4 ms·

I just wish they’d tested it at my viewport width. The new design gives me clumsy, obfuscating UI elements that would be appropriate for a phone, but stretched

I just wish they’d tested it at my viewport width. The new design gives me clumsy, obfuscating UI elements that would be appropriate for a phone, but stretched comically large across half my laptop screen. In a side-by-side comparison with the previous design it looks like they needlessly made the website less usable. - The search box and main menu are now hidden, and on every page load the menu briefly fills half the screen in a FOUC. - The table of contents is now hidden, taking away one of the critical first pieces of content I read. - The sticky hamburger menu covers up the article text. - Text lines are even wider than before, a particular irony given how celebrated the reduction at other viewport widths is.

paxys 4y ago
I like it. It isn't the most aesthetically pleasing site on a wide monitor but narrow column widths are optimal for reading. Plenty of studies have shown that people have difficulty reading beyond 50-60 characters and 9-12 words per line, so I'm happy they put content over design in this case. There's nothing wrong with blank space and wide margins. People will just get used to it. Old wikipedia was impossible to use at a 4K resolution.
- aendruk 4y ago
  Agreed. You’re responding to a complaint I didn’t make. At my viewport width the text column is wider than before. It feels like an oversight.
- layer8 4y ago
  One problem is if if you use a narrower browser window in the first place, for exactly the reasons you are citing, then now the TOC is hidden by default, whereas previously you could simply hit the Home key and/or use other normal in-page navigation to get to it.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Also if you really hate the "wasted space" on the sides and you're on a giant resolution, find the expand button and the content stretches out. It's a horrible reading experience, but nobody can argue about wasted space when it's in expanded mode!
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
They definitely did test it. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Vector/2022/Design_documentation#1)_Why_is_the_article_width_limited_to_960px https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Vector/2022/Design_docum...?
- aendruk 4y ago
  I don’t know how you’re so sure. That whole page is describing an experience I don’t have. > the table of contents is located next to the article so that you can see it immediately when you land on the page No, it’s hidden behind a hamburger menu, no longer immediately visible. > Why is the table of contents hidden sometimes? this should no longer be the case. No, now it’s hidden for all articles. > Why is the article width limited to 960px? Not applicable; 960px is already the width of my viewport. > Why is there so much empty space? This is the reverse of my experience; due to the widening of the main column and removal of the inline table of contents, there is now less empty space. > Case 7 (default for all below 1000px) Sounds to me like I got lumped in with the phones. Increasingly many websites exhibit this mode of failure so it’s not implausible for it to be a common blind spot.
swalling 4y ago
If there are issues with a specific viewport width you can always file a bug at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ https://bugs.wikimedia.org/

paxys 4y ago

I like it. It isn't the most aesthetically pleasing site on a wide monitor but narrow column widths are optimal for reading. Plenty of studies have shown that people have difficulty reading beyond 50-60 characters and 9-12 words per line, so I'm happy they put content over design in this case. There's nothing wrong with blank space and wide margins. People will just get used to it. Old wikipedia was impossible to use at a 4K resolution.

aendruk 4y ago
Agreed. You’re responding to a complaint I didn’t make. At my viewport width the text column is wider than before. It feels like an oversight.
layer8 4y ago
One problem is if if you use a narrower browser window in the first place, for exactly the reasons you are citing, then now the TOC is hidden by default, whereas previously you could simply hit the Home key and/or use other normal in-page navigation to get to it.
waboremo 4y ago
Also if you really hate the "wasted space" on the sides and you're on a giant resolution, find the expand button and the content stretches out. It's a horrible reading experience, but nobody can argue about wasted space when it's in expanded mode!

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

They definitely did test it. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Vector/2022/Design_documentation#1)_Why_is_the_article_width_limited_to_960px https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Vector/2022/Design_docum...?

aendruk 4y ago
I don’t know how you’re so sure. That whole page is describing an experience I don’t have. > the table of contents is located next to the article so that you can see it immediately when you land on the page No, it’s hidden behind a hamburger menu, no longer immediately visible. > Why is the table of contents hidden sometimes? this should no longer be the case. No, now it’s hidden for all articles. > Why is the article width limited to 960px? Not applicable; 960px is already the width of my viewport. > Why is there so much empty space? This is the reverse of my experience; due to the widening of the main column and removal of the inline table of contents, there is now less empty space. > Case 7 (default for all below 1000px) Sounds to me like I got lumped in with the phones. Increasingly many websites exhibit this mode of failure so it’s not implausible for it to be a common blind spot.

swalling 4y ago

If there are issues with a specific viewport width you can always file a bug at https://bugs.wikimedia.org/ https://bugs.wikimedia.org/