4 ms·

I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. On the very rare occasion when I need to scroll all the way to the top of the pa

I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. On the very rare occasion when I need to scroll all the way to the top of the page, I have no problem figuring out how to do that. Feels like they're introducing a persistent UI element without a benefit. Benefit to me, anyway. Maybe they heard from a lot of users who were having trouble remembering where the header was, I can't say. I don't log in to Wikipedia, so this doesn't affect me much at present. I'm not sure what value the collapsible table of contents is. Maybe it's useful on mobile, to help save screen space, but on desktop it would just be extra work for me to collapse the sections (which appear to be expanded by default). I have not found the length of the table of contents to be a problem, and I see the value of this structure as being that it allows me to see everything at once. I get why having a maximum line length is good for readability. My reaction to this feature is negative, but I wonder if it's because I've gotten good at sizing Wikipedia articles the way I like them to be, by upping the font size and shrinking my browser window. Maybe I will come around on it, but my initial reaction was that I don't trust them to make the right decision for me, so I'd rather they just kept it flexible.

gpm 4y ago
I don't need a header either, but I suppose for people editing wikipedia it might be pretty useful. It probably makes sense for wikipedia to optimize for the people providing the free labour slightly more than they optimize for the readers.
- nsajko 4y ago
  You suppose wrong.
zeta0134 4y ago
I usually use my adblocker to simply remove fixed headers. Hopefully there isn't anything critically important in that thing, because whatever's up there just isn't going to be seen. They're far too distracting.
rickstanley 4y ago
Yeah, I don't like it either, and I don't see a way to disable this apart from user's defined bookmark script, like kill sticky[0]: javascript:(function()%7Bdocument.querySelectorAll(%22body%20*%22).forEach(function(node)%7Bif(%5B%22fixed%22%2C%22sticky%22%5D.includes(getComputedStyle(node).position))%7Bnode.parentNode.removeChild(node)%7D%7D)%3Bdocument.querySelectorAll(%22html%20*%22).forEach(function(node)%7Bvar%20s%3DgetComputedStyle(node)%3Bif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7Dif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7Dif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7D%7D)%3Bvar%20htmlNode%3Ddocument.querySelector(%22html%22)%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7D)()%3B%0A But unfortunately, it renders the header useless in this case. [0]: https://github.com/t-mart/kill-sticky https://github.com/t-mart/kill-sticky
51Cards 4y ago
Note to those not liking this, there is an option in the preferences to revert to the old Vector skin. No idea how long this will be but setting that preference may give them feedback that some users prefer the old layout.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  The overwhelming majority of people will simply accept defaults. To what extent Wikipedia's UI/UX assessment team are aware of this and can note a strong defection from any new features even where that defection represents only a small fraction of visitors I don't know. Worse: sufficiently annoying / offputting features can simply lead to defection from a site entirely. A major problem with A/B testing is that if the cumulative effect of features has been to drive away those preferring the path not taken, then all your A/B tests are doing is validating survivorship bias. (I'd give my experience with Reddit over the years, which has lead me to all but entirely avoid the site, or more recently a rather drastic turn in Twitter's dynamics affecting many long-term participants, as cases in point.) Of the specific changes Wikipedia are putting into place, the maximum line length is a style change I've applied myself for about a decade now using various CSS browser extensions. I'm not much a fan of pinned headers, though that would be less an issue on desktop than my e-ink tablet. For that, I prefer the Desktop layout generally, but zoom the screen to cut off the left-hand sidebar entirely, which works fairly well until such time as I want to view an image fully zoomed. I do find the sidebar useful on desktop. The present Mobile layout is annoying in multiple regards though it might be useful on a smaller device (I'm using a 13" e-ink tablet, which is generally not constrained for space.)
anthonypasq 4y ago
all these changes are geared at mobile. I imagine thats the majority of their traffic now
- int_19h 4y ago
  It is described specifically as "desktop improvements".
- babypuncher 4y ago
  Are they? Wikipedia has great apps for iOS and Android. I feel like some of these changes are meant to make better use of the landscape aspect ratios typical in laptop and desktop setups (i.e. moving the ToC to the left)
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  The maximum line width is specifically applicable to Very Large Desktop Displays, not mobile. Several other changes ... seem fairly agnostic.
babypuncher 4y ago
Reading your comment I got worried that there was going to be this giant banner permanently affixed to the top of the view. Taking a look, the actual implementation is very small and unobtrusive. I don't know that I prefer it, but I also don't think I hate it. I feel indifferent. I definitely love how they put the ToC off to the left. It's a great use of all the horizontal space on our 16:9 screens, and will make zipping around to different parts of a large article a lot easier. I'm willing to put up with the small banner in exchange for this.
pavon 4y ago
I love the new design when not logged in. After logging in however... > I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. Edit: I wasn't logged in before, and thus wasn't shown the header you are talking about. Now that I see it, I'm with you and don't like it. Everything there could have gone in the sidebar above the ToC instead of wasting vertical space. I also dislike the extra non-persistant sidebar box shown when logged in that pushes the ToC down off the screen. That should be one side or the other, not in place of the ToC. I find the persistent ToC to be very helpful, and the space is uses would have gone to waste anyway in full-screen mode, so it doesn't cause any harm. I don't love the menu button in half-screen (and presumably mobile) mode. I feel like they would have been better off with a full-width bar at that point since it blocks reading those top few lines anyway. > I'm not sure what value the collapsible table of contents is. For some articles the full multi-level ToC is longer than will fit on a single page, so you either need to allow collapsing, or scrolling of the side bar which never works well. > I get why having a maximum line length is good for readability. My reaction to this feature is negative ... I was nervous when I read this as well, but I like the results. They didn't over do it like so many websites to today with tiny newspaper-like columns, and will be more readable for the majority of people who never resize the browser. For me, I keep all my browser windows half-screen anyway and the redesign has smaller gutters than before, which is a win.
- ablob 4y ago
  >> I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. > I find the persistent ToC to be very helpful This sounds like the perfect application of customization. Why chose one, when you could have both at nearly no cost. :)
  - pavon 4y ago
    It is customizable. If you are logged in you can choose any of the designs they have had since the site was created, and if you don't like any of those, it lets you add your own custom CSS.
fsckboy 4y ago
> I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. I also don't need a header following me, but that's not really what they're talking about. They've moved the "section header/outline"-table-of-contents-links from the top of the document (where they would scroll off the screen) over to the left side, so what follows you is not the old set of headers to other parts of wikipedia that you never clicked, but rather the in-document, titled, relative links up and down the current page. it's actually pretty useful. (which does not mean I'm embracing what the designers have done; given the general track record of designers and all the spurious white space here, I must assume that this useful bit was only accidentally left in :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rasz 4y ago
> Feels like they're introducing a persistent UI element without a benefit. guess what else will be persistent when donation drive banner gets turned on

gpm 4y ago

I don't need a header either, but I suppose for people editing wikipedia it might be pretty useful. It probably makes sense for wikipedia to optimize for the people providing the free labour slightly more than they optimize for the readers.

nsajko 4y ago
You suppose wrong.

zeta0134 4y ago

I usually use my adblocker to simply remove fixed headers. Hopefully there isn't anything critically important in that thing, because whatever's up there just isn't going to be seen. They're far too distracting.

rickstanley 4y ago

Yeah, I don't like it either, and I don't see a way to disable this apart from user's defined bookmark script, like kill sticky[0]: javascript:(function()%7Bdocument.querySelectorAll(%22body%20*%22).forEach(function(node)%7Bif(%5B%22fixed%22%2C%22sticky%22%5D.includes(getComputedStyle(node).position))%7Bnode.parentNode.removeChild(node)%7D%7D)%3Bdocument.querySelectorAll(%22html%20*%22).forEach(function(node)%7Bvar%20s%3DgetComputedStyle(node)%3Bif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7Dif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7Dif(%22hidden%22%3D%3D%3Ds%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D)%7Bnode.style%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7D%7D)%3Bvar%20htmlNode%3Ddocument.querySelector(%22html%22)%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow-x%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%3BhtmlNode.style%5B%22overflow-y%22%5D%3D%22visible%22%7D)()%3B%0A But unfortunately, it renders the header useless in this case. [0]: https://github.com/t-mart/kill-sticky https://github.com/t-mart/kill-sticky

51Cards 4y ago

Note to those not liking this, there is an option in the preferences to revert to the old Vector skin. No idea how long this will be but setting that preference may give them feedback that some users prefer the old layout.

dredmorbius 4y ago
The overwhelming majority of people will simply accept defaults. To what extent Wikipedia's UI/UX assessment team are aware of this and can note a strong defection from any new features even where that defection represents only a small fraction of visitors I don't know. Worse: sufficiently annoying / offputting features can simply lead to defection from a site entirely. A major problem with A/B testing is that if the cumulative effect of features has been to drive away those preferring the path not taken, then all your A/B tests are doing is validating survivorship bias. (I'd give my experience with Reddit over the years, which has lead me to all but entirely avoid the site, or more recently a rather drastic turn in Twitter's dynamics affecting many long-term participants, as cases in point.) Of the specific changes Wikipedia are putting into place, the maximum line length is a style change I've applied myself for about a decade now using various CSS browser extensions. I'm not much a fan of pinned headers, though that would be less an issue on desktop than my e-ink tablet. For that, I prefer the Desktop layout generally, but zoom the screen to cut off the left-hand sidebar entirely, which works fairly well until such time as I want to view an image fully zoomed. I do find the sidebar useful on desktop. The present Mobile layout is annoying in multiple regards though it might be useful on a smaller device (I'm using a 13" e-ink tablet, which is generally not constrained for space.)

anthonypasq 4y ago

all these changes are geared at mobile. I imagine thats the majority of their traffic now

int_19h 4y ago
It is described specifically as "desktop improvements".
babypuncher 4y ago
Are they? Wikipedia has great apps for iOS and Android. I feel like some of these changes are meant to make better use of the landscape aspect ratios typical in laptop and desktop setups (i.e. moving the ToC to the left)
dredmorbius 4y ago
The maximum line width is specifically applicable to Very Large Desktop Displays, not mobile. Several other changes ... seem fairly agnostic.

babypuncher 4y ago

Reading your comment I got worried that there was going to be this giant banner permanently affixed to the top of the view. Taking a look, the actual implementation is very small and unobtrusive. I don't know that I prefer it, but I also don't think I hate it. I feel indifferent. I definitely love how they put the ToC off to the left. It's a great use of all the horizontal space on our 16:9 screens, and will make zipping around to different parts of a large article a lot easier. I'm willing to put up with the small banner in exchange for this.

pavon 4y ago

I love the new design when not logged in. After logging in however... > I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. Edit: I wasn't logged in before, and thus wasn't shown the header you are talking about. Now that I see it, I'm with you and don't like it. Everything there could have gone in the sidebar above the ToC instead of wasting vertical space. I also dislike the extra non-persistant sidebar box shown when logged in that pushes the ToC down off the screen. That should be one side or the other, not in place of the ToC. I find the persistent ToC to be very helpful, and the space is uses would have gone to waste anyway in full-screen mode, so it doesn't cause any harm. I don't love the menu button in half-screen (and presumably mobile) mode. I feel like they would have been better off with a full-width bar at that point since it blocks reading those top few lines anyway. > I'm not sure what value the collapsible table of contents is. For some articles the full multi-level ToC is longer than will fit on a single page, so you either need to allow collapsing, or scrolling of the side bar which never works well. > I get why having a maximum line length is good for readability. My reaction to this feature is negative ... I was nervous when I read this as well, but I like the results. They didn't over do it like so many websites to today with tiny newspaper-like columns, and will be more readable for the majority of people who never resize the browser. For me, I keep all my browser windows half-screen anyway and the redesign has smaller gutters than before, which is a win.

ablob 4y ago
>> I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. > I find the persistent ToC to be very helpful This sounds like the perfect application of customization. Why chose one, when you could have both at nearly no cost. :)
- pavon 4y ago
  It is customizable. If you are logged in you can choose any of the designs they have had since the site was created, and if you don't like any of those, it lets you add your own custom CSS.

fsckboy 4y ago

> I don't need a header to follow me down the page, in fact I'd prefer it not to. I also don't need a header following me, but that's not really what they're talking about. They've moved the "section header/outline"-table-of-contents-links from the top of the document (where they would scroll off the screen) over to the left side, so what follows you is not the old set of headers to other parts of wikipedia that you never clicked, but rather the in-document, titled, relative links up and down the current page. it's actually pretty useful. (which does not mean I'm embracing what the designers have done; given the general track record of designers and all the spurious white space here, I must assume that this useful bit was only accidentally left in :)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rasz 4y ago

> Feels like they're introducing a persistent UI element without a benefit. guess what else will be persistent when donation drive banner gets turned on