now I have to inject

    ['.vector-menu-content-list .interlanguage-link.interwiki-en', '.vector-menu-content-list .interlanguage-link.interwiki-pl'].forEach(el =>{
      if (document.querySelector(el))
      {
        el.style = ''
        let lang = document.querySelector(el)
        lang.parentNode.insertBefore(lang, lang.parentNode.firstChild)
      }
    })

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#312
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read I hope I don't sound like a jerk saying this, but resizing the browser window is the key. I dunno why some people maximize everything on their computer - that's a really inefficient use of space. I wish more websites wouldn't try to force formatting on me and just let me resize my window.

Well, I use tabs and not every website looks best at the same size. So I don't think the approach works. (FWIW, I'm also a non-full-screen user). But you're probably on to something. I would be cool if the web browser would allow you to adjust the body size of the document without adjusting the window size.

Reader View is available in Firefox.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#313
post #19

If someone asked me to critique the UX of Wikipedia, the first two things I’d point out would be that I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read (especially when they snake around floated images). Not changing for 10 years, watching as some trends fade and others become law-of-the-land, and then making two changes…

I also love the new-ish mouseover previews. That was a great change imo.

As someone "reading with the mouse" I love them until the mouseover appears over the piece of text, I was just going to read.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#314
post #265
post #147

I'm pretty confident I don't want this. I'd like to be proven wrong, but there was maybe a couple of cases among hundreds when perfectly working UI was actually improved instead of fucking broken by "getting a new look". What I actually would like to be improved is how the data is represented internally. Let's face it, it has been a long time since Wikipedia has become the largest and most accessible knowledge base i…

> MediaWiki is pretty much a blogging engine, article content and structure is restricted by the guidelines only, not by the engine. This is good, and at the early stages it was the only possible solution, since there is so much that can be useful in an encyclopedia article. I wonder whether there is a fundamental trade-off here. The track record of expert systems and structured knowledge bases is not great. Capturin…

I believe that this is absolutely the case. In fact, this is kind of the point. No way we would have Wikipedia if it did demand much structure from the very beginning. I don't see it possible (and, in fact, I don't want it to happen) to enforce structure in articles that cover some abstract concept, idea or new phenomena.

But for better or worse, Wikipedia is now also a huge database of biological species, anime characters and car models. It has several million of biographies, which cannot (nor probably should) be simplified for machine comprehension, but (not universally, of course, but highlighting that is a part of the point as well) have very concrete data entires, like DOB/DOD, "simplified characteristic" (actor, mathematician, politician, imperor of Rome), height/weight for many athletes and so on. And (even though this isn't the point), amazingly, all these countless articles already follow roughly the same structure. Like, for each biography you can expect to find the circumstances of death near the end of "Life" section, but before "Legacy", and you'll find "Interesting facts" in the very end. It may seem very natural (and it is!), but the reason I'm mentioning this, is that encyclopedia also is the tool that helps the authors to structurize data. I'm sure that 2nd and 3rd dinosaur articles were very different from each other in structure. But when you are writing a 1001th, it will be pretty similar to 1000th. Even if for you personally it's the first one to write.

And it is the point that it's hard for people to consciously produce structured, machine readable data. But we want to have structured, machine readable data. That's why I think gradually modifying Wikipedia itself in a way to unobtrusively trick us to provide this data, is the way as opposed to wikidata.

There is an example to get the feel of what I mean in the last paragraph of my response to bawolff, if you are curious.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#315
post #257

Please, since someone from wikipedia is probably reading this: Keep the JavaScript to a minimum. The plans aren't clear to me, but given what sites like reddit/etc have done during their "updates" the new UI's are terrible on anything that isn't a top of the line device with a screaming fast internet connection. Wikipedia (and a few other "older" sites) is such a pleasure to use as is, don't ruin it. AKA round-trippi…

PSA: old.reddit.com is so much better in these regards. I use it on my phone too, with some custom css to make things bigger. There is also i.reddit.com.

I'm writing a custom skin (CSS) to turn New Reddit into Old Reddit for when they inevitably, sadly, turn off old.reddit.com

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#316
post #126
post #19

If someone asked me to critique the UX of Wikipedia, the first two things I’d point out would be that I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read (especially when they snake around floated images). Not changing for 10 years, watching as some trends fade and others become law-of-the-land, and then making two changes…

The sole critique of the UX of Wikipedia that I have is that the normal version of Wikipedia redirects you to the mobile version when using a mobile device, and changes the URL while doing so. This is why we end up with all these m.wikipedia links. The mobile version, however, does not redirect you to the normal page when using a normal computer. So people like myself constantly have to edit the "m." from wikipedia l…

Firstly, at the bottom of the page in either desktop or mobile you can get to the other with a mobile/desktop link. (Discoverability fail maybe?)

Secondly, there's discussion about serving everything from a single domain at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T214998 , which I guess would enable the normal mobile browser feature of switching between desktop and mobile.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#317
post #19

If someone asked me to critique the UX of Wikipedia, the first two things I’d point out would be that I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read (especially when they snake around floated images). Not changing for 10 years, watching as some trends fade and others become law-of-the-land, and then making two changes…

I use the sidebar a lot to find the same article in another language. But that’s the only use I have for it.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#318
Wikipedia is a textbook case for ideas which led to creation of HTML. If Wikipedia wouldn't be able to be expressed - mainly - in HTML, that would mean HTML is a theoretical idea, not applicable in reality.

In addition to (near) absence of JavaScript, the HTML should be readable by itself - all those nesting levels, lists... Accessibility would benefit, and also using Wikipedia as a structured database - which should definitely be possible.

More in line with original Web ideas, interactive content - surely carefully tagged - should have standard solutions for embedded sound, video, 3D scenes, vector, raster and photorealistic graphics, various expressivities of embedded languages (code demonstrations).

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#319

Regarding all of the comments about the importance of language links in the sidebar: if you look here you will see that the language links will be moved to a button/menu in the article header ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme... )

Meaning now you will have to click to even learn if the language you are interested in is available.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing font size is magnification of the entire column, so you sacrifice the vertical space along with it. Line height can't go lower after a specific point - Arial for example, with font size of 12 points needs to have enough line-height of 16 points. Again, increasing the font size is not the solution. The second point about padding the sides with whitespace causes waste of screen real-estate for no reason othe…

Print media also doesn't have to deal with: resizable windows, accessibility, user styles, navigation, mixed media, comment sections, SEO, browser compatibility, load times, or security. I understand we are just talking about page layout, but web designers still have to simultaneously contend with everything I've listed. You mention a solution for 3 different sizes (desktop, tablet, and phone), but a responsive site…

You make good points. There is a wiggle room between column widths. https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/13724/reco...

Somewhere between 80-110 cpl should be adequate to satisfy most deviations in sizes. This "buffer" factor can be accounted for when designing for resizeable interfaces. Column sizes don't have to be absolutely rigid and pixel perfect.

Scaling can be tackled by basing everything on em-units. Scaling using Ctrl + can effectively "zoom" the UI. The relationship between elements should stay the same.

None of this is difficult. We have tools to tackle these problems. Uninformed designers are the problem IMO, but I don't have data for this. My gut feeling is that most designers follow trends, UI frameworks (bootstrap, tailwind), and have stopped building CSS from scratch.

Why are columns hell for accessibility? Given the fluidity of 80-110 cpl, we should be able to account for any size from a phone to large displays. This is a solved problem.

Again, I am not saying there aren't challenges and may be there are better ways to handle all the variables. We should not throw the towel and not think, discuss and debate about it.

Post reply on HN