Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Archive4

Move other projects to the sticky header edit

Hi. I don't know if this is planned, however I leave the following suggestion which seems to me important. With the new sticky header which will soon be implemented —which I encourage— it would be very useful to move “other projects” (distinctly and Wikidata included) next to languages, for several reasons:

  • over all, easier and more comfortable access;
  • consistency with the languages tab, since it was moved;
  • better recommend other projects to readers;
  • “frame” templates, such as Template:Sister project links (Q5830969), create duplicate links, are heavy-looking, and often shift the layout: such a new tab would allow to improve the global rendering by making these templates useless.

Thank you in advance for looking into this issue. Best regards — Baidax (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC) (edited)Reply[reply]

Hello @Baidax. We're planning to move it to the top, yes. Soon, we'll set up banners inviting volunteers to share opinions on a prototype. Add this page to the watchlist and check it in ~2 weeks. The link should be blue by then. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF):  : Thank you for your answer. Awesome, I look forward to seeing it. I also draw your attention to adding Wikidata to this projects list (which is not the case for all language versions). Good luck with the work! — Baidax 💬 16:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky Header won't switch between language versions edit

I've just noticed that you've activated the new sticky header in my account on German Wikipedia. Thanks! I think I like it. However, I'm afraid the language selector won't work. I cannot switch between languages in the sticky header. The standard language selector at the top of the page, however, works nicely. I'm running Firefox 95.0.2 on macOS 10.13.6. Thanks and Best regards, Aschmidt (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is T297579 (which will hide the language button in the sticky header). If you want to use languages in the sticky header you will need to go to Special:Preferences and select "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." in Appearance/Languages. Jdlrobson (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Jdlrobson, this is probably true. I'm afraid, I'd rather not use the compact language list because, as an author, I prefer to have all languages displayed in the list. I'd like to see at a glance how many language versions of Wikipedia find a lemma notable. So, I'd prefer if you please could try and solve this issue. Apart from this, I like the sticky header. :) Kind regards, Aschmidt (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aschmidt: If you want to see just the amount, I think the compact language links feature is actually good for you: if you enable it, the button on voy:de:Berlin says 21 Sprachen (using old Vector, it lists the 9 most relevant ones—it’s always 9, as long as there are at least 9 languages—, and the button says 12 weitere). So you don’t even need to count the links, the software does it for you. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Tacsipacsi, for your hints. I'm afraid, I would prefer to be given the direct links to all other language versions, too. I keep the so-called compact language list switched off. Best regards, Aschmidt (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to disable sticky headers? edit

Sticky headers really annoy me. There is absolutely no benefit, but just wasting useful space. How can I disable them without switching back to legacy Vector? --Bombenleger (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also immediately noticed it and came to comment my disdain for sticky headers. My browser already permanently reserves like 3% of my entire screen, now Wikipedia will double that. I don’t need a instant access to any of the buttons in the the header. I search Wikipedia through google, not Wikipedia and that search button is already part of the 3% screen space my browser reserves. I don’t need to be permanently reminded what article I am reading. Most people only speak one language, they do not need to have access to the language switcher 100% of the time. I only check my watchlist once, I do not need access to it 100% of the time, that logic applies to the other buttons in the top right.
Sticky headers are a diet version of toolbar hell from the Internet Explorer days. I really really don’t understand why people keep doing them. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bombenleger, @Akeosnhaoe, you need to add
.vector-sticky-header {display:none;}
to your global.css. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you @SGrabarczuk (WMF), I love it! Bombenleger (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header zero language switcher edit

Hi. Is this really a good idea to create a button "0 languages" that opens a huge empty popup on click on pages with no interwikis? IKhitron (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For that matter, I don't see why the language switcher should be prioritized for the sticky header at all. If a user has navigated to a page and read through it enough to scroll, chances are they're at the language they want to be at. They don't need a prominent button to switch languages from that point. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy ping SGrabarczuk (WMF) and OVasileva (WMF) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the feature should be scrapped. Apparently it leads to drop of uses of Wikipedias in secondary languages (which ones they are vary by country/region, probably not important for the US). --Jura1 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 0 languages is a bug we identified early in testing. That's not meant to show and will be fixed in this week's deploy. Jdlrobson (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks. IKhitron (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A problem of cache or someone else? edit

(from fr.wiki 1 and 2)

Hi, reporting my personal experience, in differents pilot wikis (fr.wikipedia, fr.wikiquote, vec.wikipedia) I was not able to see the sticky header for a while, I need to change accounts, log in and log out 3 times and then refresh the page a lot of times before to see it appear and work. 5th and 6th January I was not still able to see it. Now I can. Actually, there are users on Wikipedia in French (and Wikiquote in French for an individual tester) that can't see the sticky header, Malik2Mars, Paul.schrepfer and Daehan (feedback of 9th January). One of them (Daehan) was able to use the sticky header active when deployed (the 5th January), now he can't, this is strange. There is a reason for that? Thank you for answering.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's an A/B test running, so 50% of user accounts will not see the sticky header. When that test finishes run you should be able to use it. There was a period while we set up the A/B test where you may have seen it if you do not see it now. Jdlrobson (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header: issue with fixed-width space for page title edit

The space dedicated for page title is always 500px wide. This number is fixed and therefore long titles will be cut even on wide screens which may look awkward. On the other hand, when the screen is really narrow, the title stays 500px wide and pushes buttons out of the screen. Here is an example. Msz2001 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracked in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T298885 Jdlrobson (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header: language switch button wraps on narrow screens edit

When using a narrow screen, the language switcher wraps and renders as two lines of text. This looks ugly and IMO should be changed so that the content is always displayed as a single line. Example is here (second image). Msz2001 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jdlrobson (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page and page history edit

Any reason why sticky is only available on the main page and not on a talk and history pages?

Seems a bit weird to me. Both talk and history have links on the sticky header, but when you navigate to them then the sticky is gone. Especially when I visit someone's talk page I would like to be able to navigate to his/her user page. And talk pages can be quite long. Also if I get an answer here I will get a link to the bottom of this page. And I should see a sticky to be able to open the main page in a new tab or view other notifications. Nux (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Nux!
  1. Talk pages - that's not entirely up to us. The Editing team is responsible for talk pages - see their current project Talk pages project/Usability. They will make the decision whether and how the sticky header will be implemented on talk pages. We're working closely with them on that issue.
  2. History pages (also, special pages) - at first, we decided not to enable the sticky header there because it doesn't offer that much functionality (there's no option to edit that page, for example). We'll consider doing it, though. There will be a dedicated Phabricator task.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC

Request to deploy the sticky header in all the namespaces in Vietnamese Wikibooks edit

Hi, the Vietnamese Wikibooks community is requesting the Web team to deploy the sticky header in all 3 content namespaces. I'm not really active at the Wikibooks so I don't understand why there are 3 main namespaces in it, but they are asking for it. Could it be possible for the team to do this? I'll tag the requesting person for more follow-up info if needed: b:vi:user:Đức Anh. Bluetpp (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drop down menus edit

If I want to protect or delete a page, or something else, I have to make an extra click to the "Page" actions menu in order to collapse it. I usually delete thousands of pages each year - this means I have to click thousands more times. I am finding this extremely time-consuming. If there is any way to change this, I would really appreciate it. —user:Hasley 23:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Hasley. Thanks for reaching out. After you wrote to us, we have built a prototype of the new table of contents and page tools menu, the first version of the table of contents, and soon will focus on page tools. See the prototype and, if you have some spare time, follow the instructions and add your thoughts about it. Note that when you check "advanced tools", the delete button becomes directly available. (By the way, do you know that there are keyboard shortcuts for page deletion, protection, etc.? This works across the skins and may save your time.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works. Thank you! —Hasley 21:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width and transclusion edit

If recent changes are transcluded this change the page width. Although I appreciate the width-limit and I like the special treatment of special pages, this seems to be not really consistent. I don't really know what could be done about this. Could there be a switch within the transclusion to specify which behaviour is wanted? Though the programming-effort for this will be extremely high, I suppose, because transclusion is effected and not the mere interface. I don't know. Probably it's best to keep it as it is, because it's not a bug, but a (visual) inconvinience? Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition: It looked like it when I hit "show preview" but it's shown correctly after publishing the page. At least for now. Maybe the effect is connected to: phab:T270802? If I notice anything else, I'll post more info. Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1: Same happens, when transcluding {{special:prefixindex}}. Slowly it seems to me being a bug? Way to reproduce: edit a page, transclude a special page, show preview. Tested with prefixindex and recent changes. Firefox 96 (64-Bit), no gadgets and stuff. At least it seems not critical. Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to have: personalized background edit

Hi, there is my "nice to have" wish. We are discussing about background color of new modern Vector skin. In addition of this, you could leave users personalize their background. Possibly with all images from Commons. Or, if there are technical constraints, you could suggest some background colors and some patterns like those ones or this one (without logo and text) from which to choose. Benefit: no more problems with grumpy comments for the limited width and too much white space.--37.103.19.52 09:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,
  • Regarding too much unused space, see my reply in the section above where I've provided links to the prototype and page tools page.
  • Regarding too much space of the white color - changing that is already possible. It can be done via a gadget. Solving the underlying issue though (the background being perhaps too bright) may be part of the last phase of the project - visual refinements, which we'll focus on after building the table of contents and page tools. Now, we're making steps "zero" of that phase. Later, we'll probably create another prototype and put up banners asking the communities to share feedback. In general though, we won't offer as the default anything dragging attention from the content :)
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claims about the current interface edit

I fully agree that the desktop interface doesn't match the expectations of modern web platforms. Wikimedia has always looked quite outdated. But to be honest that's less to do with the structure of the web page around articles, and more to do with the design of articles themselves in my opinion. We can only create plain boring tables, not beautiful tables and articles.

"It is challenging for readers to focus on the content." According to whom? I've never heard this complaint about the desktop experience before.

Completely agree that many people don't know how wikis function. I'd welcome changes to the interface that welcome new editors and make it easier for them.

"isn't consistent with the mobile version", this is worded as though the mobile version is somehow the default. The tone changes if this was written as "The mobile version is not consistent with the desktop version" or "The two versions are not consistent". I just want to be cautious that we shouldn't change the desktop one to match mobile just because it's easier than the other way around when that may not be the best thing for a desktop experience.

Consistency does not meant they have to look exactly the same and function the same. We should not lose the advantages that a certain platform provides (i.e. a wide screen on desktop).

Bit concerned about the claims made in this section. Supertrinko (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Supertrinko, I'm really sorry that I'm answering to your comment so late. Although three months passed, I hope you'll find my answers useful.
  1. "Less to do with the structure of the web page around articles, and more to do with the design of articles themselves" - we agree that both are issues. Our team 1. can't change the latter 2. is technically responsible for the former. We're responsible for over a million lines of code related to skins and interface, so we improve what we've been entrusted with. There could be a coordination around the article (broadly: content) design. But that most likely would not be a mission for our team.
  2. "According to whom?" - I recommend digging into the reports presented on the Repository sub-page, especially the Hureo reports. It's not like readers don't know where content is. Rather, it's about the myriad of links and tools making our pages feel chaotic. At the office hours, we use a metaphor of a library vs. a cockpit. We respect that experienced editors lean towards the cockpit, having many links all around, directly available. But the bulk of users, who not necessarily will ever become experienced editors, need a library with clear entry points to the cockpit.
  3. "I'd welcome changes to the interface that welcome new editors" - that's great to hear! You may be pleased to learn that we've begun working more closely with the Growth and Editing teams. Our projects are synchronized, and we talk to each other whenever our goals or activities overlap. For example, we're working together on the Edit button available in the sticky header.
  4. "Isn't consistent with the mobile version" - good point, the wording might be changed. But why did I use these words, though? It's not about mobile being more important than desktop in principle. Our mobile interface is just newer and better adjusted to the present patterns or expectations than our desktop interface. So it's about what happens to be the characteristics of our mobile and desktop interfaces now.
  5. "We should not lose the advantages that a certain platform provides (i.e. a wide screen)" - agreed! Example: we won't leave the currently white spaces empty. As part of the Desktop Improvements, we'll introduce a basic grid system, and put the table of contents and page tools menu on either side of the content. Check out the latest prototype. Later on, as part of the future projects, we'd like to make it configurable per-wiki, perhaps per-namespace or per-page, or even per-user, how exactly the columns/"cells" should be used.
I hope you are a bit less concerned now. Please tell me if anything is not clear. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not an improvement edit

At least not at this stage. I just had the misfortune of encountering the "improvements" on the Persian Wikipedia and I have to say it is utterly horrendous to try and use. Aesthetically and functionally displeasing, the new skin does not represent an improvement over the status quo at all. If this change is to be enforced I sincerely hope it is not done in its current state. This is possibly the single most unnecessary set of changes I've seen in my two and bit years of contributing to and decade plus time using Wikimedia projects. I could complain about a lot of the proposals I've seen on this page, but in essence, why are desktop using being given a mobile-esque interface? 5225C (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i agree. after the "improvements" users would have to click a few more times to get to the same links = it's a waste of time and effort. RZuo (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@5225C, thanks for this comment. I'd like to understand your viewpoint better. Could you give more details why you're convinced this is a mobile-esque interface? What else you don't appreciate and why? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two that stick out the most for me (since they are the ones I've encountered) are the collapsible menu and the icons in the top right. Neither of these are in the slightest way problematic. Being able to hide the side menu does nothing in terms of functionality but just makes the top left clumsier. The icons look ridiculous and offer no advantage other than compacting what was a clear and completely unamibiguous menu into a jumble of minimalist symbols.
This is the desktop UI, and no desktop has such a small display that we need to compact all our menus out of the user's sight, which is done on mobile sites in order to maximise useable space. This isn't a problem on desktop devices so it doesn't need a "solution". Most of the other changes follow in this line of thinking, and in my opinion it is a completely misguided attempt to increase usability of the desktop site, forgetting what desktop devices actually are. 5225C (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find myself in exact opposition to these points: I find it quite useful to be able to minimize the items that I use very rarely, in favor of having screen space for the contents that I actually am interested in, whether I am reading the encyclopedia, or performing some work on it. Similarily, I always make my GUI hide its "status line", for the excellent reason that I need it only 0.something % of the time, and so it would be a complete waste of screen space 99 % of the time. So, I might suggest that UIs might need to take into account that we are obviously not all of the same mind and working habit, so that HAVING a few choices might be in order... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side panel on Wikidata item pages is forced to bottom of page edit

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) and OVasileva (WMF): Hello, not sure exactly what the state of deployment is for this (i.e. if all latest changes are deployed everywhere), but was trying it out on Wikidata (where I primarily edit) and the div classed as wikibase-entityview-side on item pages (which houses all the sitelinks) is pushed down to the bottom of the page (see wikidata:Q1 for example).

In legacy vector this element is at the top of the page on the right hand side, which seems more appropriate given the importance of the information (as a means to access the subject on other wikis) and the clearer separation from the data statements. I don't think it necessarily has to live in the same place, just that the current placement seems incorrect, especially considering how much scrolling is needed to reach it on some item pages. --SilentSpike (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilentSpike: Oh yeah, the infamous limited content width. On my 1366×768 screen (minus a few pixels of vertical taskbar), sitelinks at the bottom with legacy Vector as well. The limited content width of new Vector forces this layout even on gigantic iMacs. (By the way, you can see the very latest version on beta cluster, every change that’s been merged immediately appears there.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the bug report. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Feedback on Improved Desktop View edit

Thanks for working on this project. I just recently switched to the Improved Desktop View and I'm loving it! It provides a cleaner and much better reading experience for me.

Just noted one issue which I wanted to mention here. I have the clock gadget enabled. When I open the "User menu" when the page isn't scrolled at all, the clock gadget appears to be part hidden [ screenshot ]. When the "User menu" is opened after the pages is scrolled a bit, the clock appears to be fully visible [ screenshot ]. One could actually argue the clock gadget shouldn't even be hidden under the "User menu" as it kind of makes the gadget less useful but I'll not get into that now. :-)

Thanks again for working on this! -- Kaartic [talk] 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed on wiki. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug: Sticky Header is printed edit

When printing out a page the sticky header is included. Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THanks for the report! Jdlrobson (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all suitable for Wikisource users edit

As other people have said, the editing box is too narrow. This is especially bad for Wikisource users, as most of the work happens in the Page: namespace. Probably no one ever thought of trying it out there. Just open a random page on en.ws and try to edit. As you can see, half of the page is occupied by the scanned image, and the other half by the editing box. As the scan is often large and hard to read, we need it to be as big as possible. And we need the editing box to be as big as possible. You are wasting a lot of screen space and making things difficult for Wikisource users. I respect your work, but it's very clear to me that no one ever thinks about sister projects when planning these changes. Every decision seems to be based exclusively on what Wikipedia needs, the other projects are never taken into account. Candalua (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly support Candalua's claim. Proofreading has specific requirements, and it needs a specific. stable editing interface and specific tools and shortcuts. Just an example: Find & Replace tool doesn't run, from years, into nsPage environment; it.wikisource built an its own powerful tool, but such "divergent evolution" of projects is IMHO a bad thing. Alex brollo (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is the use of different namespaces. We've been testing on English Wikisource which does not have the fixed width you pointed out. It seems English Wikisource uses namespace 104 and Italian uses 108. We'll look into fixing this. Thanks for the report. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Candalua and @Alex brollo. Thanks for contacting us.
We know how our changes look on Wikisource. For example, I have them enabled on all wikis (as a global preference). We know that you need the width to be long while editing the Page namespace. I guess there are two reasons why we haven't adjusted our changes to your specific needs:
  1. No Wikisource has been one of our pilot wikis
  2. To set up the long width exception, we need to know the number of the namespace. On different Wikisource wikis, the Page namespaces have different numbers. :O This is most surprising and irregular. We have to go through all Wikisource wikis and find out where the local Page namespace is.
Regarding #1, we are open to change that! If your community is agrees to join the pilot wikis, we'll work together more closely, and identify more bugs. We know that we will have to work with Wikisource wikis before we consider our changes as ready, anyway. What do you think? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): @Alex brollo: on it.wikisource suggests to have a pilot wikisource, like fr.source (the leader wikisource) or a very little wikisource, but with experienced contributors like vec.source with @Candalua or nap.source with @Ruthven. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove the bar at the top, which appears when I scroll down edit

Please, I hated it. Or at least allow me in the preferencer to deactivate it. I don't want to see that. Please remove. Bageense (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bageense: You mean the sticky header? Have you tried switching back to Legacy Vector? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: No, I haven't, because I don't want to use the lecacy Vector, I want to use the new one, but without the header. Please remove that, or at least allow me to deactivate it. Please remove that. Bageense (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find that checkbox anywhere in Preferences so we'll probably have to wait for the team's reply. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Bageense, you will find the code that removes the bar in the How to disable sticky headers? section. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Thanks! Sorry if I seemed a bit exasperated, hah. By the way, I love the new skin, unlike literally everyone I interact with in the Portuguese Wikipedia. The skin is much more modern-looking, cleaner, the articles are easier to read. There are way less visual distractions, such as lines and borders. It's awesome. Cheers! Bageense (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easier to read when you have to scroll more times? --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, @NGC 54, even if one has to scroll more, one may be focused more on a specific part of content, like a sentence, a paragraph, etc. Have you maybe read this explanation? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is not impossible to let the reader adjust the width. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NGC 54, our goal is to provide the best experience as default. Tech-savvy users are always able to change their CSS and create something dramatically different from the default version. This won't change this time either. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the best experience is not with limited width. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the text being the most important element. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Live preview broken on 2010 wikitext editor edit

File:Vector-2022-preview-problem.webp (direct link)

I'm using English Wikipedia but around 1–2 hours ago, I started experiencing some rendering issues when clicking the Show preview button when in 2010 source editor as seen in the attached video above. My global preferences is currently set to Vector (2022) theme, previously set to Vector theme with legacy option unticked, I believe Vector (2022) is the new name since I didn't change anything in my preferences.

So I rechecked on Korean Wikipedia (which was stated as one of the few Wikipedia where the changes are turned on by default) and the same issues occurred.

Please rollback the changes as this isn't ready yet, not sure why it's even push onto production server. — Paper9oll 07:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be fixed now. The fix here however led to further Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#Broken_gadgets. Jdlrobson (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scrolling by pages + sticky header scrolls too far edit

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Use Firefox. (Chromium might behave the same, but I haven't tested.)
  2. Scroll to the top of the page, so that the sticky header isn't visible.
  3. Note where the text is cut off at the bottom, by the edge of the viewport.
  4. Hit the 'page down' key.
  5. Wait a moment for the the sticky header to appear.
  6. Note where the text is cut off at the top, by the sticky header.

Expected results:

There would be some overlap between the text visible at the bottom before scrolling and the text visible after scrolling, so that you don't need to manually scroll up with arrow keys to re-find your place.

Actual results:

The sticky header obscures the overlapping text and effectively scrolls too far, going past some text that was not visible before to scrolling.

Ping User:SGrabarczuk (WMF) - this is pretty annoying and I would like for it to get tracked somewhere, please. FrankSpheres (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to have been fixed at some point in the last few months and no longer reproduces. Thank you. FrankSpheres (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enable sticky header edit

Sorry for the stupid question, but in which wiki is the sticky header enabled? ValterVB (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a stupid question at all. Thanks for asking it.
It should be enabled on all wikis. You must however be logged in, and using a modern browser with a display resolution of 1000px or greater.
Let me know if you are having any trouble seeing it, if so we'll work out why not. Jdlrobson (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jdlrobson: I'm on it.wiki, but is the same also in fr.wiki or en.wiki, and I use Vector (2022). I can see the new desktop lay out, but the header isn't fix. I use last version of Edge Browser and display resolution is 1920x1080. ValterVB (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange, now it work.... ValterVB (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is normal that don't work in all namespace? ValterVB (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad it's working! See Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#Talk_page_and_page_history :-). Hope that helps! Jdlrobson (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text in certain dropdown menus displays over sticky header drop down menu, and time is misaligned edit

Hello! So I started using the 2022 Vector skin yesterday and I noticed that if I'm scrolled all the way to the top and click on the dropdown menu on the sticky header, some of the text for other dropdown menus (such as the page dropdown menu) displays over the sticky header. Also, within the dropdown menu, the time is cut off, and therefor not completely displayed. Blaze Wolf (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the time gadget, I assume you are using the UTC live clock gadget, in which case you should discuss it on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js. On MediaWiki.org and eu.wikipedia.org it has been modified to appear outside the user dropdown but Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make decisions about how gadgets should behave. Right now the gadget is appending itself to this menu. I'm not sure if that's a bug or intended.
Thanks for flagging the issue with the more menu, I've notified the gadget developers: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/MoreMenu/issues/24 Jdlrobson (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken gadgets edit

Both Twinkle and the short description helper gadget seem to have broken today on New Vector. All the Twinkle options (Warn, Wel, etc.) are displaying in a bulleted list rather than collapsed in a menu, and the short description helper is not appearing where it normally would below the title. Are these known issues, and can they be expected to be resolved shortly? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me, Twinkle is not displaying in its own dedicated dropdown menu (TW) but consolidated into the standard More menu on Vector 2022 but styling are retained. When loading/refreshing, I can see the space reserved for the TW dropdown menu to the right of More menu but once done loading/refreshing, the reserved space just disappear with the entire #right-navigation moving right which is the default CSS behavior since TW is not found in the source after loading/refreshing but was there when loading/refreshing. Short description helper gadget is completely broken for me, it doesn't display at all on Vector 2022. Paper9oll 01:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please direct gadget developers to phab:T300987 which has instructions on how to address any problems they are seeing. I believe Twinkle has already been fixed. Jdlrobson (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinates edit

 
Example at w:Georgetown University

Woah. Another big change that seems to have been rolled out yesterday is that coordinates that used to be in the upper right seem to have been pushed down in infoboxes, producing some horrible-looking results. See e.g. w:Georgetown University, where it produces the same thing twice and pushes the infobox wider than it should be because there's no line breaking.

I've never heard a compelling case for why language switching is so important that it needs to commandeer the corner there. But when it disrupts existing articles by creating things like this, that creates work for the community to fix that I don't think folks will be happy about. Does anyone know what specific change caused this, and whether it will be fixed before wider rollout? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a longstanding issue, that's been documented for some time and is waiting on changes by template admins on English Wikipedia. These were previously overlapping text (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F34441718), so this seems like an improvement to me :) Coordinates are rendered by wikitext templates NOT MediaWiki code.
This conversation is currently happening here: w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Coord_not_displaying_correctly Jdlrobson (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language switching - speed, suggesion edit

The language switching location is great, I think you can put a button in the sidebar that jumps and highlights the new placement. But problem is now I have to click twice to change to a suggested language and suggesions don't work in no JS mode. I think it could atleast suggest my browser language in no-JS mode. The suggesions aren't good too. For example visiting the Lata Mangeskar page, I have my browser language set in Bangla and connecting from a Bangla region, yet the suggesion doesn't show that option(with js on). Greatder (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Greatder for this comment.
  1. Regarding a button in the sidebar, can you see the text এই উইকিতে, ভাষার লিঙ্কগুলি পাতার উপরের দিকে নিবন্ধের শিরোনামের পাশে রয়েছে। উপরে চলুন। at the bottom of the sidebar, where language links used to be?
  2. Regarding the speed and suggestion, our team "only" displaced the list of language links to the top of the page. We only did the interface part. Other aspects, like those two, may be up to the Wikimedia Language engineering team. Uzoma knows more about that team's activities.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.Yup! That's a welcome change. 2. @UOzurumba (WMF): Hey, will you be able to check the language suggestion part? Greatder (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Greatder, for pointing this out, I will notify the Language engineering team. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Greatder,
About the language switching speed, There are plans to work on the language selector to use the Vue modern technology and it should improve it.
This page describes the different criteria used for selecting languages. Previous selections are the top criteria, so those may make the results provided to be different from user to user.
I hope the above answers your questions. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User menu and language switcher is not working in some condition. edit

Hello, I have a feedback regarding new vector user experience. There are a user reported on WP:HELPDESK (at Thai wikpedia) that they cannot toggle on "user menu" and "This article in other language" button when disabled JavaScript, I myself don't know why too and when tested myself it just work. They use Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:25.8) Gecko/20151123 Firefox/31.9 PaleMoon/25.8.1 if it is needed. If you wanting more context or want translation, or have a ticket related, feel free to ping me here. Thanks!

See full feedback on: w:th:special:permalink/9910984#ปัญหาการใช้ธีมใหม่ของวิกิพีเดียภาษาไทย_โดยไม่มีจาวาสคริปต์

07:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We'll reply on Thai Wikipedia. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default image thumb size? edit

@SGrabarczuk (WMF), at this discussion back in 2020 about increasing the default image thumb size, you mentioned that you'd bring it up with the Desktop Improvements team. I'm considering resurrecting that discussion, so I was wondering if you recall how that discussion went, or if you have any more general thoughts about the possibility of larger default images?

Looking at it, one obstacle seems to be the 0.1 megapixel limit for fair use images. I'd be interested to hear from someone at WMF Legal about whether that limit has a legal basis or was just chosen arbitrarily at some point; do you know who I could ping to ask about that? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been some time since you added this question @Sdkb, and we still don't have a good answer YET, so there's an initial one:
since 2019, we've been only working on changes that are on the list of Desktop Improvements. We are only working on the interface. Image thumb... doesn't turn out to be "just interface". Its default size is in the same category as the charts, maps, a-/f-/o-/tmboxes, infoboxes, navboxes, and other templates thing.
We're figuring out which team should be responsible for this area. I know this may look bureaucratic but it's about who is committed to be familiar with the related code and committed to make decisions about its development.
Also, what Whatamidoing wrote back then is still accurate - the Technology folks are going to have a word in that discussion. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF), thanks for the update! Yeah, I think there are a lot of things that don't fit neatly into a particular WMF team's purview, and it's often hard to figure out where to send them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

La nueva interfaz es muy incomoda de usar. edit

No fue hace unos días en la que entre a Media-Wiki y me encontré con una interfaz bastante rara y incomoda, por el hecho de que parece otro sitio web. Tornitiu (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola, @Tornitiu. Me alegra que hayas encontrado esta página de discusión. Sí, este sitio web se ve diferente porque nuestros equipos están extendiendo la nueva interfaz a más y más sitios web de Wikimedia. ¿Te gustaría compartir más pensamientos? (I'm glad that you have found this talk page. Yes, this website looks different because our teams is extending the new interface to more and more Wikimedia websites. Would you like to share more thoughts?) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I go back to full width? edit

Useskinversion=1 stopped working. 46.188.156.161 06:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @46.188.156.161, thanks for your question! We have made some technical changes due to which the new and old versions of the Vector skin are now separate skins. The new url parameters are as follows:
- Legacy version of the Vector skin (2010): ?useskin=vector
- New version of the Vector skin (2022): ?useskin=vector-22
OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you 46.188.181.249 18:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custom TOCs, TOCright and other templates that change the position of/remove the TOC edit

Copied from Topic:Wqeyb0m05zkmeemb

Well, I have a few questions:

  • Can you still hide the TOC (using __NOTOC__ and similar)?
  • How about templates that change the position of the TOC (like {{tocright}} and similar)? Will they still work?
  • Can you undock the TOC from the sidebar?
  • Can custom TOCs be repositioned to the sidebar?
  • What will happen when you "emulate" a TOC, like a custom version that uses the TOCs classes (toc)?

SuperDragonXD (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SuperDragonXD, we're working on details and soon I'll give answers. Basically, we know what settings exist now, perhaps we'll create new magic words, and definitely we'll keep/provide some configuration options. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding NOTOC, that will continue to work, however the other magic words e.g. tocright will have no effect.
Regarding undocking the TOC from the sidebar, that seems unlikely from a technical point of view, as that would add a lot of caching concerns. Same goes for custom TOCS. Custom TOCs exist in the article content not the sidebar, but as Szymon suggests in his reply, we could perhaps create new magic words to allow that in future.
In terms of emulating a TOC, could you give me an example? Note the styles associated with the existing table of contents will disappear with the new table of contents design, so it would be good to identify any problems prior to roll out. Jdlrobson (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inter-language links edit

In Vector legacy, an "Edit links" option just below language list takes us to the appropriate section of connected Wikidata item allowing us to (dis)connect articles from other Wikipedias. However, under the Vector 2022 skin, it appears as just another link "Edit inter-language links" in the tools section of left sidebar, far from the new language list. I hope that going forawrd "Edit (inter-language) links" will be brought closer to the language list. —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @CX Zoom. It will, you are correct. This is a task for Language engineering, so a different team working on a different set of projects. You can learn more details on Phabricator, the link is in the box. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The empty TOC box edit

Hi. Is there something new with the empty TOC box bug? Thanks. IKhitron (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somebody? @SGrabarczuk (WMF)? The Desktop Improvements stopped working a week ago. IKhitron (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @IKhitron. Could you share more details: on what page you experience this problem, what browser and OS you use? We'll need to figure out if this problem is related to the Desktop Improvements in the first place. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again, @SGrabarczuk (WMF). It's phab:T302461. Since the last time I was here, it was declared as "Unbreak now!" and fixed. IKhitron (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable to switch back to Vector Legacy skin edit

I clicked "switch to old look" on any wiki site. However, the skin is still new Vector. I tried refreshing and using the Ctrl + F5/refresh. That didn't help much. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @George Ho. What did you see when you clicked "switch to old look"? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still New Vector skin. George Ho (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not as clear as it could be but you also need to select "Vector legacy (2010)" and hit save to complete switching to the old look. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I should have detailed that. Tried to select that option, but that still led me to new Vector. Tried that again and again. Still New Vector. --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I meant what page you see. @George Ho, after selecting "switch to old look", you should be looking at the preferences. Clicking "switch to old look" isn't enough because this link only sends you to the preferences page where you need to make more steps. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be worth checking global preferences too. There is a conflict between the two under certain circumstances that we are trying to fix. Jdlrobson (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about our latest prototype and next steps edit

To everyone who is watching this page but hasn't subscribed to our newsletter yet:

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 29 March at 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 82719061969. Dial by your location.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Presentation of the latest prototype
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Learn more about the office hours. See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is the progress of 2 phabricator tasks? edit

I see the news, but the older phabricator task are not fixed in real product:

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Considering the tags, the first task is assigned to Growth, a separate team, not Web. Only the second task is ours. I'll let our designer know that you're asking about this. Generally though, this task might not be a priority because we now focus strictly on the features of Desktop Improvements, and visual tweaks of different types will be a priority next. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF) First ok.
Second, is it so hard, to give this code into CSS @media screen for interval with bad width screen size? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, with @media used is drawing bad with width under 720px. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the sidebar collapsed as default edit

I volunteer at Wikisource. Most of my work is done at the Page namespace, and there the sidebar works better collapsed. Every time I open a page for proofreading I need to collapse the sidebar again. Please make it so it stays as I last left it (collapsed or shown). Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be even more annoying, especially when one uses multiple tabs (if you need to open it and then open a new tab, it’s uncollapsed, but if you close it, it would be collapsed again on the next tab). Probably a preference would be a better solution: if you set it to collapsed in your preferences, it’ll be collapsed on all pages unless you manually uncollapse it, but even then, it’ll be collapse on the next page again. (And since it already differs between logged-in and logged-out users, many of the points in Just make it a user preference don’t apply here.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever, just make it optional. The workflow at Wikisource is different than Wikipedia, and I prefer collapsed every single time I am proofreading. If I need something on the sidebar (seldomly) I'll uncollapse it. Now, I think it is more intuitive to be able to change quickly between the two modes. Sometimes I'm proofreading, then I need wide space to read more easily. Sometimes I'm doing manteinance, then I need the sidebar more often.
Maybe we need to have the option to control that behaviour (Even if it's a gadget. Unfortunately, I am very bad at javascript so I can't do it). I can think 3 behaviours:
  1. Always on (default)
  2. Always off
  3. Remember the last one
What do you think, @SGrabarczuk (WMF)?? Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I recall correctly, according to the current settings, the state of the sidebar (collapsed/not collapsed) is persistent. This means - if you collapsed it, it should stay collapsed on the page you open next. This should be the solution, and I'm not sure why you experience anything else :/ SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF) I just tested it: it isn't persistent, it's uncollapsed by default. On several wikisources/wikipedia, both with my main account and the tests one, both with my gadgets and with every default setting. It most definitely isn't persistent. Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me if I'm being a little too persistant, but are you going to check on this please? Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! Yes, I asked my colleagues and they said there must be a bug. Thanks for reporting it! Click the link in the box to see the details. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More visibility for Wikimedia and Wikidata edit

Based on (BTW, nie job, congrats!)

https://di-article-tools-2.web.app/Blauwal?de

I strongly suggest

(a) to move Wikidata to section in "In anderen Projekten" as the "normal user" expects Wikidata in the list of other Wikipedia projects, as it's part of the Wikipedia family and not somewhere in tools. And

(b) to add the relevant icons to the projects name as in the French language Wikipedia. Thus the family of other projects becomes more visibility and might attract users.

Finally, I suggest

(c) to shorten "Wikimedia Commons" to "Wikimedia". The term media is understood in many languages, but the expression "Commons" is not really "straight"; as a consequence, if used as an adjective with Wikimedia it should be used with all other project names as well, what would make the whole story worse, thus act in KISS spirit.


In a nutshell: Make Wikipedia family more prominent and use understandable terms for users

Thx for your work and your attention

Link: https://www.deepl.com/translator#en/de/Commons%0A%0A

cheeers, AnBuKu (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @AnBuKu for your appreciation.
  1. Wikidata link is there temporarily. We (Web team) are responsible for the most part of the interface, and Language team works on language-related links such as the Wikidata link. We have received research revealing that readers and new editors don't know that the language links exist. For example, when trying to find "Barcelona" in English, they would go to Google and type "Barcelona English Wikipedia". We suspected that putting this link on top of the page would be an improvement. It was impossible to move all language-related links because we only could do our part. Language have been planning to move the Wikidata link to the menu with interwiki links. Ping @UOzurumba (WMF), FYI :)
  2. We will consider this, thank you!
  3. This is way, way, way beyond our project. This is a branding thing, and we are "only" improving the interface. I'll let my colleagues working on the brand know about your opinion, though.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AnBuKu and SGrabarczuk (WMF):
  1. There are two Wikidata links in the sidebar: one is named “Wikidata item”, links to the top of the item page, and has always been in the toolbox; the other one is named “Edit interlanguage links”, links to the sitelinks (which are below the statements on narrower screens), and is in the interlanguage links section on all skins but new Vector. I think you want to move only the second one to the ULS popup. Moving the first one to the interproject links would probably make sense; however, I think if it’s done, it should be done across skins, so it may be out of the scope of this project.
  2. Even worse, the name “Wikimedia” is already used: it means all WMF projects together. Wikimedia Commons is a part of it, just like Wikimedia Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Incubator (or Wikipedia).
Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @SGrabarczuk (WMF) for the FYI. It is noted. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search box shortcut key edit

私は、検索ボックスにもショートカットキーを実装すべきだと思います。なぜならウィキペディアにおいて「検索」は、「編集」や「履歴」より頻繁に用いられる操作だからです。 例えば、 [Alt]+[Shft]+[?] など。240D:1E:105:5A00:5846:64CC:CDB2:F01E 00:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ログインを忘れていました。「240D:1E:105:5A00:5846:64CC:CDB2:F01E」は私です。 シェン,アーナリー,ン,アーバァ. (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@シェン,アーナリー,ン,アーバァ. the shortcut for search is [alt] + [shift] + [f]. You may also be interested in this task: phab:T307024. It's about the shortcut not working on the sticky header search widget. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF)
教えてくれてありがとうございます。すでに「検索」ショートカットキーは実装されているのですね。 シェン,アーナリー,ン,アーバァ. (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes @シェン,アーナリー,ン,アーバァ. See keyboard shortcuts, you may like this page! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User menu switch off edit

I dont know what the people like on User menu, but for me it is about yet another extra click. So would it be possible to disable just this function? Juandev (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it should be doable with a gadget. I've pinged a Wikipedian who, as far as I know, has made such an adjustment. On a side note, regarding the "what people like", see the page about the user menu feature. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF) Nope, sorry. Not a gadget. I have some tweaks that add a 2nd layer of links but they are rather specific to my usage of Wikipedia... But...
@Juandev If you want you can try to copy my code to your vector.js and .css. Just note that you would need to at least adjust `items` array.
Good luck 🙂 Nux (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence of actual improvement? edit

I hope that in the end there is statistically valid empirical evidence that proposed changes are actually an improvement for unregistered users or whatever other group of users the change(s) target(s). DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've been discussing at English Wiktionary, but for anyone reading this here: I answered that we perform A/B tests on logged-in users of pilot wikis, we also perform before & after tests on logged-out users of pilot wikis. More information is or will be available on the sub-pages dedicated to individual changes. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move the sidebar links from the left to the top edit

I think that the sidebar should be converted into a top row (ex. https://www.whitehouse.gov/) rather than on the left. See in the example where there are no sidebar links. This would make Wikipedia look more like a modern online encyclopedia. Of course, it would require a consensus to change this, but I would like to know if it would be possible with current technology. If not, when can we expect the technology to be out? Interstellarity (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow me to confuse or clarify this: I would dearly like to be able to hide the "left bank" of the screen most of the time, as most of the time it is completely irrelevant to me, and so I'd like to use the space for the contents I AM interested in. So, could we please be allowed CHOICES ? (Oh, as for being a "modern" thing - I'd settle for being a useful, user-configurable thing...) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Interstellarity, thanks, that's an interesting idea. Perhaps it would turn out to have practical advantages. Unfortunately, we will not do that as part of this project :/ Most changes are done already. Now we're working on the table of contents. Next, we'll move page tools (Related changes, Download as PDF, etc.), then we'll improve the general aesthetics, and the project will be complete. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements edit

 

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 29 April 2022 at 13:00 UTC, 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 88045453898. Dial by your location.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English and Polish, and additionally: Indonesian at the first meeting, and French and Italian at the second meeting. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them here on this talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redlink colour edit

Is it just me, or are redlinks lighter/brighter in this skin? I could swear their colour is a bit off... Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes @Tol, Vector 2022 uses a little brighter color. Before & after: . This is less related to the Desktop Improvements project, and more to parallel accessibility-related work. If I recall correctly, the change of contrast ratio was mainly made for users with visual impairments and those who read in environments like sunlight. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah; that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know, @SGrabarczuk (WMF)! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification icon gets larger when there's a notification edit

I know this is really minor, but it's been bugging me: the notification bell icon gets wider, and so moves to the left, every time you get a notification. Is there any way you could make it not move like this? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tol, please provide details about your browser. I'm not sure if this is in any way related to our work. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 (beta) on Linux. Here's a video: File:2022-04-27 recording of Vector 2022 skin notification icon width.webm. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tol thanks for pointing this out. I've just filed a task about it: phab:T307134. Unfortunately I don't think the echo notifications are actively maintained by anyone, but hopefully we can find someone to fix this. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops...I just checked Legacy Vector and realized this is a new issue, possibly introduced by our team, so I moved the task onto our work board. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF): Yep; that's why I brought it up here. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated table of contents doesn't work with VisualEditor edit

Testing out the new table of contents, one thing I'm noticing is that it doesn't appear to work with VisualEditor previews. When I add, change, or remove a section during editing, it doesn't update, and even after I click publish, it still doesn't update until I refresh the page. Is this a known issue? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Sdkb. This is phab:T307251, isn't it? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep; glad it's being tracked! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC subsection links fail accessibility edit

The TOC subsection links are black instead of blue. This violates accessibility, a core principle of Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color bullet two: "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonesey95, sorry, I mis-pinged you in the comment above. There are more links/buttons in our interface which are grayish, not blue. @Volker E. (WMF) is the accessibility expert. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95 thanks for pointing that out. The links should be blue and will be fixed soon. Here is the task for more details: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T306562AHollender (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provide a link to this page? edit

I wanted to report the weekend's Chromium regression bug but couldn't find the appropriate page, presumably this one. Along with others on the English WP I resorted to w:WP:Village pump (technical) but I'm sure other pages have also been tried. So long as it is experimental, would it be reasonable to add a collapsible banner to pages rendered using this skin, pointing here for explanations, reports, and comments? DavidBrooks (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe add a link to the setting in Preferences/Appearance, which is another place I looked. DavidBrooks (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DavidBrooks - glad you found the page and thank you for the suggestions! We're actually already planning on implementing your second idea (adding a link in the preferences page). It's tracked in phab:T307113, and we hope to have it out next week. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Thank you DavidBrooks (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements edit

 

Hey everyone watching this page or visiting it because of our banners. Join an online meeting with our team, people working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them here or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keyboard shortcut does not focus search field in sticky header edit

When pressing the keyboard shortcut for search (alt + shift + f) the search field at the top of the page is focused, even if the sticky header is showing. It would be better if the search field in the sticky header was focused. As it is now the page will scroll to the top which is unnecessary. Sebastian Berlin (WMSE) (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page-title and Search edit

In a nutshell, I believe

  • the Search would benefit from being (a) more consistently placed, and (b) more accessible from the sticky header by having a larger click-target.
  • the Page-title is already visible in multiple locations, and might not need this additional instance? AFAIK only users with "Fullscreen - F11" enabled would hide the existing locations where it is already displayed, whilst scrolled.

Hope that helps! –Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback on new language switcher in French edit

As a translator, I litteraly jump from one language to another every hour of every day. It is simply unbearable to now have to go to a sub-menu to switch from French to English or Italian. That added click translates (pun intended) into lost time and nerves on a daily basis.

I'm not hostile to a more smartphone-friendly interface, and maybe that kind of switcher is perfect on a little screen. But it's not okay to make the overall experience so much unsteady (especially with the links being there for some languages and moved away for other ones) when

  1. switching seamlessly from one language to another is precisely the one advantage Wikipedia has over any other encyclopedia and
  2. my 32" monitor has plenty of space to display these links in the left column.

Last year I had selected the old Vector theme for this very reason and this morning, I was force-switched into the new Vector 2022 theme. So for the second time I'm back on the classic Vector theme and really, really hope it will stick. Herisson26 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Herisson26. Thank you for asking here.
  • We've been planning to provide one-click access to preferred languages but it's dependent on the work of another team (Language). We can't promise anything in terms of the timeline yet.
  • What do you mean by "with the links being there for some languages and moved away for other ones"? You saw the new Vector on some wikis, and the old Vector on some other wikis, didn't you? I think that's related to the next issue.
  • Why you had to switch back again - here's my explanation. We're sorry, this was an extremely rare oversight.
  • It's interesting that you write this interface is smartphone-friendly. Many volunteers note this. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? Is this just about the responsiveness, or something more?
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @SGrabarczuk (WMF),
  • For a translator, direct access to "preferred" languages is not enough. I need the complete list of languages, as it exists on old Vector. My preferred languages would be French, English, Spanish and Italian, but I will regularly read directly a page in Japanese, Portuguese or any other if it's the one that will get me the information I'm looking for (which is quite often the case when dealing with foreign people). So limiting direct access to a select few languages will still break Wikipedia for me.
  • Yes, lots of wikis use old Vector while the French one uses the new ones. It completely breaks the user interface. It is of utmost importance to me that all Wikipedia pages have the same layout, whatever the language. I understand the need to test things, but when you make a public switch that impacts the ergonomics of the site, it should be made across all languages. Maybe make the change per-user instead of per-language if you don't want to switch everyone at once.
  • Nothing to do with responsiveness. Smartphones don't have the physical space to display the language list and the article content at the same time, so having a button on the top of the page to show/hide the language panel makes sense. It does NOT on computers, which have plenty of free space for the left column and the traditional language list.
Herisson26 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very bad indeed. The French version of Wikipedia, which has put all interwiki language links in a dropdown menu, is most annoying. It is a big waste of time, and not user-friendly at all. To switch to the article in another language, instead of having the whole choice displayed at once and just having to click, one now has to go back up to the right-hand corner of the article, click on the dropdown menu, scroll down the list until the desired language apears, click again... This change is not an improvement. It tends to isolate each linguistic version of Wikipedia, by rendering the language switching much harder. If ever it is useful for smartphones, please change the layout for mobiles only ("m" version of Wikipedia), but not for the desktop version. This cumbersome change should NOT be extended to other Wikipedias, and the French version should revert as soon as possible to a user-friendly layout, such as that of the English language Wikipedia. Baronnet (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) very cool that you bring one click different language!! would you please include the language team in this discussion here, and provide a link so people can view the progress? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC Feedback edit

I noticed that the newest designs for the table of contents do not allow for it to be collapsed. I think the ability for the TOC to be collapsed is very important, specifically for users that have a touchscreen laptop. I and a friend of mine often use our left hand and our touchscreen to scroll articles because on our laptops it is often easier to scroll quicker than to use the touchpad. If the TOC remained expanded we might accidentally tap a link. A button to collapse it and a preference to expand or collapse it by default would be nice. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Lectrician1. Indeed, the first version of the TOC was not possible to be collapsed. This was because the results of user testings (both in-person and on-wiki) didn't indicate that the functionality was important. Now, given the feedback we've collected, we've decided to consider options how to make the TOC collapsible. In this context, what do you think about our newest prototype? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF) Thank you for responding!
Hi, @SGrabarczuk (WMF), I came to this page to ask whether the ToC can be moved from the sidebar, and really like the prototype. However it seems to be malfunctioning in Safari 15.4 (17613.1.17.1.13): https://imgur.com/a/O0Jhti1
Thanks. —Hugh (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feedback:
  • I really dislike the usage of the bracket type of buttons for [hide] and think a OOUI button or a smaller alernative should be used instead.
  • I like that all of the headers in the TOC are collapsed by-default, however, I think they when you're scrolling inside of a section, they need to expand and collpase as you go through one section to another. I've seen this functionality on other platforms and it allows the reader to understand the outline better when they're viewing the article.
  • The hiding action of the TOC has an inconsistent navigational pattern. UIs should always require the same amount of actions to disable something as to enable something. That always feels the most natural. Hiding the TOC for its default position requires one button press, but to return it back to its previous state requires two. Also, its location next to the title and then how it switches to the upper left to become sticky is really weird too. I don't like either of those locations. I was thinking it could look something like this collapsed and you could press the icon on the right to both collapse and expand it:
 
Lectrician1 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i just cant find the table of contents, i need it for easier navigation. please, help

Sticky header in the namespace Project edit

(original discussion in French)

Hi,

a user suggests to add the sticky header in the namespace Project too, not only in Talk pages or History pages (see for exemple phab:T289641#7365946 and phab:T299115). Best regards, Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions I shouldn't need to ask edit

I can tell WMF developers put a lot of work into this, but I'm sorry, this isn't cutting it. This latest prototype is Vector in name only. It's a completely different look and a completely different experience.

  • Why do I have to click twice to get to my talk/contribs/preferences?
  • Don't you think you could have fit those important links if you didn't go overboard on the whitespace or if the search bar wasn't so enormous?
  • Is the language switcher really so important that it belongs in the sticky menu?
  • I had to think for a few seconds about what the hamburger/star icon was (it's the Watchlist). Why are the icons necessary? I'll answer this one — too much whitespace at the top.
  • Why is the new interface such a step down for the editors who will have to use it every day?
  • And why are you still trying to put a hamburger menu on a desktop site?

It's not all bad — I do think the max width improves readability. But that was already present on previous less-bad prototypes.

We were promised "improvements" to Vector, and what we're getting is an entirely new (and entirely inferior) skin. If this is really going to still be called Vector, that is highly misleading. The early comments that "total replacement is not an option" don't make a lot of sense now that Wikipedia appears to be getting exactly the top-down redesign I had feared this project would produce. Pigs will fly before this gets deployed to English Wikipedia without the community getting their pitchforks. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went into Preferences to turn off the changes and I saw that the software is now treating "vector-2022" as a new skin. This is better than what I thought was going on but maybe there should be a more original name>
Also, wouldn't it be a much better use of developer time to, say, work on the many unresolved Community Wishlist items? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Pythoncoder, thanks for these comments. I'd just like you to know that I'm working on an answer for you and I'll paste it soon. You've asked many important and basic questions (like the one about the Community Wishlist Survey), and I'm truly happy that you've done that. It's much better to clarify the basics. You don't know whether these are clear as long as no one questions it. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): I should have made it more clear above, but most of my comments are regarding the Fourth Prototype. And now that I read through my earlier comments it makes sense to make the sidebar collapsible in case readers don't want distractions. I believe the sidebar is shown by default so please disregard my complaints in that area. This is why I shouldn't edit when I'm sleep-deprived. I do still think the new skin needs a new name though. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also re: wishlist, I suspect the two projects are probably worked on by completely different dev teams. Again, I'm sorry for the passive-aggressiveness above. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Pythoncoder, no worries, I'm really glad you've figured some issues out yourself! Would it be possible for you to state what remains unclear? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it mostly boils down to the amount of whitespace at the top and the hiding of important links such as talk, contribs, and login under a dropdown. I think this should be fixed. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header doesn't show the name or the logo of the project: the risk of loss of identity for Wikimedia sister projects edit

(From French Wiktionary)

"I'm still observing the same problem when using this new skin: if you scroll down the page, it's impossible to know on which Wikimedia project you're on. The sticky header doesn't include the name of the site you are on, which is penalizing users for sharing screenshots, but also for identifying the editorial lines/ editorial policies of the different projects. Sister projects have important specificities. On the French Wiktionary, we already have people complaining that they can't find the content they expect to see on Wikipedia, and we have to tell them that it doesn't belong on the Wiktionary. I'm afraid that the phenomenon will only get worse."-Translated by --Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(original message: "J’observe toujours le même problème, que je constate au quotidien en utilisant ce nouvel habillage : on ne sait pas sur quel projet on est dès que l’on défile un peu. L’en-tête fixe n’intègre pas le nom du site sur lequel on se trouve, ce qui est pénalisant pour le partage de capture d’écran, mais aussi pour l’identification des lignes éditoriales des différents projets qui ont des spécificités importantes. On a déjà actuellement des gens qui se plaignent de ne pas trouver tel contenu qu’ils s’attendent à voir sur Wikipédia, et à qui on doit répondre que ça n’a pas sa place sur le Wiktionnaire. Je crains que le phénomène ne fasse qu’empirer. Noé 29 mars 2022 à 12:37 (UTC)")

some feeback on the layout edit

I really like the preview, it is much cleaner, a few thoughts from viewing this on desktop (I saw the Blue whale article and the Potato article):

  1. The 'in other projects' section is really nice, however I wonder what would be a sensible heirachy for this. Should it be contextual based on the topic or something else? Currently its suggesting me WikiNews which isn't relevant or a particularly well maintained Wikimedia Project. Also the other projects is more about navigating to other information on that topic, rather than being a tool, I wonder if it should be under the TOC instead? Its more about navigating information on the topic rather than using a tool.
  2. I'm not sure if this is intended, the images sit on top of the sections instead of being displayed along the side the text, especially for portrait format images this creates a lot of empty space.
  3. When logged out having the TOC on the left is really nice, works really well. But when I'm logged in the TOC is hidden under half of the tools but then the other half is on the right hand side is quite confusing. I realise this is a really difficult thing to organise, maybe it could live under the TOC? There isn't a clear deliniation between reading and contributing which is confusing.
  4. The taxonomy templates at the bottom are pretty broken and make long lists, also lists within the Potato article lose their formatting meaning on the page for potato the list of synonyms is one column wide making a very long section which isn't going to useful for a general reader right in the middle of the article. John Cummings (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidepanel is bloated edit

Tonight size of left panel is increased too much. It covers more than ¼ screen now. https://imgur.com/3YJlcii Can I reduce size of panel, as it was before? Tucvbif (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I feel there's too much white space padding the left and right of the sidebar. Tenryuu (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tucvbif @Tenryuu thank you for these reports. It seems like you may have your browser window zoomed in, is that correct? Also, if you are able to please add any additional thoughts, needs, screenshots, and ideas to this task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T306660. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, my browser not using zoom. I using personal css with font-size 14pt, but when I login to other account without personal css, the sidepanel still terrible huge.
https://imgur.com/l8bIrDF Tucvbif (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF): Apologies, I should have clarified. The sidebar here is fine; the one at Wikipedia isn't. Resetting the zoom level on Wikipedia doesn't address the issue; there's still a lot of white space padding the element. I'll leave this discussion and focus on #I oppose the new sidebar/TOC and the mentioned Phabricator ticket, which describes my issue more accurately. Tenryuu (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ambiguity and confusion evident from the preceding discussion suggests that the interface has become to complex. Aren't the original sidebar and TOC at the top of the page enough? Why change? Is another popup menu necessary to switch language? What about setting language in user preferences? Simplify, simplify, simplify. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC limit doesn't work anymore edit

It seems that this "sidebar TOC" has different classes, making en:Template:TOC limit doesn't work anymore. William Surya Permana (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates can only control the content of an article so en:Template:TOC_limit/styles.css won't apply outside the article area so new classes won't help here. A magic word would need to be added so support this use case if important and time allows. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I oppose the new sidebar/TOC edit

Please make it possible for the users to collapse the left sidebar/TOC or to reduce the white space size. I for one use a browser sidebar (Sidebery) as well as 150% or even bigger text size. Combined with the forced sidebar/TOC, the actual line length becomes much smaller than the recommended length. PeterTrompeter (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @PeterTrompeter - thanks for your feedback. We're currently exploring better solutions for the ToC at narrow widths, which include the option of collapsing as well. Check out phab:T306660 for the details and prototypes. It would be great to get your opinion on some of these. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder about one thing: Who on earth thought that having such a monstrosity as that [pejorative snipped] TOC as a PERMANENT part of the skin would be a good idea ? I mean, having it pop up might be a useful thing for newbies (and I find even that a stretch of my imagination), but PERMANENTLY wasting space on a table of contents you consult perhaps once or twice per (long) article ? So KINDLY have it fixed to be hideable/collapsible so that we can get actual article contents on our screens. (One sidenote here: Apart from my blowout here - yes, I am aware that working on these projects is a chore, and despite my invectives here, I AM grateful for your efforts. It's just that this kind of stuff goes so completely against what would be the natural idea here, that I blow my top unnecessarily hard - people generally want to read the TEXT of the articles, so when a new skin development deliberately wastes space on the table of contents - ????? ) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Autokefal Dialytiker, we test all of the proposed changes. Editors and readers were strongly in support of this change. More details here: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Table of contents. Cheers, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My question stands: Why having it there PERMANENTLY ??? Ok, I find something that's relevant for me to read; usually, I then want to READ just that; not the thread that led me there... So, why PERMANENTLY ??? Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public and private views... edit

While thinking about this, I was struck with what appears to me to be a central point of division here: This is not a question of how THE user interface should look like; but, rather, it is a question of what we should look like to anonymous users, and what choices should be available to those of us who log in ? Does that differentiation make sense ? (I should mention that I'm coming to this from Wikipedia, and that I have very little experience with the other projects.) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah @Autokefal Dialytiker, this makes sense. With the caveat that I don't know what central point of division you are referring to :D
At the moment, except for gadgets and such little tweaks, we aren't able to offer different interfaces for logged-out and logged-in users. Also, we can't make it possible to easily switch between different settings like dark/light mode, contrast versions, font sizes, etc. We need to improve the basics of the viewing/reading experience, we can do that, so we're doing it.
As a result, readers use our interface more comfortably, we check that with regular A/B tests. As for the most dedicated editors, they can/should:
  1. Help us build an interface useful to them (by giving feedback on the prototypes, on the changing interface on "pilot wikis", by adjusting gadgets, etc.)
  2. Accept the arguments about the results of user testing, A/B testing, community feedback...
  3. Accept the "final" version as the basic version, and
  4. Configure it further if they want.
Our team would like to work the interface deeper. We would like to make it more modular and adjustable. (Of course, content would stay objectively the same for all.) A few months ago, we started working with more closely Growth and Editing. Now we're checking how ambitious we can be.
Does that answer your question? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My way of thinking here, is that the main divider here is between what should be visible and available to those who are NOT logged in, and what should be available and possible for those who DO log in. This is because the big difference between the two groups, is that those who are logged in, are also able to seek detailed information and make informed choices (and possibly programmed adaptations), whereas the non-logged in can not be trusted to have any particular information about the system, do not have a way of communicating preferences, and therefore needs to be given visual cues as to what's possible and available, precisely because they are strangers here... (Sidenote: I am of the Wikipedia, and that is the project I write in relation to; each project will have some peculiarities that do not apply to the other (to the same degree, at least); for this reason I should remember to mention this.)
I hope what I'm writing here makes some sense, I try to avoid giving specific "orders" to anyone, but rather contribute to clarifying the context so that I understand it; hopefully, what I then write makes sense to others as well... (About here my subconscious can be heard muttering "and if pigs could fly"...) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wide-column + Multi-column options for large screens edit

Readers vary in what form factor they prefer, especially for long-form high-volume reading. That's part of why this change and research into 'optimal layout' is controversial. I'm someone who finds it hard and slow to read a narrow column and have to scroll all the time, including when searching a page for a term. General feedback on width:

  1. Include a comfortable default for large screens. The (potentially large) gray margins on left and right, outside large white margins, bracketing a forced-maxwidth central column, do not feel good. Wide-col or multi-col could work.
  2. Offer an explicit wide-column pref that doesn't require people to change skins, even if that is less aggressively supported/tested across all platforms.
  3. A multi-column design for text within sections – mimicking the style of most long-form magazines and scholarly journals – would be interesting and can be surpassingly beautiful. That's what I'd like to see our wide-screen layouts transition to. We already do this within sections for references, lists, and galleries.

Even low-end desktop monitors these days are high enough resolution to support two-column layouts. Sj (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think sticky elements ruin Vector edit

I liked vector a lot more when it didn't have the new distracting elements (sticky header and sticky TOC). I care about the contents of the page, not the interface, nor about the need to scroll to the top of the page every now and then. Tokujin (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Tokujin. Congratulations for finding this page :D You can add .vector-sticky-header {display:none;} to your global.css. For now, I'm not entirely sure what to advise about the TOC, though. When the collapsible version has been deployed, we'll know what code you should use to make it not sticky and keep some other version. I invite you to revisit this topic in 2-3 weeks.
By the way, I very much liked the first sentence of your comment to the third prototype. Have you seen the fourth one? I encourage you to follow the instructions and share your opinion about it, too. (BTW, compare it with the newest version, also a prototype.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Szymon :-) Done, thank you. Regarding the global.css setting, notice that with sticky table headers enabled (in Preferences > Gadgets > Testing and development) there's a bug whereby in tables such as those in this page the table header leaves space for the absent page header. Other tables, such as that here, don't have this issue. Tokujin (talk). 07:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skin differences between wikis edit

I'm using the 2022 Vector skin globally now (with some modifications to remove whitespace), but I'm noticing that some wikis' sidebars are different from others. For example, MediaWiki wiki (this wiki) and French Wikipedia have a thinner white-background sidebar which sits on top of the page body (and ToC in the page body), while Meta-Wiki, Wikidata, and English Wikipedia have a wider grey-background box which is not layered on top of the page body (and ToC beneath said box). I can't figure out why this is. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tol - thanks for your question, and good catch! This is due to the table of contents still needing to being A/B tested on some wikis (frwiki and mediawiki wiki being two of these). The ToC functionality is not yet available there. That said, we've began some work on reducing the margins for the ToC as a whole (phab:T307004) that will make the differences in width fairly negligible. This change will be on all wikis next week. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF): Ah; looks great! I look forward to that change rolling out. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tool bars and tables edit

Hi, thanks for the update. A few observations:

  1. I would suggest that users have the option to keep the tool bar on the sidebar from the beginning, instead of having to click "tools" -> "[move to sidebar]" every single time.
  2. The readability of tables and graphs that are wider than the (quite tight) text column is an issue. In certain cases, the tables represent time series data (e.g. population in a country or municipality over time) that cannot just be tightened. Do you have a proposal to solve this issue? The NYT, which is a site that you explicitly mention as inspiration, lets tables and images occupy the whole width of the screen if necessary.

GeneraleAutunno (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps for the Table of Contents edit

Hey all - thank you for all the feedback around the issues you were experiencing with the ToC, especially on narrow screens. We've taken a few steps to fix some of these issues:

  • We're reducing the margins of the ToC to more closely resemble those of the prototype (tracked in phab:T307004)
  • We have a temporary solution for the ToC at narrow widths, which removes the ToC alltogether
  • We are building functionality to allow for the ToC to be collapsible and expandable at narrow widths (tracked in phab:T306660)
  • We are planning on making the ToC collapsible at all screen sizes and widths (tracked in phab:T307901)
  • https://di-collapsible-menus.web.app/Brown_bear links to a prototype that puts all of these changes together.

We would appreciate your feedback and thoughts on the decisions made within the prototype and whether they work for you. Thanks! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cc @Lectrician1, @Alexis Jazz, @Autokefal Dialytiker, @Tenryuu, @Tucvbif, @Tokujin - in case you're interested. Apologies if I'm forgetting anyone else that was asking about this! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OVasileva, thank you, it's a solid improvement! Just one request: can the hiding/unhiding be made persistent so my choice remains in effect even if I navigate to another page? Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's good news! (Adding a clarification: I'm responding to OVasileva, here.) My thinking is that making it collapsible is the only reasonable way to go; with the added point that for newcomers and anonymous readers it should perhaps be turned "on" as default; if the collapse button is clearly visible, the TOC will be useful to some, and easily removable for the rest, which should be the useful level of the intrusive/invisible conundrum... Thank you, once again. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF): Thanks for letting me know. Since this seems to be only in effect for the new Vector skin, maybe some work could be done to have the table of contents be shown in focus and have a button on the sticky header, as well as a keyboard shortcut for it? Tenryuu (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the work, I like the prototype a lot. I've missed the easily available overview that the ToC provides. Compare to the 2010 design, it is very useful to have the ToC available no matter how far down you scroll.
On small screens, the "move to sidebar" link text is not accurate with regards to what happens visually when you click on it. PeterTrompeter (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On narrow screens this is still quite jarring, and having no TOC is a loss, being able to move the TOC back in to the body (dynamically and programmatically) seems a better compromise. A problem I see is that even when there is no TOC on a page, all that space it could use is still being consume by blank space, that wasted horizontal space needs to be able to be reclaimed somehow. We've been testing some options that are aimed at more power desktop editors so they can use vector-2022, but still have access to most of their screen (see example (will really only be strikingly noticable if you are on a wide screen)) but still are getting complaints about the huge space used by the TOC. Xaosflux (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banners and roadmap edit

Hi, I think you should consider to add banners in order to present the restyling to a much wider part of users. IMO they should link to discussion and presentation pages. You should also consider to present to the wikis a clear roadmap with dates in order to present ahead of time big changes like the adoption of the new Vector. This two changes would make you work clearer to the eyes of the users and would prevent some dissatisfactions. In particular I'd like to point out that what is happening on itwiki is being perceived as an imposition against the general consensus and I agree with the Italian users that are saying that forcing the adoption of the new skin is not the right way to act. These two are some ideas to widen the discussion, forcing something against the will of most will just radicalize the opposing positions even more. -- WikiLuke (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just received the good piece of news that the adoption of the new skin has been delayed for itwiki and I thank you for this. But I still think that the two ideas that I presented above would be good tools to prevent something similar to happen again. ----WikiLuke (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @WikiLuke. These are great suggestions.
  • Banners - T304839 - we've been working this for some time. Soon, the banner should be visible to some logged-in Vector users. They will be encouraged to switch to the new skin, and some time later, they'll see another banner with a link to this talk page.
  • Links to the project page - T307113 - our idea was similar. We'll add a link to the list of skins in preferences.
  • Roadmap - that's also a very good point. We'll consider how to present this to the community most effectively.
  • Itwiki - we'll continue this topic on itwiki, alright?
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for you consideration! :) And speaking of itwiki of course we will continue the topic right there. -- WikiLuke (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header 'dead zone' in articles with long lead sections edit

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Visit an article with at least a moderately long lead section (e.g., en:Charles de Gaulle).
  2. Scroll down a little way.
  3. Observe that the sticky header appears.
  4. Scroll down a little further, so that the first heading appears, but not much further than that.
  5. Observe that the sticky header vanishes.
  6. Scroll down even further.
  7. Observe that the sticky header re-appears.

This does not seem like intended behaviour. I am testing on Firefox 100. FrankSpheres (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @FrankSpheres - thank you for your report! We already have a fix for this bug, tracked in T307345. It will be available early next week. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback on new look edit

I like that stuff that is generally rarely used is hidden, such as the language picker.

I am not a fan of moving the table of contents off the main article body section. I didn't even register that the table of contents was there and I frequently use the TOC to get an overview of interesting sections of articles. With the TOC being isolated at the side bar, it seems separated from the article itself, while it should be a central part. Maybe it would work better if it appeared on the right of the article, where there is currently just whitespace?

Speaking of whitespace: I dislike the move to a max-width on article pages. This feature should at the very least be toggle-able with a button (without a need to log in). I feel like it makes the article feel more cramped, with less space for images and figures. There is already a very good solution to setting the effective width in the old view: Simply resize your window or zoom in on your browser. With the new look, I am forced to a max-width and I don't have a solution to control the width like I did before.

Whitespace and the TOC did something beautiful together in the old look actually. The TOC conveniently visually separated the article lead section from the rest of the article by introducing white space, which I personally found very pleasing. The new look has the lead section blend in with the rest of the article. This makes the lead appear more daunting, while its purpose is to serve as a quicker summary. Perhaps the lead section should be followed by a larger piece of whitespace than is normally found above headings, so as to separate the lead from the rest as before?

Finally I am quite sad to see that the Wikipedia globe logo is diminished - I really like the globe with the symbols and it doesn't look very good at low resolutions. I think the size of the globe was perfectly fine before. Besides, it seems there's plenty of space for it to have the same size as before so I'm kind of puzzled why this change was made in the first place.

I will also say that the arrow next to the Wikipedia globe (the one to minimize the side bar) leads to an unfortunate usability flaw. I initially thought the arrow was supposed to take me back to the front page (it is right next to the logo and the leftward direction suggests a "back" action). But that is not what it does at all. So the arrow is kind of confusing at first. --SorteKanin (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When testing the new skin, offer a one-click way to change back edit

The banners inviting users to test the new skin offer a one-click option that updates your skin to new Vector. The banner is then replaced with a message saying "give us feedback!", but it should also offer a one-click way to revert the change. Users may not be familiar with how to undo the change. Sj (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The one-click option to revert is the final item of the sidebar's top section, in bold. Are you suggesting a second method should be included, or that the link should be made more obvious and flashy by moving to the banner?
The sidebar link seems fine to me. Particularly because this is less about the theme and more ergonomics for migration. Kees Person (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found it eventually, thanks. Yes, putting it in the banner, or putting a js link in the banner that highlighted the sidebar link, would be clearer :) Sj (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too little space edit

It's probably fine for those who don't use wide-screen monitors, but as someone who does it is quite annoying having everything mushed together like on mobile. I have read the page on this, but I think there should be a way to keep the functionality of the skin but lengthen the screen. Lallint (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. I tried the new skin a couple of times and just could not do it. I have bought a standalone monitor for a reason - and it's not that large anyway (1920 x 1200) - yet the new skin wastes a third of my screen space. Kashmiri (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I use a 13" laptop and I initially thought that my computer switched to mobile version by mistake, but I later realized that was the desktop layout. I think the way everything is squeezed-in together takes away from the experience; there is nothing wrong with the header and tools bar they look fine to me, yet the sizing seems off for desktop users. Humanized (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidebar too long edit

Sidebar too long and page too small on Wikimedia wikis LisafBia6531 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not use a sticky header. edit

I think the new layout makes much better use of whitespace on 16:9 displays, making paragraphs easier to read. However, vertical space is someone no website that serves text-rich pages to users can ever get enough of. I believe that every (non-redundant, e.g. the article name is displayed twice on most browsers in the window tab title and the sticky header) element currently placed on the sticky header would not just fit on the sticky sidebar, but by removing the sticky header the layout will better serve what readers come to a wiki to do.

As a side note though, I am awfully sentimental about the old Wikipedia header logo and type layout, that giant globe and the accompanying text beneath it is far too iconic to change in my opinion, even for a redesign. Saedes (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidebar considerations for vertical monitors/half-width windows edit

I haven't tested this out thoroughly yet, but I'm going to be adding this section to start a discussion on how the new layout uses responsive design when display device/window aspect ratios are greater in height than width. Saedes (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table of contents is in the wrong place edit

It's nice to have a table of contents right there on the side so you can move back and forth between sections but i don't like the fact that you have to scroll down a bit to find it. If there's a way to keep it at the top of the page so you see it right as the page loads then as the user scrolls down it changes into a sticky header, that would be better. Abhaypradjha (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search bar UX is inefficient (Fitts's law) edit

I want to search.

  1. If I am at the top of the article, I click mindlessly anywhere on the header and type straight away.
  2. If I am down the article, I have to pinpoint an icon.

This is bad because

  • The inconsistency turns my muscle memory against me
  • It goes against Fitts's law: pinpointing an icon requires precision and is slower than clicking a large bar at the border of the screen without giving much thought into it.

A solution would be that clicking on the article title or empty space in the sticky header hides the article title and displays the search bar (empty and focused).

My case is that I often read the documents with the help of Wiktionary, so I use the search bar heavily and my usage pattern is fundamentally different than on Wikipedia. On Wiktionary, the interesting information is on one line or two, for each one of many unrelated entries, so searching is almost exclusively my means of navigation. Wanlpz (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC: the position of the content edit

Hi, I like your last prototype of TOC, in particular the blu color which helps to find a menu when you collapse it.

I notice something I consider a bug: when the TOC is collapsed, if the tools menu is collapsed too the content is in the correct position, but if you move to the sidebar the tools, the content changes his position (it shifts on the left side). It feels strange. It doesn't happens when the TOC is on the sidebar, and you open/collapse the Tools menu.--151.42.0.114 13:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidebar edit

The sidebar has extended a bit (and by that, I mean a LOT) too far, which makes things very uncomfortable for me. I'm fine with the skin other than that, but the overintrusive sidebar is just awful. Plus, there are these white extensions to it that shouldn't be there. I hope you understand what I'm talking about, and at least take notes on it! ARandomPage (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Зробіть для кожного коментатора окремий відділ edit

Привіт я досі не можу зрозуміти чому кожен коментатор не може писати окремо це набагато зручніше...

Новий дизайн набагато простіший в візуальному плані але до нього треба звикати)))

Також я побачив що новий дизайн не працює в деяких мовах Ilolg (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some incoherence edit

Hey there! To begin with, I want to make it clear I've got nothing against updating the desktop experience at all. I wanted to make it clear in case I seem like a person ranting something like, "Give me back my good old skin!121".

What I think is that by making the skin you folks tried to reconcile the legacy appearance with some modernity. A good point, though the effect is not as optimistic. The top buttons (edit & history & etc) that retain the legacy shadowing do not fit in with the new cohesive background as seen in the left-hand sidebar. I'd consider re-adapting the former so that they better suit the new design. Mustafar29 (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few more issues with the Page header vs Sticky header icons edit

Premise: I agree with the comments above that an update can only be a good thing; I'm sending kudos to all the teams working behind the scenes; and I only started using Vector 2022 a few weeks ago - noticing that it gets better each day. I'm not sure if the issues I'm having are slated to be improved or are haven't yet been considered.

1. Lack of coherence in the sticky header iconography I frequently work on the special pages where the sticky header is absent which makes it frustrating when I move to another page (article page) and it appears and then back to 'edit' or 'view the history' of a page and it disappears again. I feel that I should be able to move from page type to page type without noticing drastic changes in the header.

2. Order of icons and functionality is different between the sticky header and page header - specifically some items disappear completely, some move from one area to the next and others are simply re-ordered. (Until just now I thought the search bar had been remove but I just found it as an icon that was pushed to the extreme left hand side after the article title. Now I understand the others who said that with a 27" monitor the left side icons are essentially out of sight.)

 

  • Examining the two headers more in detail we see that the icons seem to be in the same place which makes it hard to notice they are different. Starting from the right, we see that the icons are identical in both therefore, we naturally expect the two (people) dropdown menus to contian the same items.
  • Moving towards the left we see two icons with a star which pertain to the same semiotic sphere yet actually have different functionalities. One icon (that looks like a drop down menu but isn't) takes you to your watchlist while the other simply indicates whether the current page is on your watchlist and fuctions as a toggle to add the page if it isn't. There is a futher issue with how similar this icon is to the 'Contributions' icon, making it hard to distinguish for those of us who have bad eyesight - but that is an issue for another post.
  • Continuing to the left, the issue becomes more confusing. 'Your notices' from the page header disappears (or maybe I just haven't found it yet) and the text menu 'View history' moves into the sticky header as an icon -the tool tips are the same in both and they are basically in the same position onthe page, which helps a bit.
  • And with the final icons (still moving left) the 'Your alerts' bell disappears (or hasn't been found) and the 'Discussions about this page' transform from a text menu on the left into an icon on the right, at least the tooltip is the same. I have to admit that it's not clear to me why my user name is only visible on the page header and then moves under the person icon in the sticky header. It's not exactly a problem in itself, but it does add to the confusion of icons and functionality that seems to jump around from page to page.
  • Finally, it seems that the “Edit” and “Edit source” functions have disappeared along with the special menu items of “delete”, “purge” and “move” unless you scroll back up to the top of the page. I believe these issues have already been mentioned by others above.

Again a big thanks to all of you working hard to update the interface and the 'restyling'. I hope when this is all finished, the sticky header will be unobtrusive and not noticeable like the ones normally found on modern webpages. --Lepido (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left menu too wide edit

The main menu on the left is too wide and makes the rest of the page appear too cramped in relation to the menu. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The TOC, again edit

It just makes all look too narrow and tight, at least to me. I've been working on various lists projects recently and now they all look god awful because they had the old look in mind. Tintero21 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer the old version edit

It's cool but I prefer the old version. Super ninja2 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suggestion: collapsible table of contents edit

the appearance of the site is far too narrow. i would suggest making the table of contents collpasible to the left. Lettherebedarklight (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too. Also could be hidden, in options, so the user can read better the text. Now, it is too narrow and tight. --BoldLuis (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Line under title colliding with coordinates edit

 

See image. The horizontal line under the title collides with any coordinates that are displayed on the top right. --MimiKal797 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even I wanted to state this same issue. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the floating title can obscure content. For example, open the front page of Oberon and scroll to the bottom. Click on instance "a" of footnote 43. That should take you to "MT, in V5, the constant address ...". In fact, the next glossary entry "native, modifies the name ..." is displayed. Not a terrible defect but baffling for a novice trying to learn. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here for a MeToo (about the coords/line collision). Classic Vector does not have the problem. Also, I think the languages dropdown is uncomfortably close to the coordinates; if you hover over that button you can see they overlap, which generates cruft when the dropdown is activated. Did anyone write up a ticket? DavidBrooks (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC) - OK, I did: T310369 DavidBrooks (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is being discussed in en:Template talk:Coord#Coordinates bad positioning. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great GUI edit

Everything looks very appealing to me. I think the blank left space really aids in reading as the width of the line reduces its easier for me to not to confuse the line which I have to read next. Overall I loved it. One suggestion that I want to give is that it would be very nice if you could change the visual of the tab. It looks a little too classic to me and would be very nice of you if you could add dark mode ( I don't know if it already exists), this I think would give a very appealing look to the website . Thank You. Special:Contributions/ 17:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If you ever want to reduce the width of the lines you are reading, I suggest you just resize your window, as the elegance of desktop browsing is that it gives you control over the size of the page. As for me, this layout takes away that control. Using it, I can no longer read an article with the full width of my screen without fiddling with my common.css, a luxury that would not be available to me when I'm not logged in, and am instead forced to use ~2/3 of that width, even when the window is reaching into every corner of my screen. There are several ways of using dark mode on wikipedia listed here, but I agree it should be made easier. --SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback edit

I was prompted to give some feedback on the 2022 Vector skin, and I have to say that it needs a bit more work.

  • The mix of new and old UI elements doesn't look good; specifically the View, Edit, Edit Source etc. menu bar looks out of place among the flatter new UI
  • There's uneven and unnecessary padding around the left pane with the many links that can be filled with the pane
  • There should be an option to have the content filling any display larger than 4:3, as most displays are 16:9. I understand the argument that it helps some people in reading but having an option is better, as it doesn't help all people. Additionally, a poll should be run in all Wikimedia projects on which one should be the default (4:3 or full width) — Dimsar01 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is My feedback

  • I see that the sections are not properly sectioned on the screen
  • I am using dark mode and when I want to add reference or qualifier or something like that, I see a white suggestion screen

All in all I can say for now is that I really needs more work done and I can prefer the older one for now thank you Micheal Kaluba (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short description edit

It would be great to have the short description visible on pages, like it is on the search and on mobile, so users can more easily edit them and identify information.

Like said by other users, the mix of new and old UI looks bad. The most recent prototype, for all its faults, had a well unified UI. I also think that the page tools (and "In other projects") should be separated from links for the whole website like was done in the most recent prototype, though there were many flaws with that execution (see my comments), and all those links should be condensed by default. "Beginning" should definitely be named "Lead" or "Lead section", like said by others.

I really appreciate the effort that is going into this. I think the vast majority of these changes are for the better, it just needs more work. BappleBusiness (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software Gore edit