501–510 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. And it’s the one thing that annoys me to no end about the mobile version, that the list of language editions isn’t there at all.
The language button is right at the top of the page. If anything its more accessible on mobile?
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.
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…
(Actually found some info if anyone is curious: https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/w.... Though the article helps explain some of the context and reasoning, I don't think it really justifies the divergent experience and imperceptible progress on improving the desktop experience)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also large fonts need to die It's possible that you're browsing on some configuration that makes Wikiwand display "large fonts" (mobile device? even then I haven't been able to reproduce), but Wikiwand isn't using large fonts. In fact, articles' font-size is set to 100% of the UA's preferred font-size, and then they use use a third-party font ("Lora") which actually makes text smaller than your typical serif font r…
1. UA config doesn't even enter into this. No one the new design is supposed to help doesn't know how to configure their UA or even what it is. 2. Consider these 3 images: https://postimg.cc/gallery/X78M9ms 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has a text that looks good on the designer's macbook. As it happens, the latter is borderline unusable -- an article not longer than a handful of tweets doesn't even fit on o…
No, one of them (Wikiwand) has "normal sized text", and the other two have objectively shrunken text. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. Both HN and Wikipedia, like I mentioned before, are overriding the text size in their stylesheets to force the main body text to display at a size smaller than the UA preferred size. Wikiwand is using the correct font scaling. If you have a problem with the size of the text on the Wikiwand page, it's because your UA is configured to show text at a size that you have a problem with. It's up to you to deal with that.
For an example of what properly-sized text looks like, have a look at http://cr.yp.to or http://danluu.com. These sites are not sending any "designer" styles to your browser (aside from the 8 lines of CSS for the latter, which don't affect the text size).
Besides that, your criticism of Wikiwand's design is dominated by details about its layout and not its text size. But I didn't say Wikiwand was the best layout in the world; it's not, and I don't even use it. But it's still not worse than Wikipedia's overly-designed Vector skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regular users won't have a 4k display, or they would have detected the problem in testing. If you have unusual requirements such as a very high ppi display, you can set a minimum font size in your client browser, just as the web was intended to be used since the beginning. The original idea of the web as a publishing medium was that visualization could be determined by the needs and preferences of the final user, and…
Interestingly, that does work on new wikipedia (good on them) but not on many other sites I tested and has some weird results in some places (for example, it doesn't change the regular text size on HN but makes the "reply" link larger). It seems this doesn't have the desired effect or support and could break things for general use. And unfortunately, as a web dev, I have to primarily work with default settings on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. UA config doesn't even enter into this. No one the new design is supposed to help doesn't know how to configure their UA or even what it is. 2. Consider these 3 images: https://postimg.cc/gallery/X78M9ms 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has a text that looks good on the designer's macbook. As it happens, the latter is borderline unusable -- an article not longer than a handful of tweets doesn't even fit on o…
> 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has [...] No, one of them (Wikiwand) has "normal sized text", and the other two have objectively shrunken text. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. Both HN and Wikipedia, like I mentioned before, are overriding the text size in their stylesheets to force the main body text to display at a size smaller than the UA preferred size. Wikiwand is using the correct font sc…
I don't get what's wrong with the Vector skin though... The only thing I would change is the language options in the sidebar -- no reason for the collapsible search box thingy. Just list all the languages as tuples of (native name, name in current language). Other than that I think it's great, no doubt thanks to all the effort spent polishing it over the years.
The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens and a separate skin (or media queries I guess) on mobile. Setting UA font-size to make text readable (as opposed to customizing the relative sizing of different elements) has been obsolete pretty much since Opera introduced zoom. If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in. If they want everything larger they'll apply the zoom to all pages (at least Chrome has this). Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. Certainly no lay person.
Edit: Seeing danluu's site linked reminded me of this relevant thread: https://nitter.net/danluu/status/1115707741102727168
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) The left sidebar has two killer features for me: 1. Finding canonical translations for technical terms. You need to know what the standard way to translate "hardware acceleration" or "differentiable manifold" is in French? Go to the wikipedia page and hover over the language switcher link in the left sidebar. Done. This has become one…
I also find your first point to be a truly indispensable tool. How else do you know what they call carbon fiber in German? [0] But the second is a touchy area. In fact, Wikipedia's co-founder recently wrote a blog post detailing how its neutral point-of-view policy has flopped, in the name of fighting false balance. [1] His examples are pretty embarrassing, but more important in that Google points human "Search Quali…
I'd hope that a person with Sanger's experience and insight would at least float suggestions, proposals, wish list, or any thing at all, to achieve something he'd consider more neutral, objective, or something.
everipedia.org I guess does some stuff differently. But if it has a different take on neutrality, it's not jumping out at me.
Sanger has some role with Ballotpedia? Maybe his vision for neutrality is there?
Just sitting here, I can imagine at least three different crazy experiments to play with neutrality. And I know nothing.
Also:
I was willing to at least consider anything Sanger had to offer, given his CV. But generally I fast fail (flip the bozo bit, summarily dismiss, shove into the memory hole) any media critic leading with "liberal bias".
I think he just has muddled reasoning. For example, his essay says something about Jesus, the Christ label, how the wiki is wrong... Or something. I was raised Christian, so I'm moderately inclined towards biblical navel gazing. But if Sanger had a point, it's lost on me. I'm just more confused after trying to parse his thesis.
Further:
I'll read any proposals for mitigating social media. I honestly can't even criticize whatever this is:
How to Fix Social Media in Three Easy Steps [2020/09/20]
https://larrysanger.org/2020/09/how-to-fix-social-media-in-t...
Non sequitur?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has [...] No, one of them (Wikiwand) has "normal sized text", and the other two have objectively shrunken text. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. Both HN and Wikipedia, like I mentioned before, are overriding the text size in their stylesheets to force the main body text to display at a size smaller than the UA preferred size. Wikiwand is using the correct font sc…
You are right, the font-size is not the main problem with Wikiwand. I tried zooming in until the text was the same size on the Vector skin and it's usable. Nevertheless, I don't think it's a coincidence that sites like old.reddit, HN and Wikipedia all use a similar font-size. Less so on Wikipedia, since the Vector redesign increased the size a bit. I don't get what's wrong with the Vector skin though... The only thin…
'cept for you, right? (Or why are we here otherwise? Reminder: someone started complaining about how large the text looks on Wikiwand site.)
> The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens
What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it?
> If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in.
By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The combination of political opinion expressed in [1] + the author's wildly incorrect past statements is all I need to know that Wikipedia is doing things right: > Since 2002, Sanger has been critical of Wikipedia's accuracy. ... [In 2007], Sanger again criticized Wikipedia, stating it was "broken beyond repair" and had a range of problems "from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to fre…
I guess you don't need to know much to ascertain the truth of something.