37 ms·

Wikipedia is getting a new look

• Normille 6y ago
  Are they giving Jimmy Wales's begging bowl a make-over too?
• lloydatkinson 6y ago
  A collapsible side bar and max width are hardly big features you need a whole post for.
  • dehrmann 6y ago
    Phew. I was fearing a "reddit redesign" for Wikipedia.
  • rikroots 6y ago
    I disagree. Until I read the post I wasn't aware that Wikipedia are about to embark on changing their desktop UI. As someone who uses Wikipedia as much for reading pleasure as for looking up stuff, and who has just been through the discomfort of having to deal with Facebook's - unannounced! - desktop redesign, I appreciate being told in advance that things are gonna change, especially when the post comes with a link an (animated!) outline roadmap of the changes they'll be introducing over the next couple of years.
  • drng 6y ago
    There are several other features they're planning on adding, linked in the article: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#What_features_will_be_added https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...
• stabbles 6y ago
  They could just make the mobile wiki the desktop default too. It is minimal, readable, and clean.
  • Aerroon 6y ago
    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.
    • tomtheelder 6y ago
      The text size is totally normal on my phone. Good readable size that's similar to other text-focused pages. It might just be that their CSS needs to be a little more clever about screen sizes.
    • stabbles 6y ago
      > Sections that start out collapsed is terrible for searching It doesn't collapse on desktop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_Cathedral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_Cathedral
  • mkl 6y ago
    It's minimal and clean because everything is hidden. This is not a good thing, as it's impossible to search or skim.
    • stabbles 6y ago
      Only on mobile, not on desktop.
• Thaxll 6y ago
  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 strain. " This is bs. So all documentation website should now have that max line widht to better retent the content? Edit: maybe it's just me but any UI/UX you have used for the last 10years are really hard to change in a positive way.
  • phildenhoff 6y ago
    No it isn’t. There’s ample research showing that shorter lines are more readable. Check out the sources on this page for more details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length
    • adventured 6y ago
      I agree, their line width has been atrocious since the early days. It was as bad in 2005 as it is now. The font size on their primary topic page text on desktop is also too small. Checking a well filled out topic page, something like George Washington, a typical line might be 160-190 or more characters across in the top section. In some places on the page it can reach to 210+ characters across. It isn't a very good reading experience at their present font size and at that width.
      • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        In the early days the lines would have wrapped earlier on a 4:3 monitor. Using a vertical tab bar fills in the extra space and improves the readability of most web pages on widescreen.
    • hyperpape 6y ago
      According to Dan Luu, none of the citations on that page actually support what it claims. Amusingly, given the context, I haven't actually read any of those citations. However, he's pretty careful, so I take the claim seriously, though I'll ultimately withhold judgment. As far as I'm aware, no one has come back to point to a citation and show that it supports the result. https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168
• Animats 6y ago
  These are the first of many changes in a long and complex process. They're raising too much money and hiring too many unnecessary people.
  • Macha 6y ago
    I was just rereading WP:CANCER again after the latest donation banner took a full screen scroll and asked me for an email when I pressed what I assumed was the dismiss nag button: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...
    • llacb47 6y ago
      rereading ... again is redundant.
      • Macha 6y ago
        Well, if you want to be pedantic Rereading = reading for the nth time, n > 1 Rereading again = reading for the nth time, n > 2 (as you've already reread at least once)
• matchbok 6y ago
  > 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 discoverability. Eye strain? With a menu? Really?
  • tomtheelder 6y ago
    They aren't hiding anything, they are providing the _option_ to hide. I will hide that sidebar and be grateful for it. I'm hugely appreciative of their goal of allowing for an improved reading experience, and they are doing it in a way that will have no effect whatsoever on you if you like the presence of the sidebar. There is no hit to UX or discoverability here.
  • johneth 6y ago
    It's collapsable, implying you don't have to collapse it if you don't want. 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.
• tspike 6y ago
  > 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!
  • mostlysimilar 6y ago
    I feel the same way. I wish interface designers would focus on ways to get people comfortable with experimentation instead of removing features entirely.
    • ryderdini 6y ago
      In this case, no feature is being removed--just hidden in a collapsible sidebar, but I agree with your overall point.
  • tomtheelder 6y ago
    Having to learn how to use powerful tools is absolutely fine when the tool is a specific one designed to be used by power users. For something like Wikipedia for whom the bulk of the audience visits briefly and occasionally to grab information, it's not a good thing. I think a lot of us are scarred by changes like these to our "power tools," which can be incredibly frustrating, but Wikipedia is a different beast. Your design should fit your audience, and I think it's a good change to have a sidebar with tools that are surely ignored by the _overwhelming_ majority of users not be presented in a persistent, important location. Also worth mentioning that they aren't removing anything, just altering presentation to better suit the common use case.
    • jbay808 6y ago
      That seems obvious but it's not necessarily true. It seems to be an increasingly popular philosophy in this data-driven era of telemetry though, so I'd like to offer a counterpoint. I want Wikipedia to be as convenient as possible for the editors/authors, even if most users are readers. The authors -- even as a small minority of users -- create the content that, in turn, attracts the readers. It's possible that alienating authors to prioritize the reader experience ends up driving away readers through the second-order effect of driving away authors. (I'm not saying that these particular Wikimedia changes are an example of this, just illustrating a mechanism by which prioritizing the experience of the majority of users can end up harming them in the long run, because second order effects are important too. Wikimedia seems to have thought carefully here, which is good). An extreme example of this philosophy would be noticing that the vast majority of your users never touch the edit button, and so getting rid of it entirely to streamline the interface for everyone else.
• robertoandred 6y ago
  I've long thought the the mobile design was better on desktop than the desktop design.
• samfisher83 6y ago
  It's fine as is why change it?
  • psychometry 6y ago
    The post details why it's not fine...
• taimoorapps 6y ago
  Great. I always really liked mobile wikipedia more than desktop.
• Uehreka 6y ago
  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 that are backed by a fair amount of data strikes me as a great way for Wikipedia to operate. I’ll also note that they definitely have changed some UX stuff over the past 10 years. The fullscreen expandable thing for images is pretty good, clean and JS-light (although this is HN so I have to note it would be better if it didn’t break the back button).
  • kome 6y ago
    I use it very often, just because i check articles in multiple languages.
    • Aerroon 6y ago
      I use it for the same thing. This allows me to learn what specific word is used for [obscure thing] in a different language. Eg computer hardware related words for my native language.
      • segfaultbuserr 6y ago
        Yes! I found Wikipedia article names are fairly reliable as a translation reference, especially for technical terminology. In my language, translations of technical terms in Wikipedia article names are often more accurate than the vast majority of random blog posts and articles on the web, and occasionally even better than some technical dictionaries, which may use old-fashioned or outdated terms.
    • formerly_proven 6y ago
      Languages - yes, all the other links - almost never.
      • 6y ago
• deadmik3 6y ago
  I'm surprised wikipedia has gone this long without joining every other website in fixing their unbroken UI
  • bawolff 6y ago
    I still remember the vector rollout...
• jrochkind1 6y ago
  The detail page for the first feature they mention, limiting line-width [1], makes me think: Wow, it sure takes a lot of analysis and discussion to make what is a pretty straightforward and simple change. (Recall, too, this has been in the works for at least a year? And still isn't deployed to English wikipedia?) Which makes me realize there's sort of an ironic situation. When a site is beginning and small, you don't worry too much about the precise details of how you've doing things, you figure it's more important to get it out there, and it can always be changed later. Then, someday, if you're lucky, the site is huge, with lots of traffic, lots of dependencies, lots of people paying attention to it... and you are much more reluctant to make changes, taking them very seriously with lots of consideration... so now are stuck with whatever people decided years ago without much consideration at all! [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features/Limiting_content_width https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...
  • notatoad 6y ago
    seems like the usual workaround to this paradox is to start a new "alternative" ui and allow the original site to stagnate. wikipedia did this with their mobile site - on a desktop-sized browser, it's a vastly superior reading experience to the regular wikipedia, and was implemented with virtually no controversy or fuss because anybody who was going to get angry about changes just continued to use the main desktop site.
  • Falell 6y ago
    This is the core of "enterprise" things. Many times clients, (especially paying business clients) care more that "things that worked yesterday should continue to work today" than about the enhancements, or even "breaking fixes", that you want to deliver for your product.
  • davidivadavid 6y ago
    Thanks for the link — that subject has been my #1 complaint with Wikipedia for a long time. I'm glad they're finally doing something about it, even though it seems like I still won't be happy with it — judging by the wikis where the update is active, it's still too wide. The rationale in the article is interesting, but IMO wrong — the idea that you need to balance scannability and line length suggests that line length is the main factor in improving scannability, when it seems obvious that what wikis have been missing for a while is better, probably sticky tables of contents for quick navigation (which something like Wikiwand figured out a while back). Making users scroll 25% less is a poor solution to improve scannability, and degrades readability tremendously. There are issues tied to the variability of layouts on Wikipedia that are more legitimate (how to deal with boxes, etc.) and would involve deeper design changes, but they would probably be worth it considering how important the basic reading experience is to wikipedia.
• wormslayer666 6y ago
  Direct link to one of the early adopter wikis: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_princip...
  • Constellarise 6y ago
    Cool, instead of having Wikipedia zoomed in to 150% I have to have this one zoomed at 170%.
    • aembleton 6y ago
      Why? They both use the same font size and line height.
  • thewakalix 6y ago
    There could be other factors involved, but it takes longer for fr.wikipedia.org to load on my computer than en.wikipedia.org. I hope Wikipedia will remain usable on old and slow devices.
  • rovr138 6y ago
    And the sidebar works with no JS. Perfect!
  • byset 6y ago
    From that link, it seems like the change in the text column width behavior, which is promoted as limiting text columns to a maximum width, in practice creates a min-width as well which can be quite wide. That is, in the old wikipedia, you can adjust the browser window to make the text column arbitrarily narrow, but in the new wikipedia — depending on other elements on the screen — in practice can you from having an uncomfortably wide column of text that you can't adjust to be any narrower. So it seems like kind of a mixed bag readability-wise. edit: For example, this article's main text area seems to have a width of around 155 characters, while typography rules of thumb dictate not exceeding 75 or so: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgau_Wartheland https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgau_Wartheland
  • 6y ago
• iamlemec 6y ago
  You can add custom CSS in Preferences → Appearance. I've set mine up to look something like the mobile version for a while now. I'm always a little shocked seeing the original when logged out or on someone else's computer.
• m0ck 6y ago
  Just in case someone here is not aware of Wikiwand: https://www.wikiwand.com/ https://www.wikiwand.com/ I use it for 2 years now and it works just right.
  • monkeypizza 6y ago
    Details on this: This is a restyled version of wikipedia content that looks a lot better. They have a browser extension that redirects you to the wikiwand version of the same page, which is the same content with much nicer formatting. It really looks quite a bit better. Caveats: you have to trust a non-wikipedia site to keep their copy up to date, not to info-mine you, and if you quickly send someone a link, they may not realize they're still sort of on wikipedia. For comparison: - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hacker_News https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hacker_News - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News
    • est31 6y ago
      On the second link, it fits all onto my screen. On the first link, I have to scroll. Why is this better? Sure it looks "nice" but if I want to look at nice things there are other websites. I want wikipedia to be useful, not look nice.
  • systemvoltage 6y ago
    I disagree, this is worse in every way. Too much white space. Literally every website today needs to reduce the padding and margins by 80% and they could present the same data in dense, single page without scrolling. Also large fonts need to die. I love HN because I can see so much in one shot, can always increase fonts with Ctrl +
    • psychometry 6y ago
      You can't really exceed a a certain number of characters per line without sacrificing readability and you can't restrict the line length without padding the container, so I'm not really sure what you think the goal of typography should be. It's certainly not to reduce scrolling; there is no "fold" on the web.
• rossdavidh 6y ago
  Ok, the concrete changes they mention sound harmless, but..."modern looking website" sounds like code for "webapp-looking thing with every pixel clickable and stuff that moves around on you when you don't want it to". There is a lot more room for screwing things up than improving, for Wikipedia. I am nervous.
• SusAnnie 6y ago
  While there might be a lot of current users who feel like “if it’s not broke why fit it?”, there are a lot of whys it can be improved (some previous commenters have already linked some great research to how line length improves readability). As someone who is very dyslexic, I can say that Wikipedia is incredibly difficult to read, navigate and use effectively as a resource. It is not organized in a way that is easy to parse, the content blocks are huge making it extremely difficult to read, and there is very little white space. I’m excited to see how they revamp the UI/UX to make it more user friendly.
  • TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    I am sorry to hear this. A child of mine is severely dyslexic, and I think about these things all the time on their behalf.
  • zozbot234 6y ago
    You can already select a more dyslexic-friendly font for Wikipedia articles. In the side-bar, click the gear icon in the "Languages" sub-header. Select "Display" settings in the resulting box, then the "Fonts" tab and check the "Download fonts as needed" option. This will reveal a further option to switch the font for main content in your current language. Select OpenDyslexic in the drop-down box, then Apply Settings. As you can see, it's really easy and usable even for newcomer folks!
    • SusAnnie 6y ago
      Thank you so much for sharing that, I’ll check it out! :)
  • Macha 6y ago
    I think given the historical overlap between Wikimedia and Fandom (formerly Wikia) execs and the overlap between Wikimedia and Fandom editors, there's not a lot of trust for anyone announcing a wiki redesign
  • Symbiote 6y ago
    The web/CSS is supposed to empower the user to make modifications to fit their own needs. I have a Javascript bookmarklet to restyle a page if necessary. If I always needed it, I would set a user style sheet, or different default fonts.
• jgwil2 6y ago
  If anybody wants to try for themselves in their language, go to "Preferences" >> "Appearance" and uncheck "Use Legacy Vector"
• TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  Is it going to be a single-page app with React, Angular, or similar?
  • timw4mail 6y ago
    I sure hope not!
  • jdlrobson 6y ago
    No. This wouldn't be technically feasible at current time even if we wanted to do that.
• MockObject 6y ago
  Try reading a math page on an iPhone with a spotty connection. All the images now only load when tapped. So after the page loads, I've got to scroll down, open each collapsed paragraph, and tap each image separately, before I lose signal on the subway.
  • jdlrobson 6y ago
    Unfortunately certain iPhones do not have MutationObserver support. This is not the case on newer ones. There's an open bug to allow you to opt out of this however we've been a bit stretched to find the time to work on this. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261609 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261609
    • MockObject 6y ago
      I would love a preference setting for this. Thank you!
• cpascal 6y ago
  Link from the article showing what features they are adding. https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#What_features_will_be_added https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#...
• BelleOfTheBall 6y ago
  Fingers crossed it won't be as awful as WTSocial. That place looks outdated by about 10 or 15 years and it was literally made last year. I actually much prefer Wikipedia's current design over that, if I had to compare the two.
• chriswalz 6y ago
  I have used Wikiwand Extension for the past couple of years and haven’t looked back. Happy to hear about max width change though!
• DocG 6y ago
  I was scared for a moment that it's going to be another "we added bunch of whitespace, js and hid a bunch of options away for a cleaner look" redesign. Was pleasantly surprised with the article. I think current Wikipedia is highly functional design that is content thick and practical. Like HN.
• rwesty 6y ago
  I really like how they have opted to make small changes gradually. Look at the feature lists here https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#What_features_will_be_added https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvement.... There's a detailed explanation for why each change is being made complimented by a GIF showing the side by side difference. I've been working on an SPA with a tight deadline and we are building new pages almost every other day. It's nice to see a project take a slow and careful approach.
• drng 6y ago
  If you have an account (and stay logged in) you can get some of the benefits described in the article with an alternative skin (collapsed menu, limited line width, maybe a better font). Check out the options in the Appearance section of your user preferences. I like MinervaNeue (sample page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England?useskin=minerva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England...)
  • soneil 6y ago
    If you don't like being logged in, it's worth noting that's also the default interface for en.m.wikipedia.org (the mobile site, which is perfectly usable on the desktop)
  • pityJuke 6y ago
    Wait, that's the Wikipedia Mobile layout, except with a lot more desktop functionality (and changes such as Talk Pages not being collapsed). They had this lying around the whole time?
• nickosmark 6y ago
  Wikimedia recently decided to abandon their in-house javascript framework in favor of Vue.js[0]. That doesn't mean wikipedia will turn into a vue.js single page app but they'll use it to progressively enhance some parts of the frontend or their internal tools/editors etc. Looking at some of the suggested features like the new search[1] it seems that vue.js could be used in this scenario. Does that mean they'll ship the entire vue.js runtime alongside jquery that is already used? [0] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T241180 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T241180 [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#/media/File:Sketch_of_search_results_with_images_and_descriptions_for_Desktop_improvements_project.jpg https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...
  • lights0123 6y ago
    I mean, the Vue.js runtime is smaller (about 73% smaller) than jQuery.
• 0xUser 6y ago
  If I host my own mediawiki, will the fixed line length be enabled automatically, or do I have to configure something? I've deployed 1.34.2, but lines still seem to span the entire screen.
  • soneil 6y ago
    It should be the same, uncheck Use Legacy Vector in Special:Preferences (at least, it is for me in 1.35rc3). I haven't found a setting to make that the default, however.
    • bawolff 6y ago
      You can make any preference default by adjust $wgDefaultUserOptions
• alufers 6y ago
  As an owner of an ultra-wide monitor I am all for adding margins on the left and right side. I feel like my eyeballs are about to fall out everytime I read something longer on maximized Wikipedia.
• Ciantic 6y ago
  There appears to be a some mockup already online: https://di-collapsible-sidebar-5.firebaseapp.com/Tea https://di-collapsible-sidebar-5.firebaseapp.com/Tea if you want to preview some aspects of it.
• waldofrank 6y ago
  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_Improvements/Features#Language_switching_1:_Language_links_in_the_article_title_bar https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...)
  • rasz 6y ago
    Meaning now you will have to click to even learn if the language you are interested in is available.
• waldofrank 6y ago
  Regarding the comments about the importance of language links in the sidebar: if you look here you can see that the language links will be moved to a button/menu in the article header — https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Language_Switching_User_Tests https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme.... The conclusions of the user testing show that people have a much easier time finding them in the new location.
• p1mrx 6y ago
  I just want them to remove the "collapsible sections hiding most of the content" misfeature from the mobile interface. Every time I view a Wikipedia page on my phone, I scroll down and click Desktop, because it's easier than playing whack-a-mole with a bunch of section titles.
• bra-ket 6y ago
  I wish instead of UI tweaks they would do something about toxic admins and power editors spreading misinformation with the assistance of kafkaesque bureaucracy and censorship.
  • newyorker2 6y ago
    That would bring something called accountability to the table. We're not ready for it yet. Enjoy the new UX!
• jl6 6y ago
  Respect to the designers of the current look, which has done admirable service for so long to such a vast audience. I feel it has become iconic - a plain and functional and consistent look that makes it stand out from the garish, noisy rest-of-the-web, and is instantly recognizable even to the general public, featuring in mainstream movies and music videos. If such a thing existed, it could be declared a UNESCO World Heritage website.
• doublesCs 6y ago
  uh-oh. EDIT: After looking at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_de_Posnanie https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_de_Posnanie it's not so bad.
• zzo38computer 6y ago
  I use my own CSS (with the Cologne Blue skin), and I would hope that it doesn't break. I customize the CSS in other ways too, because I often don't like what they do with modern ones. (I think would be better to design it to be used without CSS and then it might be better, but they don't do that, so I need to add my own in order to fix the mess they made.) I do not use any side bar or top or bottom bar; only the text is displayed. I do not want a maximum line width either; I want the entire window to be filled with the text.
• beefman 6y ago
  > much of the wide range of functionality on the site can feel overwhelming and difficult to understand ... we need to provide not only excellent content and an experience that is engaging and easy to use, but also an experience that is on-par with their perceptions of a modern, trustworthy, and welcoming site MediaWiki's difficulty of use is the primary reason Wikipedia has fared as well as it has during the decline of substantitve online discourse in recent years. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is the best and last of the old web. Putting people who don't understand this in charge of its redesign is a recipe for disaster.
• paulirish 6y ago
  The mobile site on desktop has fantastic UX. The m-wiki chrome extension smoothly redirects you to the mobile version every time. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/m-wiki/ibnmikddaopgfbbngcgcfmanjfgbcopf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/m-wiki/ibnmikddaop...
  • bawolff 6y ago
    Just fyi, if you are logged in you can also select the mobile skin in your preference (mobile site is different from mobile skin in that it also alters page contents)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • martinrlzd 6y ago
    On Firefox I use Redirector, I set it to redirect from ^(https*:\/\/)(?!www)([a-z]+)\.wikipedia\.org\/wiki\/(.+) to https://$2.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/$3 Works well!
• unethical_ban 6y ago
  I don't get it. On desktop, collapsing the left bar does nothing. It doesn't provide space, it doesn't enhance the viewability of the main content. It is purely aesthetic. In that sense, it doesn't harm me, but I wonder what kind of person needs it. The second thing I notice is that it removes borders, further eliminating visual cues on header/sidebar/main content. It's a blob of white with paragraphs. It feels less structured. Finally, I think limiting line width feels wrong on things like the main page, or on wikis that have wide tables for reference. It would be good to see more examples of how it affects tabular data.
  • wyxuan 6y ago
    They say in the user research survey that it's for accommodating people new to english/learners.
• krick 6y ago
  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 in the world. It was made simple, which is a part of why it is successful. 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. However, now we know a lot of patterns of how data represented in different articles is similar. But wikitext is still basically just a human language with a bit of markup elements. Sure, there are templates, which are slowly improving over the time, but still, it's petty much a collection of free-form blogposts. There is almost no way to separate data from the representation (i.e. to have a table contents as a csv, with a template assigned). There were some attempts to make it possible, but querying (or modifying) data automatically is still very much a pain. A lot of it requires parsing, and (perhaps even more annoyingly) — pretty simple parsing. But you have to do that work for every single problem you have. Instead of, you know, to just query data I know there is. In fact, when you start parsing templates it becomes very clear very quickly, that they are vastly underused. Absolutely the same data, like years of life in bio-articles is still represented differently even in very elaborate and well-maintained articles. Very little has been done in this regard over the last 10 years, I feel. And improvement does require a lot of work: looking for possible templates, promoting generic data representation among contributors, modifying wikitext to allow for it, improving the API. It they are looking how to spend money, I'd rather want it to be this, because making a lot of data machine-accessible would be literally as huge, as making wikipedia human-accessible was about 20-15 years ago. Sometimes I need to open 500 articles to read a single sentence in each of them, and some python script could've done it for me in a second (a couple of seconds maybe, depending on how wikipedia stores and represents the data).
  • exacube 6y ago
    Friend, they are using data and research to improve their UI. Thinking that "other products didnt do it well so you shouldn't try" is extremely unproductive. It's also not productive to argue for a vastly more difficult and different area, like their data model, during a topic of refreshing UI..
• tyingq 6y ago
  I wonder if the mobile look is changing. It already has a collapsible sidebar.
• hcarvalhoalves 6y ago
  I like the mobile version of Wikipedia, I find it more legible even on the desktop. Comparison: New design: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_princ... Mobile version: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_princ...
  • coolreader18 6y ago
    You've got the mobile version twice there, I think you probably wanted to remove the "m." from one of them.
• trynewideas 6y ago
  MediaWiki has a skin system, and judging from other comments here this appears to be treated as a new skin, or an iteration of the already default "Vector" skin. There are several skins that have tried to tackle some of these problems in the past, notably Foreground: https://foreground.wikiproject.net/wiki/Main_Page https://foreground.wikiproject.net/wiki/Main_Page Refreshed: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Refreshed https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Refreshed and Timeless, which was a quasi-Wikimedia project: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Winter https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Winter which all tried to be responsive rather than using the MobileFrontend extension and splitting the site into two separate device-specific skins. You can append `?useskin=skinname` on Wikipedia, or any MediaWiki site, to switch the current view to the given skin. For instance, Timeless is installed on wikipedia.org, so you can see what it looks like by going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg?useskin=timeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg?useskin=ti... The list of installed skins is on the wiki's Special:Version page.
  • pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
    I wish this were more widely known, and not just for Wikipedia. There are too many local MediaWiki installations that stick with the dated default Vector theme. NB: it's not the theme's datedness that makes it bad; it's that the design decisions are poor ones that reflect trendy anti-patterns of that era, and in the meantime, the insistence on them has more or less quietly and thankfully disappeared. I'm referring to the attitude that publishing on the Web calls for a sui generis "look" involving sidebars, dubious color and font size choices, and bold emphasis on app-like UI elements and other cruft like navigation controls, rather than foremost emphasizing the content itself and letting the user agent handle things like preferred font size. The Vector skin, like popular Wordpress themes of that time, strongly reflects that style, and it's bad. The Web would be much better off if future MediaWiki installations by default shipped with a skin resembling Wikiwand (modulo the fixes that should be made to it as well—e.g. stop fucking overriding the browser's native font size with your tiny-ass text! HN is just as guilty on this; any site that makes the main body text <1em (or >1em, for that matter) is by definition doing it wrong).
  • 6y ago
• dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  I hope it doesn't change too much, Wikipedia and Craigslist are the only two major websites that have a decent layout these days.
  • bredren 6y ago
    I respect your opinion but I do not think it reflects the majority of users in this initial group. I think it is good Wikipedia was willing to test for the truth and be open to acknowledging it is not at its maximum potential for achieving its mission by sticking with the existing design. I comment here because I also thought if Craigslist but for an opposing reason. I see Craigslist as neglectful in its refusal to perform public research on what it should change. Not only in terms of design but also features such as validated identity. There is a reason Craigslist usage has dwindled to other marketplaces, those with far less capitalistic and privacy-minded philosophies. There is a price to pay for refusing to change. Craigslist is a slow moving, very public example of this.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• anotheryou 6y ago
  The mobile UX is quite alright, really close to wikiwand.com . I hope it goes in that direction. I can share my userstyle on demand, looks similar and like this: https://i.imgur.com/jUhG107.png https://i.imgur.com/jUhG107.png Sticky menu, hidden sidebar on the left (mouse over reveals it and language switch moved to top). I just pulled it from stylish.org because of their malicious add-on.
• amyjess 6y ago
  So does anyone have a userscript to override the maximum line width? I have claustrophobia, and having text forced into narrow columns actively triggers it. Taking a look at the Basque Wikipedia, I can tell right here that it's completely unusable for me. I'm willing to pay real money for someone to write me a script to override it.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • burkaman 6y ago
    You can open the article in Reader View in Firefox and then set the margins to whatever you want.
    • amyjess 6y ago
      I'm not interested in using Firefox, and having to actively switch modes every time I open an article isn't acceptable. I want something that globally eliminates all max-width everywhere.
  • sidarape 6y ago
    Oh yes, thank you for saying that. We seem to be the only ones here that don't like this. I have a 2K screen, please let me see more content, not less on it.
  • gnomewascool 6y ago
    If you have a Wikipedia account, you can go to Preferences > Appearance[0], and choose a different skin. AFAICT "Monobook" and "modern" have unlimited content width. If you don't then you can append ?useskin=modern to each article URL. (You can do it automatically with a redirect extension.) Alternatively you can inject the following CSS (e.g. with Stylus): .mw-content-container { max-width: none !important; } (The specific CSS selector might change with time.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsec...
• liminal 6y ago
  I wish they'd move the page's table of contents into the left sidebar and the current left sidebar into a drop-down menu at the top. I never use the left sidebar (when looking at a page on a topic, why do I need immediate access to `Random Article` or `Current events`?!), but I do want one click access to the sections of the page I'm viewing. Having it in a drop-down menu is better than scrolling to the top, but still two clicks with an re-orientation step
• mcnesium 6y ago
  Using Wikipedias language switcher to translate things seems to be quite common here, so I thought I'd share how I moved the languages up on top, so I don't have to scroll down on smaller screens or when zoomed in. In `<firefox-profile>/chrome/userContent.css` I wrote the following: @-moz-document domain(wikipedia.org) { #mw-panel { display: flex; flex-direction: column; } #mw-panel nav { order: 9; } #mw-panel nav#p-logo { order: 1; } #mw-panel nav#p-lang { order: 2; } } This is only for Firefox, but imho that is the… least bad browser anyways ;)
  • Slackwise 6y ago
    Actually, if you have a Wikipedia account, you can save custom CSS (and even JS?!) to your account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsec...
    • Amorymeltzer 6y ago
      Yes — custom gadgets and user scripts are quite common! It fits in with the ethos of the place, but is quite remarkable compared to nearly any other popular website.
• chromedev 6y ago
  That honestly looks terrible. It's like their developers haven't heard about fluid design. Why is it only using 40% of the page for actual content, even after I collapse the annoying sidebar. They'd be much better off with a navbar with dropdowns, or fewer links using a hierarchical structure.
• StillBored 6y ago
  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-tripping 1000 times sucks on high latency connections, and my little atom based tablets/a53 based phones/etc choke on those sites and its absolutely miserable trying to use them. So, put some effort into measuring the before/after and making sure that the download/render times remain in the same ballpark on older devices/connections.
  • ziftface 6y ago
    The experience with js-heavy sites even on a very capable desktop is still negative. Too much js introduces bugs, latency, and lack of stability. A page like that will sometimes jump around and resize for no apparent reason. Making wikipedia noticeably js-heavy would definitely ruin the experience.
    • tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      The size and amount of JS doesn't really matter. Whether it's well written and integrated matters. How many round-trips it introduces matters. The stuff that gives JS a bad reputation is sites that slap together nested widgets that each load their resources sequentially. If you serve a 1 MB blob of all_the_things.min.js on the first page load, then gzip reduces that to ~300 KB, which will take ~2.5 seconds to load on a 1 Mbps connection, and then it will likely be cached. If you serve a widget that loads another widget that adds a third widget, on the other hand, elements will keep popping in and your user experience will suck.
      • capableweb 6y ago
        On a US-normal laptop 1MB of JS might not matter too much. But for a world-normal laptop + smartphone, the size of the bundle does matter, not just for bandwidth but for performance as well. Larger JS scripts takes longer time to parse so if you have a lower power device, it still gonna suck. Everything around your program matters, but for different audiences. Wikipedias reach is huge, and getting it to work and work well, for the lowest common denominators (think ~10-40 USD smartphones) is a pretty big job which includes thinking about sizes of all kinds. Edit: Ignore me, seems you're not actually replying to anything specific in the comment before you, so this all seems off-topic now.
• Pilottwave 6y ago
  I have tried max line length readying on wikipedia and even speed reading apps (single lines flashing the whole text before your eyes). I honestly like the current line length which scales with your monitor the best.
• ainar-g 6y ago
  I've enabled the new theme, and I was prepared to hate it, but I actually found it quite nice. So far, at least. It's refreshing to see a UI change that is an actual improvement and not just some management people getting their raise. Good job, team!
• lucasnortj 6y ago
  Wikipedia reliable? Haha what a joke
• grishka 6y ago
  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 minor changes to it. That's the kind of miracle you get when you aren't optimizing your product for KPIs and stock value.
  • ziftface 6y ago
    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.
    • grishka 6y ago
      These changes are driven by actual issues actual end users were having, as opposed to the usual "we want this feature [no one asked for] to be used more so we gave it more exposure [at the expense of the UX]". That's what software development should be like. You serve your users. Not the other way around.
      • Tijdreiziger 6y ago
        > as opposed to the usual "we want this feature [no one asked for] to be used more so we gave it more exposure [at the expense of the UX]" This is just how business works, you like to steer users to features that will make them spend more. Wikipedia has been able to side-step this because it's a non-profit.
        • grishka 6y ago
          Yes and I never liked businesses, especially IT ones. Also why I can't find a job for 1.5 years now — can't fathom making someone already rich even richer as opposed to making the world better. Just imagine how amazing the world would be if the creators of most of the things we use every day weren't obsessed with making more money than what they know what to do with but instead with improving the design of said things to serve the people's needs better.
• qwertox 6y ago
  I just hope that it doesn't get one of those reactive designs, where, when I put two browser windows side by side on a 1920px wide display, the content gets displayed in tablet mode, instead of keeping it in desktop mode. These reactive sites have broken half of the web for me because of this.
• boogies 6y ago
  I wonder if it will ever look much like https://libreplanet.org https://libreplanet.org. It’s the only site I’ve seen with a theme that modifies the actual layout (ie. the sidebar and Article | Talk / Read | Edit | View History tabs), AFAIK — I wouldn’t have known it was MediaWiki if I hadn’t happened to click to https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:LibrePlanet_Wiki_Helpers https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:LibrePlanet_Wiki_Helpers
• pvorb 6y ago
  The line length has been annoying me for years now. Recently I started to switch to the mobile version on desktops, which is much more readable in my opinion. Maybe I should write a browser extension that automatically adds the "m." prefix to Wikipedia URLs.
• tech-historian 6y ago
  If you're curious what Wikipedia has looked like throughout its 20 year history: https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/wikipedia-website https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/wikipedia-website
• BSG-Actual 6y ago
  While they're making UX changes, I'd love if they added a redirect from the mobile version to the desktop version when you click a mobile link on desktop. It's a minor annoyance, but one that seems to happen more and more.
• cw 6y ago
  oh no
• HipstaJules 6y ago
  Finally! Please take care of the paragraphs width and text size. I usually use Wikipedia at 250x
• cmckn 6y ago
  Wikiwand[1] is something I've been using for a while that makes Wikipedia a bit nicer to look at. The concerns others have voiced about the long line length are addressed by this plugin. It also has a great table of contents on the left. Other things, I think wikipedia.org does better. Excited to see the changes! [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/ https://www.wikiwand.com/
  • aembleton 6y ago
    Thank you. I've never seen wikiwand before but it is a big improvement. It is missing those pop over windows that wikipedia has when you hover over a link though.
    • cmckn 6y ago
      The popovers work for me in the latest Chromium (if we're talking about the same thing)! I love those. I do think Wikiwand goes a bit too far in the "slick" direction; Wikipedia is more functional. But it's nice to play with an alternative.
      • aembleton 6y ago
        They also work in Firefox when you allow JS from wikipedia. I had blocked 3rd party JS.
• godelmachine 6y ago
  Dark mode on Wikipedia would be so amazing!
• leoxv 6y ago
  Great to see Wikipedia thinking about improving its design. I've been working on a completely integrated Wikipedia/Wikidata/+more system for about a year now. Please check it out here: https://conze.pt https://conze.pt There are also screenshots of the development progress on Twitter: https://twitter.com/conzept__ https://twitter.com/conzept__
• avmich 6y ago
  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).
• naveguese 6y ago
  French Wikipedia looks so good: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France Anyone know if I can make this the default look whenever I use Wikipedia?
  • tomcatfish 6y ago
    This is the upgrade they are talking about! French Wikipedia is one of the trail wikis. Go to this [1] link and search for "Use Legacy Vector". Uncheck this and you will start seeing the new look on Wikipedia. NOTE: It looks like you might have to do this for each MediaWiki site for now, but it is not too difficult if you are intentionally trying to opt-in. [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsec...
• jwcacces 6y ago
  Ugh, don't hard code a maximum line width. Let me decide by sizing my window if I want it.
• Atomskun 6y ago
  I bet it won't remember my scroll position when navigating back between articles.
• allthebestforus 6y ago
  Let's hope that Wikipedia's redesign puts some pressure on eBay and Amazon to follow suit.
• abrowne 6y ago
  I wondered we they were still talking about long lines, but then I remembered I have a userstyle in Stylus: #mw-content-text blockquote, #mw-content-text ol, #mw-content-text p, #mw-content-text ul { max-width: 40em; }
• alphachloride 6y ago
  I use the WikiWand browser extension which improves on UI quite a bit, https://www.wikiwand.com/ https://www.wikiwand.com/
• wraptile 6y ago
  Honeslty I was never a fan of sticky headers and this one [1] is no exception. Is it really worth cluttering the reading space when you can reach search in your browser's bar or just pressing the home button to scroll up instead? Generally pop-ups are bad design for power users. If there's free space why not have it expanded? Instead add distraction-free-mode when clicking certain keyboard button or shortcut the article is expanded and all of the clutter hidden. My general wikipedia workflows heavily rely on search, with proposed pop-up redesigns for languages and ToC now I have to do numerous clicks rather than just searching for "Français" and clicking enter if I want the french article. Finally the article mentioned that there should be width limit and it was always sore thumb of mine - how can something that has 200 characters per line be read efficiently? There should be configurable limit with a more sane default. 1 - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Search_prototype_for_the_Desktop_improvements_project.gif https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Search_prototype_for_the...
  • ROARosen 6y ago
    Try the Wikipedia mobile site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ which basically solves most of your issues including the sidebar and wide paragraphs.
    • wraptile 6y ago
      TIL, thanks! Though I'm fine with the current design, the proposed one is what bothers me.
• digianarchist 6y ago
  I've noticed when I view Wikipedia in French it is a lot different than the English version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego
• k2xl 6y ago
  The one thing I hope is fixed is that for mobile browser, when I'm clocking a link in a wiki article to another link, and then I want to hit the back button to go to the article I was originally reading, the back button doesn't scroll to where I was on the page and I have to scroll down to resume where I was reading.
• yellowapple 6y ago
  As long as this means a single site that works for both desktop and mobile instead of having separate URLs for mobile v. desktop pages, I'm all for it.
• ksec 6y ago
  130 Comments, No one mention the suggestion of Dark Mode? And if I could have a non-topic collapsed version of Mobile Site for use on Desktop would be great.
  • Shared404 6y ago
    > 130 Comments, No one mention the suggestion of Dark Mode? Came here looking for this as well. I would like this, but I think it's more important that Wikipedia continue to be lightweight enough that it'll load on almost any device, including those without JS. Not that those are incompatible, just thought it worth pointing out.
  • amai 6y ago
    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Albert_Einstein https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Albert_Einstein allows to set a dark mode in the settings.
• 8bitsrule 6y ago
  My favorite interface change in the past 10 years is that hovering over a link to another article causes the lede to pop up - often answering my question, or increasing my interest in visiting the page.
• senux 6y ago
  It's great that they are rolling out these changes. I forget not everyone uses them because I enabled the new layout a while ago. It's been available, albeit subject to changes, to everyone with an account. Personally, I really enjoy the new look and design/UX choices.
• ryanmarsh 6y ago
  Oh my god they added a dick bar. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Search_prototype_for_the_Desktop_improvements_project.gif/240px-Search_prototype_for_the_Desktop_improvements_project.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Se...
• anigbrowl 6y ago
  I'm surprised they haven't experimented with using the LH menu bar for the article ToC.
• hoseja 6y ago
  > To these users, much of the wide range of functionality on the site can feel overwhelming and difficult to understand. What is it with going for the lowest common denominator everywhere?
• beshrkayali 6y ago
  The most underrated thing about websites that have kept a working design/ui/ux/whatever for a few years or more is that people are used to them. I know where the search bar is, I know where to switch language and where to exactly point my attention to find what I’m looking for. Even if something is not exactly right, or doesn’t make sense to some expert UI designer, you really don’t have to change it. I’m seriously weary of multi year redesign projects undertaken by websites used regularly by a lot of people. It almost never works. PayPal didn’t get it right, Spotify constantly messes with their app and changes where things are, everyone can probably add something to this list. Shouldn’t UX be a lot more about how the thing looks? Work on enhancing your copy if people find it difficult to understand.
  • corentin88 6y ago
    That’s something I’m a huge fan in G Suite. The UI changes very slightly, most of the time you don’t even notice, but the number of new features that the team ship is incredible.
    • def_true_false 6y ago
      Not sure about G Suite, but Gmail UX/UI seems to get worse with every other update -- it's cluttered with unrelated stuff, like Google's chat attempt of the month, and unbearably slow. Searching for text with diacritics is broken, even though it used to work a couple years back. Kind of absurd for a search company.
• dmos62 6y ago
  This doesn't fit the definition of a redesign. The term redesign, as used in the context of websites, is defined as the reduction in usability, uglification, waste of manpower, opposite of improvement in any meaningful sense. I don't know what this is, but it's not a redesign. We might have to invent a new word for it.
• throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  "We welcome anyone curious about our changes to try them out and give us feedback" OK, how? I can't find any link. Edit: Found some https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Which_wikis_these_changes_are_available_on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...? At least put a link to them somewhere obvious. Main thing is, seems fine without Jscript. Good. That's the main thing. Print preview is not working right on palemoon. Probably a PM bug. OK, tried printing the entire text of https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Page_d%E2%80%99accueil https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Page_d%E2%80%99a... but only got the first page.
• amai 6y ago
  I prefer the wikiwand layout, see e.g. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Albert_Einstein https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Albert_Einstein Zoomed in at 150% it looks really nice. It also allows to justify the text and has a dark mode. Just the performance could be a little bit better.
  • notdang 6y ago
    I see a blank page with js turned off, while wikipedia still works.
• dexen 6y ago
  >Our first change, a collapsible sidebar, allows users to collapse the lengthy menu found on the left side of each page Through hiding, feature discoverability is hampered. >Our second change introduces a maximum line width I resize my browser for the optimum line width on my computer, taking into account monitor DPI, viewing distance, visual acuity, and other individual factors. Please don't make content on computer monitor as badly cramped as it is on mobile. One size does not fit all, and there's a reason computer is higher productivity than mobile.
• greendestiny_re 6y ago
  So, what exactly does the "Search 1: search widget move" change accomplish?
• chrledntsurf 6y ago
  Has anyone ever created a site that is just a collection of all the scraped wikipedia articles posted in the comments on HN?