3 ms·

> It might honestly be a once-in-the-history-of-the-internet kind of situation. Exciting, but rather difficult. Difficult to do a good job on it. Which I reall

> It might honestly be a once-in-the-history-of-the-internet kind of situation. Exciting, but rather difficult. Difficult to do a good job on it. Which I really don't think this was. > the line length had no limit The limit was based on the viewport. So a user-defined limit. It would be nice if people could easily keep this behavior. > the many versions of Wikipedia are not centralized. The Wikipedia you read (whether it’s English, Bangla, Telugu, Kyrgyz, Korean, Persian, or any of the 300 others), is actually a separate website from all of the other Wikipedias that exist. Sure they share a lot of code, use the same servers Using the same servers is one meaning of centralized. What type of decentralization do you mean? Perhaps define it beforehand.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Tolerable line lengths are largely determined by human biology: * Short lines are exhausting to read because you have to move your eyes more * Long lines are exhausting to read because you lose track of where the line is There's no reason for this to be user defined. Just pick a reasonable line width for your given viewport and fill the remaining whitespace with useful information. Wikipedia did this very well and I genuinely do not understand why every top-level comment on HN is bashing the redesign.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Of course, the studies that you're (not) citing to back up your opinions were conducted decades ago on printed media, but never mind that. We Know Best (tm).
- benatkin 4y ago
  Ser I'm not always reading on Wikipedia, I am often skimming. Also I'm in my 40s now and I can still read long lines pretty well. Or perhaps I can still read short lines pretty poorly and I'd rather have the tradeoff of having to shift my view less often but at a longer distance.
- dariusj18 4y ago
  > There's no reason for this to be user defined I disagree because reading is just one use case. Sometimes longer lines make it easier to skim because you aren't needing to read everything, just letting your brain pattern match as you move along. In that case it can be better to fit more blocks of text in the viewport.
- specialist 4y ago
  I believe, but cannot prove, that it's mostly because of "system justification". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification As Alistair Cockburn said in his excellent post-mortem for his cohort's CASE tool efforts (paraphrasing): People hate change. No, seriously, people really hate change.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  >There's no reason for this to be user defined This mentality is exactly why UX designers suck. It's all about some developers forcing their weird vision on everyone with no regard for user choice even when it wouldn't cost much to include because X study claimed something.
- Firther 4y ago
  Studies on line length are all over the place, I think the only consistent conclusions are that shorter lines (between 30-60cpl) are beneficial for readers with poor literacy skills (including non-native speakers) or for people with dyslexia or some visual disorders. I bring this up because recent studies have managed to account for the saccade error associated with return sweeps and have found that reducing said error does not increase reading speed or comprehension. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-019-01742-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-019-01742-3 It's also worth noting that studies done on print line length aren't applicable to screen line length, and that most studies deal with lines of 30-100cpl, sometimes up to 130cpl, which isn't enough most websites rendered on a 16:9 screen or even the current Wikipedia design (on my 1080p monitor at least).

kmeisthax 4y ago

Tolerable line lengths are largely determined by human biology: * Short lines are exhausting to read because you have to move your eyes more * Long lines are exhausting to read because you lose track of where the line is There's no reason for this to be user defined. Just pick a reasonable line width for your given viewport and fill the remaining whitespace with useful information. Wikipedia did this very well and I genuinely do not understand why every top-level comment on HN is bashing the redesign.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Of course, the studies that you're (not) citing to back up your opinions were conducted decades ago on printed media, but never mind that. We Know Best (tm).
benatkin 4y ago
Ser I'm not always reading on Wikipedia, I am often skimming. Also I'm in my 40s now and I can still read long lines pretty well. Or perhaps I can still read short lines pretty poorly and I'd rather have the tradeoff of having to shift my view less often but at a longer distance.
dariusj18 4y ago
> There's no reason for this to be user defined I disagree because reading is just one use case. Sometimes longer lines make it easier to skim because you aren't needing to read everything, just letting your brain pattern match as you move along. In that case it can be better to fit more blocks of text in the viewport.
specialist 4y ago
I believe, but cannot prove, that it's mostly because of "system justification". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification As Alistair Cockburn said in his excellent post-mortem for his cohort's CASE tool efforts (paraphrasing): People hate change. No, seriously, people really hate change.
dotnet00 4y ago
>There's no reason for this to be user defined This mentality is exactly why UX designers suck. It's all about some developers forcing their weird vision on everyone with no regard for user choice even when it wouldn't cost much to include because X study claimed something.
Firther 4y ago
Studies on line length are all over the place, I think the only consistent conclusions are that shorter lines (between 30-60cpl) are beneficial for readers with poor literacy skills (including non-native speakers) or for people with dyslexia or some visual disorders. I bring this up because recent studies have managed to account for the saccade error associated with return sweeps and have found that reducing said error does not increase reading speed or comprehension. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-019-01742-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-019-01742-3 It's also worth noting that studies done on print line length aren't applicable to screen line length, and that most studies deal with lines of 30-100cpl, sometimes up to 130cpl, which isn't enough most websites rendered on a 16:9 screen or even the current Wikipedia design (on my 1080p monitor at least).