Author Topic: Wikipedia's crappy new website!  (Read 5152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2023, 12:19:22 am »
Some sites only occupy 50% of screen width on a 1080p screen
Wide screens are another idiocy and a problem in itself which has nothing to do with web design.
I miss 4:3.

Wide screens are great for video, and they're nice for software that has toolbars on the sides, but I do like 4:3 better for browsing. I almost never use anything fullscreen though, I typically have 2-3 programs going at once spread out across the screen. A widescreen monitor is almost wide enough for two side by side browsers.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2023, 12:21:10 am by james_s »
 
The following users thanked this post: MrMobodies

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Country: nl
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2023, 09:01:04 am »
Indeed, I like widescreens because it gives options. A vertical monitor is great for text work, but that's pretty much the only thing it excels at. Practically it's a long single column format. Watching media is possible as a side-gig, but you'd be watching 16:9 content at 32% of the original size if I'm not mistaken. Maybe you could stack 2 windows for multi-tasking, but the separation needs to be clear in order not to confuse.

On 16:9 you can easily work with 2 documents or code files side-by-side and have room to spare for window panes, especially on 1440p or 4K (IMO 1080p is the resolution from 10 years ago, well for desktop monitors that is).
On 21:9 you have a 7:3 aspect ratio, which is very close to 2x 4:3 side by side without bezels. However, if you don't want to columnize your desktop, then such a monitor is also great for media consumption (bigscreen movies) and gaming for it's immersion. If I fly planes in MSFS I prefer VR, but if I do use 2D from time to time I really like a large FOV a widescreen offers. A 4:3 aspect feels almost like looking through a shoebox, or zooming out so much that big part of your screen is the roof in order to get the FOV (with the out-of-proportion distortions that go along it).

But those are just my 2 cents. I don't think either is right/wrong, it depends what you do with your computer and how.
 

Offline Zero999Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2023, 01:27:56 pm »
[Screenshot: 1920x1080]
Eeesh, who reads at maximum screen size?

Narrow columns are more readable; it's good design on their part.
I often prefer a narrower view, or larger text, but that doesn't change the fact that I hate the new Wikipeda. If I want a narrower view, I resize the window. It also means I can have something else on the screen, rather than it being wasted with white space. Widowed operating systems have been ubiquitous since the invention of the Internet. There's no reason for this madness.
 

Offline berke

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Country: fr
  • F4WCO
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2023, 05:56:06 pm »
I was expecting way worse, like new Reddit worse.  But it's not too bad.  I prefer the old one, but the new one is bearable enough that I probably won't append &useskin=vector too often.  If you make the window arrow the navbar even disappears.

Many websites these days recklessly put giant background videos and are turning into gesture-based semi-interactive animations with transition effects... and instead of the content you're looking for you just get 3-5 PR bullet points.  No I don't live in a cave and yes I do have multi-gigabit fibre.  No I still don't want to watch videos on your website, I came for an application note.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2023, 08:11:39 pm »
As I hinted, it's all about giving users a choice, but it's not a thing anymore these days. Users can just go fuck themselves. :popcorn:

Yes, long articles are (usually) easier to read with relatively narrow columns, that has been known for centuries ever since we have written books. Also, narrow columns are good either for narrow books - or if the book or magazine is wider, then we use multi-column layouts. So, to be consistent, make the fricking Wikipedia multi-column. It will be easier to read and fit more within a given page. Or maybe people have become too stupid to know how to read multi-column text?

And, software applications are not books or magazines. One can resize windows to our heart's content and get the width we like. Isn't that wonderful? Why bypass that? Maybe with the ever-growing reasoning that most people are just too stupid to know what's best for them? I guess?

Oh well. :-DD
« Last Edit: January 22, 2023, 08:13:57 pm by SiliconWizard »
 
The following users thanked this post: MrMobodies

Offline jonovid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: au
    • JONOVID
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2023, 08:29:35 pm »
the website! that was begging for money just a few times in 2021-2022.
in so trying to please everyone but ends up completely failing to do so IMO.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2023, 08:52:14 pm by jonovid »
Hobbyist with a basic knowledge of electronics
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2023, 09:40:59 pm »
Would be interesting to do multi-column responsive, including images and tables appropriately.  I think at a certain point, browsers themselves are the limitation -- this could be solved with adequate JS if nothing else, but then you're already assuming the reader is using JS.  And a typesetting library in JS is a somewhat ponderous thing to create, depending on how in-depth you want it...

...Which is a thing, too, browser support I mean, but a relatively recent one: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/column-count
Probably, combining that with responsive (flex-box etc.) elements would turn out okay.  How much that can be done automatically (say as a theme on a Wiki) versus requiring document structure to support it, I don't know.

On the upside, most readers are on smartphones, with a narrow screen and vertical orientation, so a single-column layout is quite promising there.  Desktop users are in the minority, where some grumbling is acceptable -- mind, still a sizable minority, so flexible support is very much encouraged.

(Not to mention support for stuff like high-vis user stylesheets, screen readers, and other accessibility options that are rarely considered by devs!)

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2023, 09:47:54 pm »
Would be interesting to do multi-column responsive, including images and tables appropriately.  I think at a certain point, browsers themselves are the limitation -- this could be solved with adequate JS if nothing else, but then you're already assuming the reader is using JS.  And a typesetting library in JS is a somewhat ponderous thing to create, depending on how in-depth you want it...

I don't think multi-column is that complicated. Sure might take some work to make it look good for all articles. Possibly that would require authors of articles to check in both modes and make some adjustments especially for images.

On the upside, most readers are on smartphones, with a narrow screen and vertical orientation, so a single-column layout is quite promising there.  Desktop users are in the minority, where some grumbling is acceptable -- mind, still a sizable minority, so flexible support is very much encouraged.

I wouldn't call that an "upside". It's very likely the rationale for those designs, sure. But it's quite problematic that the desktop uses are becoming completely ignored. You still can't beat desktop UI for any serious work. Mobile stuff is OK when you're on the go or want to quickly check some stuff out.
 

Online magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7454
  • Country: pl
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2023, 09:55:41 pm »
And how would you do multi column if it doesn't fit on one screen?

Exactly 1/N of the content per column? So you see the middle of the article at the top with 2 columns?
Or one column per screen height, scroll for more columns horizontally?

Seems crazy :scared:


Why can't you guys just disable JS to make this new layout work properly and stop ranting? :-DD
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2023, 10:03:13 pm »
Quote
And how would you do multi column if it doesn't fit on one screen?

How do they do it in, say, pdfs? You fill a window length then switch to the next column (the number of columns being determined by the window width). Page instead of scroll, or scroll if there is just one column.

I am sure there are other ways. Once the technical part - the flowing from one column to the next, and the arrangement of columns - is sorted then how it's actually served to the user is merely a user preference.
 

Offline strawberry

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1199
  • Country: lv
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2023, 10:11:56 pm »
xerox alto style rulz

16:9 I guess column drivers are linear and low speed
or film roll is smaller
or more compact laptops
 

Offline MrMobodies

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2028
  • Country: gb
As I understand it now, it is just a new skin that they apply as the default.

I raised the concerns in the discussions when they were trialing it in 2020 about fixed nav toolbar headers, dimming overlays and spinners for anything fixed to have a close button to hide it. Fortunately I see it doesn't have a fixed nav toolbar there yet and the side bar as a fixed element is closable.

What I don't like is when I open left side bar the contents get shifted to the right.

Just found this in web desktop improvement discussion:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#c-The_Discoverer-20230116155200-AHollender_(WMF)-20230116141000[/url]
Quote
Sticky header is not tall enough  :scared: for a two-line header
Latest comment: 6 days ago 3 comments 2 people in discussion

The header for logged in users on the Konkani Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gom:) is two lines to accomodate two scripts. When you scroll down, the sticky header is not tall enough for two lines. Should we fix this by modifying the height of the header locally in the css, *or should it be fixed globally in the software skin?  :bullshit: The Discoverer (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @The Discoverer, thanks for reporting this. To clarify: does this only happen on the Main page, or on other pages as well? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@AHollender (WMF), It only happens on the main page, because the main page is the only one that is explicitly formatted to be on two lines. On all other pages the headings are shortened using ellipses (...) and do not wrap. The Discoverer (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

* What, and make it larger and deny them a choice that they once had before?
My proof that they have taken something that was never really a problem before to now turn it into a nuisance for those who don't want it stuck there constantly.

I wonder did they even ask their users (who actually use it) if they want the fixed nav toolbar on the main page they set to not only be double in size but to be everywhere else as they scroll to read the contents?

I don't see any fixed header there yet but one person requesting how to force this on every user using it in that country specific version by fixing it in the skin to always show (I thought that was the point of choosing templates) goes to show that they have no regards for user preference.

As I hinted, it's all about giving users a choice, but it's not a thing anymore these days. Users can just go fuck themselves.
As above decided by ONE person.

Joke:
User: I will not have that thing rammed into my face constantly I find it intrusive and distracting.
Developer: How else are you suppose to browse websites?
User: Like before... it wasn't problem then was it?
Developer: It is like a stair case handle. No handle, you risk falling down and getting lost.
User: I am not stupid you know. What part of "I don't want it stuck there constantly" don't you understand.
Developer: No!
User: I have just hidden the elements with Adblock (not used to block ads as in the name if you ask) to stop it sticking there and that is me saying NO! to you.
It is my browsing area keep your hands of it.
Now if you don't like or can't understand that you can go and F*** yourself.
As you care about it so much why don't you just plaster that nav toolbar all over your website and forget about the contents as you seem care more about it than anything else than the guests be left alone trying to read the articles in peace.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2023, 11:28:06 pm by MrMobodies »
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2023, 10:27:57 pm »
Quote
And how would you do multi column if it doesn't fit on one screen?

How do they do it in, say, pdfs? You fill a window length then switch to the next column (the number of columns being determined by the window width). Page instead of scroll, or scroll if there is just one column.

I am sure there are other ways. Once the technical part - the flowing from one column to the next, and the arrangement of columns - is sorted then how it's actually served to the user is merely a user preference.

Multi-column has been a solved problem in publishing for a few centuries. We send stuff to mars but we can't get a browser to display text in multi-column?
Word processors have been able to do this even on machines running at a few MHz. Come on. ;D
 

Offline Zero999Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2023, 10:38:45 pm »
On the upside, most readers are on smartphones, with a narrow screen and vertical orientation, so a single-column layout is quite promising there.  Desktop users are in the minority, where some grumbling is acceptable -- mind, still a sizable minority, so flexible support is very much encouraged.
That's a straw man, as there's a separate site for mobile browsing.
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2023, 12:36:35 am »
On Wiki yes; but speaking more generally.

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3573
  • Country: it
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2023, 07:01:46 am »
[Screenshot: 1920x1080]
Eeesh, who reads at maximum screen size?

Narrow columns are more readable; it's good design on their part.

(Related: surprised no one's complained that this forum renders poorly >2440px, at least on the default theme.  Perhaps there is some hope left after all?...)

Tim

I do, my PC screen is still 22inch something. It's not that big, having smaller windows don't make sense here.

But what hurts me most is the all white - no contrast. Really hurts my eyes
 

Online Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2023, 07:25:40 am »
Or a super ultrawide, 32:9 and use it instead of 3 monitors.

Yep, cant stress enough how awesome it is to have an ultrawide like the 49" Samsung neo G9 (5120x1440)
It's pretty much intended for gaming but damn is it awesome for working.
3 apps open side by side ftw.

(If you're thinking you'd need to buy a new GFX to drive it, na you prob don't. If you can drive two 2560x1440 displays then you can drive it. It can pretend to be 2 monitors to the OS. You only need a new GFX if you want to drive it at high frame rates like 120 up to 240hz)


« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 07:35:19 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 
The following users thanked this post: hans

Online magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7454
  • Country: pl
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2023, 09:27:28 am »
49" Samsung neo G9 (5120x1440)
1440 vertical resolution was available in 1990s and I can get more rotating 1920x1200 vertically.
Which is what I often do for working with text. 1200 horizontally barely cuts it, but it's similar to the 1280x800 that used to be popular so most things still kinda work.
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3573
  • Country: it
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2023, 09:45:32 am »
@Psi
how do you tell windows to arrange windows automatically in three? There is the shortcut for arrangin side by side, but AFAIK it only works with two
I would not want to do that manually all the time
 

Online Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2023, 10:23:42 am »
@Psi
how do you tell windows to arrange windows automatically in three? There is the shortcut for arrangin side by side, but AFAIK it only works with two
I would not want to do that manually all the time

If you install Microsoft powertoys you can setup the FancyZones to work however you want.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 10:26:22 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 
The following users thanked this post: hans

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2023, 10:31:33 am »
Quote
how do you tell windows to arrange windows automatically in three?

A windows manager, like Actual Desktop Divider, does the trick. I use this for quickly setting different layouts on a 4K screen depending on activity. The example shown on that page is tame, just splitting the screen into four. One of my layouts is shown below - there two Word documents and a PDF viewer side-by-side, plus Word search windows and some other stuff below.

In operation, you drag a window and press CTRL (it's configurable) whereupon the layout is displayed and you drop the window into whichever divider you want. Easy to undo as well (which was a nice surprise). Change layouts at the click of a context menu.

If you are tempted by that I'd suggest not getting the individual parts and just go for the full-fat Actual Window Manager which contains the divider and a whole lot more for much less than the indiviual components. I don't get a kickback or anything on this! Just one of those utils that gets installed on a new PC as a matter of course.
 

Offline newbrain

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1801
  • Country: se
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2023, 11:22:20 am »
how do you tell windows to arrange windows automatically in three?
If your display (physical or remote desktop) has a wide aspect ratio, Windows 11 22h2 will do that for you.
When you start dragging a window, a translucent bar appears at the top, drag the window over it and a choice of arrangement will pop up, complete by dragging on the one you prefer.
Nandemo wa shiranai wa yo, shitteru koto dake.
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3573
  • Country: it
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2023, 11:51:00 am »
Nice! Thanks guys
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2023, 01:08:04 pm »
Or a super ultrawide, 32:9 and use it instead of 3 monitors.

Yep, cant stress enough how awesome it is to have an ultrawide like the 49" Samsung neo G9 (5120x1440)
It's pretty much intended for gaming but damn is it awesome for working.
3 apps open side by side ftw.

(If you're thinking you'd need to buy a new GFX to drive it, na you prob don't. If you can drive two 2560x1440 displays then you can drive it. It can pretend to be 2 monitors to the OS. You only need a new GFX if you want to drive it at high frame rates like 120 up to 240hz)
My only problem with these screens is that they are 2x more expensive than the equivalent 27" monitor setup. But for work, if budget is no issue (and wouldn't have a setup already) this is what I would use.
For home/gaming I think I even going to go the other direction. I've been using a 35" Ultrawide for 8 years now, it's great, but I would like to have an IPS panel instead of the MVA. Or even an OLED. And more pixels. I don't know why getting 3840x1600 would be that difficult, but apparently it is. So I'm seriously considering buying a 40" 4K screen and using it in widescreen mode most of the time. Crazy me, I know.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Wikipedia's crappy new website!
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2023, 04:40:55 pm »
Quote
it would be great if Wikipedia was filled with images and graphics ( https://www.raymentcollins.com/creative/ )

Like that page with the under-the-frames pictures? No thanks! Images should be relevant to the page, not there to fill white space that's too blank.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf