Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia is getting a new look

diff.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 529 posts

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#411

Post by anyfoo »

lhoff wrote: post #210
anyfoo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though that’s a rather technical term for carbon fiber that I suspect nobody uses when speaking or even writing to each other in a less formal context. I’ve heard it being called just “Carbon”, pronounced with a long “o”, frequently. Since the translation for the generic element, carbon, is “Kohlenstoff”, and that word is very commonly used, the opportunities for confusion between carbon and carbon fiber is less than…

The literal translation for carbon fiber would be "Kohlefaser" and that is also used quite commonly.

I admit I'm not in any field that deals with materials a lot, but OP said "Kohlefaserverstärkter Kunststoff" (which I likely wrongly called "carbon fiber" in English), is "Kohlefaser" really the same? Maybe it is and I'm just ignorant about that.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#412

Post by systemvoltage »

grumple wrote: post #381
systemvoltage wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use Ctrl(Cmd) and + sign to zoom.

I'm aware, thanks, I'm a developer. That makes the column width wider as well. What you want is a thin column and a large font size, and you can't expect regular users to zoom in.

Ah, so the problem is that the designer used rem or a mix of em/rem units. I personally use Pixels in everything that way the entire thing zooms and all relationships are proportional.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#413

Post by sacredcows »

Uehreka wrote: 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 always use the left-hand side bar. Switching between different languages (and being able to see which languages each article is written in) is important for multilinguals. And the “random” button is great.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#414

Post by tusharpandey13 »

seppel wrote: post #126
Uehreka wrote: 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…

Facebook also does this.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#415

Post by xmprt »

ziftface wrote: post #256
grishka wrote: post #240

Compared to how radically, how often, and how pointlessly most popular websites get redesigned, this is so... subtle. When I saw the title I assumed there's going to be a full redesign, with all the bad modern web design trends like giant everything and plentiful useless whitespace. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it's not the case and they're actually keeping their dense desktop layout and making some rather…

Agreed. Thinking about it, it actually seems like a major achievement that even after so long, Wikipedia's design doesn't feel clunky or unintuitive. I still think of this as the "new" design, and I'm still happy with it.

Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like Wikipedia's layout has very subtly evolved over the last 20 years. It probably feels the same as it did 10 years ago but there are certain UI elements and layout options that I see today that I'm not sure existed 10 years ago. I don't even remember if that table of contents was a thing 10-15 years ago.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#416

Post by [deleted] »

Talanes wrote: post #357
grawprog wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 8chan had some level of editorial judgement, however small it was. It was there.

The Admin has been very active in preserving QAnon's presence on the board. Potentially to the point of hijacking the QAnon tripcodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#Identity_of_%22Q%22

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#417

Post by WikipediasBad »

Uehreka wrote: 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…

A blockchain-hosted fork of Wikipedia named Everipedia.org has most of these features already built coincidentally. While I prefer Wikipedia over them, I have been noticing myself use other skins/newer look wikis instead of the dated Wiki UI. Although, the load speed of Wikipedia.org is difficult to beat.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#419

Post by egeozcan »

seppel wrote: post #303
Eiriksmal wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How else do you know what they call carbon fiber in German? [0] > [0] Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff, of course. Well, it actually not that simple :) Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff[1] is carbon fiber reinforced polymer[2]. But it seems like carbon fiber is also used as a short hand for carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Similarly, Germans often call Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff just Karbon.…

It's not my mother language but I speak German, and I keep reading "server" when trying to read "Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter". IT sector ruined my brain.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#420

Post by not_kurt_godel »

Eiriksmal wrote: post #156
amirkdv wrote: post #135

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…

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 frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Post-Wikipedia

Post reply on HN