Looks like my analysis on the other post using Wikiless for comparison is wrong: the new theme does transfer about 50% more data and has double the uncompressed "weight" that the previous one did, for this article. Memory use similar, bouncing between about 215 and 230MB.
Yeah, I hate it, it introduced lots of white space (I'd say about 20-25% of the screen) on the right-hand side. I don't see how this new version [1] is better than this old version [2]
It seems like Monobook is the only skin whose styling matches all the boxes and tables used in articles. (Minerva makes a valiant attempt to restyle infoboxes but doesn't touch other elements like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Masters_(snooker)#Main_dr... .) It's forward-thinking, placing the search box in the sidebar where it doesn't take up valuable vertical real estate on widescreen displays. It doesn't try to shove controls in between the title of the article and the content of the article. It's even got a responsive layout for mobile devices!
I say they should have bumped up the font size a notch, added a max width option, and saved themselves thirteen years of redesign work. Web design truly did hit its peak in the early 2000s.
I find timeless most visually pleasing - it does bring some professional look to Wikipedia. And it also provides direct access to pages in other languages without additional clicks, which is important for me because it's the feature I'm using all the time.
My initial take: I actually like this a lot. The body text is narrower which makes for easier reading. The sidebar with an updating highlight of current place in document is really nice too. I don't mind the "wasted space": Wikipedia is primarily about reading, and any well typeset book or web page should have generous margins so the line length is not too long.
Have been using this new theme since beta. I love the much cleaner look more than the previous one. One can always tune the CSS yourself at the user's preference near the theme selector. The only thing I need to adjust to my liking is to limit the line width:
main#content {
max-width: 40em;
}
For those who hate it: you will always have the option to switch back to the old theme.
I really hope any website could be as flexible as Wikipedia to allow users to write their own CSS.
I don't like the extra padding that every designer is adding into every web site and application. I need to keep multiple sites/apps on my screen as I need to look at references, work on my tasks, and communicate with others. but every designer thinks I should maximize their site/app. It's forcing me to resize and move windows all the time.
The article addresses this by mentioning that they referenced research demonstrating text that is too wide causes people to read less comfortably and retain less information.
The page gets much less padded when you reduce the size of the window, because the padding isn't there to make blank space, it's there to enforce a maximum line width.
For whatever reason, especially with a bigger screen, I find that wider text becomes uncomfortable and somewhat exhausting to read. I'm not sure what the right portions/ratio are, but with a 27in screen it's definitely noticeable.
Even when I only have one maximized window up I hate all the empty white space. I've taken to just zooming in until the text fills the window. The new design handles the zoom so much better than the old one.
Mostly the repurposing of the left side for the table of contents, but also the width reduction. I only use half of my screen for my browser already, and on many pages, lines are just insanely long.
Personally, I nevery really minded having open space on websites. I never felt it made reading worse. Contrary, pages with little whitespace felt cramped and I lost my position now and then. But I understand that other people will feel differently about that.
I'd stil like the language selector below the table of contents in the sidebar.
- Other languages are not available as a simple anchor tag anymore. They are hidden behind <button> elements. It's annoying for readers who consult their own language and en.wikipedia.org in the same session. It breaks my bookmarklet to change languages, which depended on something like `document.querySelectorAll('a')`
Humans read best when a line is around 10 words long. Longer, and it's easy to lose which line you're on when you go to the next one. The sidebar collapses if you resize to a narrower window, so I wouldn't call it wasted.
Yes, switching languages not being a single click any more is a major usability regression. They should at least allow to configure a set of “favorite” languages that can be directly accessed.
Even in the new design the line length is way too long. I get complaints about wasted screen space, but you really don't want lines of text blasting all the way across the screen either.
For people who don't like the new look, you can go to preferences->Appearance and select 'Vector (Legacy)'. It does require you to login first which is annoying but at least you can easily go back to the old look.
Edit: You can also have it take up the entire width by hitting the button in the bottom right. Doesn't seem to remember the change for me though so hopefully they add that in soon.
IIRC, the button in the bottom right is intended to not remember the change. To make the full width setting persistent, when you're logged in, go to Preferences -> Appearance, and disable "Enable limited width mode".
> You can also have it take up the entire width by hitting the button in the bottom right. Doesn't seem to remember the change for me though so hopefully they add that in soon.
Ooh good spot. That fixes my one issue, the bizarrely narrow column width.
Thank you! I think this is the first time I've logged in for 10 years.
I don't mind the current UI change, but I wish significant changes would come with a toggle button to let me look at the old and new renderings. I don't think it's possible to mentally "place" the improvements without side-by-side comparisons and affordances for finding edge cases where the new UI may be lacking.
What, excuse me, the fuck. It's almost like all lessons from the Windows 95 era were forgotten (see e.g. [1], and the top comment of the HN discussion is worth a read as well [2]). No borders visually separating areas of different function, no visible indicators where the clickable area of an UI element (e.g. a button) is, and the content jumps to the right when opening the main menu.
> These improvements will make Wikipedia more welcoming and easier to use.
Above quote from the notification, which, again, has no visual borders. Just an insanely contrast-less sky blue on a white background.
Whoever has thought of this being a good idea should just go and resign in shame. Not every questionable design "trend" has to be followed.
I appreciate the table of contents moving to the left-hand sidebar, needing to scroll back to the top in order to navigate a long page or get a permalink was always an annoyance.
Sigh, yet another site that contorts into an absurd distortion of a mobile layout at a still spacious viewport width. Am I the only person with two windows up?
Pardon me asking, but what font (cipher? language?) are your tab titles and menus in? I don't recognize it, and I'm familiar with quite a few ciphers. (I initially thought it was another language, but it's clearly a transliteration of English.)
Thanks, I hate it. Everything I loathe about "modern" web design made manifest here, and switched on without warning! At least I can turn it off in settings.
I browse with Safari on iOS with JS disabled by default. I do this for privacy and accessibility reasons (gotta stop those annoying popup modals, trackers and other annoyances).
One thing I noticed with Wikipedia with JS /enabled/, all the sub-categories of a topic are by default, closed.
But when I browse with JS disabled, all the sub-categories are /opened/ and I have the full article.
Since most people browse with JS enabled, this means they have to make additional clicks just to read the sub-categories.
Which leads me to question: which version is better? The JS where you have to make additional clicks, or the no-js version where you get the full article?
Floating table of contents on the left is a nice feature, but why is the styling so plain? It's just links floating in a void. Why do modern designers hate borders so much?
Because it works well without borders. You need to have a justification for adding things - what does a border add here? Other than making it feel more boxed-in?
Because it works without borders. Do you have any trouble differentiating the sidebar from the content? I'm gonna guess no. Hence, no need for a border.
Ewww what's with this terrible trend of wasting the majority of the screen space on a 16:9 monitor like this. Let it fit the window width, if someone needs it to be narrow let it adjust itself appropriately.
The Second Law of Interface Thermodynamics means that the software can't get more usable with time, nor can it even retain its previous level of usability.
> Research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself.
Is this actually true? I'm curious if anybody has sources for this and if it's a common UX practice. I tend to use wider windows than traditional 8:9 half-screens and this max-width practice drives me nuts.
> Research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself
Surprised they did not include a citation for this research...
Yeah, same reaction for me... I've always liked the small gradients on the top and the long list of things down the left side which I never click. Felt homely. I'll miss it.
[+] [-] trynewideas|3 years ago|reply
-
On Wikipedia, and any MediaWiki installation, you can add the useskin query parameter to the URL to change skins on a page, even when not logged in.
Current (vector-2022): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=ve...
Previous (vector): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=ve...
Older (monobook): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=mo...
Older alternative (modern): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=mo...
Older alternative (cologneblue): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=co...
Mobile (minerva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=mi...
Responsive alternative (timeless): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?useskin=ti...
Installed skin list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version
[+] [-] yamtaddle|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paganel|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://imgur.com/a/IZHxqOy
[2] https://imgur.com/a/q1PD3WY
[+] [-] csande17|3 years ago|reply
I say they should have bumped up the font size a notch, added a max width option, and saved themselves thirteen years of redesign work. Web design truly did hit its peak in the early 2000s.
[+] [-] pndy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ashton314|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chazeon|3 years ago|reply
I really hope any website could be as flexible as Wikipedia to allow users to write their own CSS.
[+] [-] wolpoli|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangus|3 years ago|reply
The page gets much less padded when you reduce the size of the window, because the padding isn't there to make blank space, it's there to enforce a maximum line width.
[+] [-] Night_Thastus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autoexec|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gualdrapo|3 years ago|reply
And not everyone wants all content crammed into a little area.
All in all, it should be up to the user decide how much content density they want on websites.
[+] [-] ketzu|3 years ago|reply
Mostly the repurposing of the left side for the table of contents, but also the width reduction. I only use half of my screen for my browser already, and on many pages, lines are just insanely long.
Personally, I nevery really minded having open space on websites. I never felt it made reading worse. Contrary, pages with little whitespace felt cramped and I lost my position now and then. But I understand that other people will feel differently about that.
I'd stil like the language selector below the table of contents in the sidebar.
[+] [-] psacawa|3 years ago|reply
- Sidebar for navigation
Bad:
- Wasted screen space
- Other languages are not available as a simple anchor tag anymore. They are hidden behind <button> elements. It's annoying for readers who consult their own language and en.wikipedia.org in the same session. It breaks my bookmarklet to change languages, which depended on something like `document.querySelectorAll('a')`
[+] [-] spartanatreyu|3 years ago|reply
Don't fall for that mental trap. White space is not wasted space.
[+] [-] askvictor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layer8|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fauntleroy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mike_d|3 years ago|reply
Don't worry, it will soon be filled with solicitations for donations.
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philipphutterer|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://github.com/gdh1995/vimium-c
[+] [-] slimginz|3 years ago|reply
Edit: You can also have it take up the entire width by hitting the button in the bottom right. Doesn't seem to remember the change for me though so hopefully they add that in soon.
[+] [-] Snitch-Thursday|3 years ago|reply
Kudos to WM for keeping the option for that theme in MediaWiki. Now I have a reason to browse logged in all the time.
[+] [-] rchard2scout|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldpie|3 years ago|reply
Ooh good spot. That fixes my one issue, the bizarrely narrow column width.
[+] [-] userbinator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdevoid|3 years ago|reply
I don't mind the current UI change, but I wish significant changes would come with a toggle button to let me look at the old and new renderings. I don't think it's possible to mentally "place" the improvements without side-by-side comparisons and affordances for finding edge cases where the new UI may be lacking.
[+] [-] arc-in-space|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohCh6zos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mschuster91|3 years ago|reply
> These improvements will make Wikipedia more welcoming and easier to use.
Above quote from the notification, which, again, has no visual borders. Just an insanely contrast-less sky blue on a white background.
Whoever has thought of this being a good idea should just go and resign in shame. Not every questionable design "trend" has to be followed.
[1] https://twitter.com/tuomassalo/status/978717292023500805
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21888451
[+] [-] kibwen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aendruk|3 years ago|reply
Screenshot: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmaovnEHiCo6knhTPpp4XJyr5x9...
This actually increased the line length.
[+] [-] LordDragonfang|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] g051051|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liberia|3 years ago|reply
One thing I noticed with Wikipedia with JS /enabled/, all the sub-categories of a topic are by default, closed.
But when I browse with JS disabled, all the sub-categories are /opened/ and I have the full article.
Since most people browse with JS enabled, this means they have to make additional clicks just to read the sub-categories.
Which leads me to question: which version is better? The JS where you have to make additional clicks, or the no-js version where you get the full article?
[+] [-] lxgr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mostlysimilar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bearmode|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thiht|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mozball|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trompetenaccoun|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotnet00|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Y_Y|3 years ago|reply
Everything decays, especially software.
[+] [-] Willish42|3 years ago|reply
Is this actually true? I'm curious if anybody has sources for this and if it's a common UX practice. I tend to use wider windows than traditional 8:9 half-screens and this max-width practice drives me nuts.
[+] [-] rising-sky|3 years ago|reply
Surprised they did not include a citation for this research...
[+] [-] emehex|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skyyler|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zebracanevra|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timeon|3 years ago|reply
Since it is on some language version for some time I already did. But it took some time.