41–50 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it very often, just because i check articles in multiple languages.
Languages - yes, all the other links - almost never.
Damn. I use that all the time. Wikipedia is one of my favourite dictionaries.
I use it for 2 years now and it works just right.
They could just make the mobile wiki the desktop default too. It is minimal, readable, and clean.
I hope not. I find the mobile wikipedia page awful. I always switch to the desktop site on my phone. Sections that start out collapsed is terrible for searching. Section headings that themselves are enormous is terrible for browsing. Even the text size is enormous by default - you don't get much of an overview.
> Our first change, a collapsible sidebar, allows users to collapse the lengthy menu found on the left side of each page. This change helps improve usability and focus by allowing people to concentrate on the content itself, whether reading or editing. Ah, more designers trying to justify things. Every site now has a hidden menu/hamburger nonsense, with the goal of "clean" design. It's terrible and hurts UX and disco…
The eye strain thing was referring to the maximum line width feature. Studies have shown that longer-width lines are harder to read than shorter-width lines.
But sure, you could just imagine that they're doing these changes because they need to justify their jobs.
> the wide range of functionality on the site can feel overwhelming and difficult to understand I guess it must just be my lengthy history with the web, but this line is like nails on a blackboard to me. It's OK to have to learn how to use powerful tools!
I feel the same way. I wish interface designers would focus on ways to get people comfortable with experimentation instead of removing features entirely.
I don't know why they did that, now we have empty space on the left and right, it's really useless, why is it better than using the full screen? "Our second change introduces a maximum line width to our content on pages where reading is the focus, such as article pages and discussion pages. Research has shown that limiting the width can lead to better retention of the content itself, as well as a decrease in eye stra…
FWIW, Wikipedia allows you to add custom CSS and JS that are active as soon as you log in.
I don't know why they did that, now we have empty space on the left and right, it's really useless, why is it better than using the full screen? "Our second change introduces a maximum line width to our content on pages where reading is the focus, such as article pages and discussion pages. Research has shown that limiting the width can lead to better retention of the content itself, as well as a decrease in eye stra…
> why is it better than using the full screen? Are you saying you only have one window open at a time?
If coding then an additional monitor can help, the additional monitor multi-window to support the main focus.
If writing, then one screen and paper and pencil to sketch thoughts.
If diagramming/flowcharting, switch desk or stand up and use a whiteboard, reduce over multiple pieces of A3, then the finished result should be refined enough to iron edges out to formalise in Dia or Visio. I also prefer pencils over pens, have a box of multiple colour pens, crayons too, bunch of sticky notes not for the screen but supporting paper-based thoughts, masking tape for putting things together. And this is me working by myself.
We all have our use cases and it's rarely one size fits all.
For wikipedia - why not default to whatever's deemed best for most, but have a small toggle button for 'old'.
I don't know why they did that, now we have empty space on the left and right, it's really useless, why is it better than using the full screen? "Our second change introduces a maximum line width to our content on pages where reading is the focus, such as article pages and discussion pages. Research has shown that limiting the width can lead to better retention of the content itself, as well as a decrease in eye stra…