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

521–529 of 529 posts

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#521

Post by zzo38computer »

petters wrote: post #59
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…

This is how I use the fullscreen expandable images: 1: Go to a page. 2: Click on an image. 3: Close the image. 4: Click the browser back button. I am now at the image again. This is surprising and I cannot seem to learn this.

I disable all sorts of features on Wikipedia (and MediaWiki sites in general; why can't it support a cookie to automatically change these settings, so that you (the end user) can copy your preferences between MediaWiki instances merely by copying a cookie?), and would want to disable some others as well, such as the custom widgets and most animations. I do want some of the features that use JavaScript, but not all of them. The browser should have a better way for the user to adjust individual scripts.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#522

Post by zzo38computer »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #65
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 almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) Editors do. The sidebar contains tools useful for maintenance works. Just to name a few, I use "What links here" to check links and redirections, "Wikidata item" to update metadata - these two are the most used features by editors: after contributing a new article, you need to add/fix some inbound links, and to link it to editions in d…

I use those functions too, although there are accesskeys for those commands, so the side bar is not needed. That is also the case for editing, talk pages, history, etc; there are accesskeys for those too. So, all of the commands can be hidden, in order to make more room for the article text instead.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#524

Post by specialist »

sellyme wrote: post #511
specialist wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read [1]. 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 neutra…

I was willing to at least consider anything Sanger had to offer, given his CV. But generally I fast fail [...] any media critic leading with "liberal bias". Especially when one of the main criticisms is "It's biased to say a false statement is false". Sanger's fundamental misunderstanding is that a neutral point of view doesn't mean that the thing you're writing about is also going to be neutral.

Keen point. Thanks.

It just now occurs to me that you're probably referring to the epistemological crisis. I don't actually know what that means, but please humor me.

Sanger teaches philosophy. To him, maybe there is no truth? Or that all truths are equal? Or something like that.

More than a handful of the geeks I've worked with were afflicted by the recursive discursive thing. Most bad was the philosopher software architect. Actually repeatedly debated metametadata, the data about metadata. I wanted to kill myself.

Tying this back to current events: It might be useful to have some canary questions, to determine the epistemological bent of the other participants. It's pointless to argue about facts if the other party doesn't believe in facts.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#525

Post by sefsdfsdfdsf »

xf00 wrote: post #515
giddhhgcfygfg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of interest, I tried "electronics packaging" (which other sources seem to indicate is called either "habillage" or "packaging" in French). I got this http://m.gdt.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ficheOqlf.aspx?Id_Fiche=1893553... result which says "electronics packaging designer" translates to "concepteur d'assemblage électronique." So now I'm not sure what to think. The suggested translation doesn't include the word "habil…

"Habillage" (literally "dressing") in this context relates to packaging of a concept/proposition i.e. the marketing around it (or "spin"). The french word for "packaging" in the physical sense would be "emballage" (literally "wrapping"). Some would use "empaquetage" but that is less common. So "electronics packaging" would translate to "emballage/empaquetage de composants électroniques".

Are you sure about this?

I know linguee.fr has been criticised, but check out these two analogous pages found via a search for "electronics packaging" there:

https://schroff.nvent.com/en/schroff/about-us

"The brand Schroff, which belongs to the business unit of nVent Technical Solutions, has been a world leader in electronics packaging for over five decades."

https://schroff.nvent.com/fr/schroff/about-us

"La marque Schroff, qui appartient à l’entité légale nVent, est leader mondial dans le domaine de l’habillage électronique depuis plus de cinquante ans."

This makes it look extremely like habillage doesn't just mean what you claim it does "in this context."

Emballage was indeed my initial guess for the appropriate French word, but I, you know, did some research before jumping to a conclusion?

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#526

Post by 867-5309 »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #366
867-5309 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try changing your IP address, OS language/region and browser language to English

I'm not aware IP addresses have language settings associated with them? since when is this the case? any links for further information?

the technology is called IP Geolocation. IP addresses are able to be resolved to countries, cities, towns and in some cases more granular than that, depending on the ISP. since around ten years ago but databases have matured since then. what I was trying to get at was masking your actual IP address by way of proxy server or VPN, to make it appear as if you are connecting from another place. it also aids anonymity and bypassing geoblocked content

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#527

Post by def_true_false »

cxr wrote: post #509
def_true_false wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. '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…

> What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it?

According to sibling subthreads here, a lack of readablity. Since I don't think line length matters much, making text larger is pretty much the only thing left. Zooming is the easiest way to achieve that. It also doesn't alter the layout of the site as much as simply increasing the font-size.

> By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right?

Of course. Being a power user, I can even set the font-size ))

I'm just pointing out that expecting people to do the latter makes no sense unless they are a power user.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#528

Post by cxr »

def_true_false wrote: post #527
cxr wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. '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…

> What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it? According to sibling subthreads here, a lack of readablity. Since I don't think line length matters much, making text larger is pretty much the only thing left. Zooming is the easiest way to achieve that. It also doesn't alter the layout of the site as much as simply increasing the font-size. > By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+…

> making text larger is pretty much the only thing left

Wikiwand doesn't "make the text bigger". It leaves the text size alone. I've already mentioned this more than once. cf cr.yp.to, danluu.com.

> I'm just pointing out that expecting people to [set the font-size] makes no sense unless they are a power user.

I don't know what you think I'm saying. I'm not talking about power users. I'm saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be injecting rules for small font sizes in the main content. Everyone can leave the font size alone. Wikipedia cramming thousands of lines of CSS down the tubes, where the incorrect font size is among them, is like people who say "backslash" when dictating a URL—they're going out of their way and getting it wrong.

Re: Wikipedia is getting a new look

#529

Post by Noumenon72 »

TuringTest wrote: post #451
bosswipe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand Larry Sanger's complaint about NPOV. If a neutral encyclopedia was required to list all minority points of view on every topic then nothing would be knowable. It wouldn't be able to say that the earth is round. If saying that the earth is round is biased then neutrality is worthless and not worth pursuing.

The original statement of NPOV was to at least mention any significant view supported by a significant minority of experts or people involved; not EVERY topic. It makes sense that, if you want the encyclopedia to be a starting point for investigating a subject, it informs you of the existence of significant non-sanctioned views. In practice, this need is usually satisfied by the Talk pages and archives. The published…

When I've been to the talk pages they were populated by even-less-neutral discussion about how to expunge anything that might offer support to people who believed the right-wing position.
Post reply on HN