No.1738
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wikipedia-desktop/NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO THEY GOT WIKIPEDIA TOO
No.1739
>>1738Libredirect extension -> Enable Wikipedia
Sucks if you're a regular contributor, but wikipedia is mostly dead now anyways. Enthusiasts tend to focus on their own wikis.
No.1740
>>1738Ohh! That's why. This is really ugly and I hate it.
I was wondering why some pages looked so bad, I thought that there was an issue with the pages and they were showing me mobile phone wiki or something.
No.1741
>>1739>wikipedia is mostly dead now anywaysEverything is "dead" or "dying" now it feels like
No.1742
>>1739It's still really good for vaguely academic things like species
No.1743
>>1738This new Vector skin has actually been in the works since 2019:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vector_2022>A very brief timeline>2020 – Skin launch on first set of pilot wikis, including French, Farsi and Hebrew WikipediasLmao, just lmao. It's been enabled in Japanese as well for some time now.
The village pump has a loooooot of discussion going on regarding this. There's a lotta stuff to read there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)>As always, it will take at most three days for most of the cache to be updated. Before that, Vector legacy will load on some pages. After that, readers will see the new skin on any page.True enough, I opened a bunch of random pages and they had the new UI, while recently visited ones still had the old UI. This didn't happen on the Spanish and Italian instances though, I don't think they've adopted it (or so I hope). Their village pumps are kinda empty. Wiktionary hasn't adopted it either.
Other points in the English pump are how to turn it off through one's
user config (Anonymous can suck it), editors hating it, a frog reader chiming in to say he's been hating it for years, apparently even Wikipedia's own community voted against it but the UI got imposed anyways.
>Overall, this is basically the same thing as shoehorning mobile web into desktop; and I condemn WMF for this.This guy's pretty late to the punch.
The one thing I like about is that the language changer got moved to the top, but other than that it plain sucks. It's very strange to me that they mention the collapsible sidebar as a notable and positive change when minimizing it doesn't expand the article's width, and to reopen it you have to go all the way up to the top of the screen. I don't get it. There's an obscure button on the bottom-right corner of the screen to increase width, but... it only applies to the current page? Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interface_changes>Interface changes annoy people, because people are creatures of habit. [citation needed]>>How to cope>Remember that most people adapt to smaller changes within a couple of weeks, and to larger ones within a month or two, even if they are initially shocked by a disruptive change or believe that the change was pointless or unnecessary. Complaints received after giving the new system a fair trial are likely to be more thoughtful, reasoned and respected than instantaneous, knee-jerk reactions.why, v, why
>>1739The content's still there.
>focus on their own wikisWhich often use the even worse piece of trash that is fandom.
No.1744
Why is it so hard just to make it toggleable
No.1745
Check out these titles:
>Why??
>This is terrible! Bring back the old website design now!
>The new format is godawful
And a great post by IWantTheOldInterfaceBack:
I suppose we need to shrink the page
width even more now to meet this
onerous requirement which was cert-
ainly designed by someone in an
ivory tower with no conception of
how people actually use the inter-
net.
No.1746
I don't know why things keep changing. It's those dumb libs and academics forcing me not to use VHS and floppy drives.
No.1747
>>1738Stuff like this was always weird to me. Like, who thinks "you know what Wikipedia REALLY needs? A brand new UI!".
I've never once seen somebody even talk about Wikipedia's UI before now. It's just for reading articles, you don't need some fancy UI overhaul for it. These changes seem to happen all the time even though they're almost always universally disliked.
No.1748
>>1747This opinion is selective reading and searching for confirmation bias. The people designing a UI change have goals they're trying to reach and they probably communicated them somewhere very clearly.
- Brand new UI are made to resolve issues the ownership has with the site.
- New UI are complained against by people who do not know why changes were made (even though the ownership is often very transparent and open to discussion during the development process)
- There is always a method to use legacy pages and ownership respects respectful feedback (which is seldom the case when dealing with people who reject change)
No.1750
First you had the bocchi wars
Then you had the onimai war
Now its time for the wikipedia war
No.1751
this is hardly anything significant enough to be given a meta label
No.1752
>>1748>>1749I'm not saying I personally dislike it, just that I think it seems a little moot. To me, it just seems like a waste of resources to make a whole new UI, especially for something like Wikipedia where all people really want to do is just read an article. The language setting being moved is a nice change, but if there was some overarching goal they wanted to achieve with a new UI I don't think it's obvious to most users.
Most of the time stuff like this just generates divisiveness and split camps between the old and the new even if it was done with good intention. Anyway, as long as you can switch it with extensions/user settings I don't think it's that big of a deal.
No.1753
>>1751Only one of those was not a joke
No.1755
hi wikipe-tan
No.1756
>>1739>but wikipedia is mostly dead now anywaysI know its hit with userbase rot (due to aging and death). I wonder if this is to try help appeal to youngsters
No.1757
>>1756I... don't think that wikipedia suffers the same problems with userbase aging like social media does. It's not even comparable... Wiki just keeps getting more and more used by those in education and/or searching things online.
No.1758
>>1748>confirmation biasAlright, post cases where this kind of thing was widely accepted, then.
>- Brand new UI are made to resolve issues the ownership has with the site.Yeah, and that doesn't make it good.
>- New UI are complained against by people who do not know why changes were madeHere's a discussion from September 2022, where serious wikipedians, people who are clearly involved and know what they're talking about, were already opposing the new skin for the exact same reasons that are being are currently generating complaints in the village pump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deployment_of_Vector_(2022)#OpposeThey knew this was going to happen. Proper feedback was given and disregarded.
>- There is always a method to use legacy pagesSee below.
>>1749>>How to turn off the new skin>From the left menu (sidebar), select the link “Switch to old look”Requires an account.
>Open the user menu from the button at the top right corner of the page, then select preferences.Requires an account.
>Alternatively, you may use the "toggle" button that is available on some screen resolutions.>This is not a permanent fix.Self-explanatory.
>>How to expand the width of the new skin>click or tap the toggleHas to be done for every single page you're visiting, incredibly impractical.
I'll be honest, I like the bigger search bar and the contents table on the left, but limiting width to the point that I'm seeing half the text I used to, that's unjustifiable, real wikipedians and regular readers alike have said so before. They also spent three years developing it and somehow didn't test what scripts it would break either, this was called out as well.
C'mon V, the only kneejerk reaction here is yours. You should look up the definition, just in case.
No.1759
>>1758I'm not going to debate you on what you feel.
In the end of the day it's the forward march of progress. Add some features that are neat(and wouldn't fit in the old design) and get a bunch of grandpas telling you the good old days were better.
You are a grandad
No.1762
>>1759>and wouldn't fit in the old designNot really? Moving the search bar from its small corner to the top of the page was perfectly doable, there was a decent amount of empty space up there. The sidebar would've been a lot more complicated but I personally believe its new functionality is more useful for readers and justifies expanding the sidebar's width, though the editors who used it should not have been left behind. Making it a hamburger menu serves no purpose since page width is fixed, doesn't achieve anything, and is cumbersome to reopen.
The simplified aesthetics are odd, but not really something that bothers me, honestly.
No.1764
The new design is obviously bad, what are you people talking about
No.1769
I hate old people.
No.1770
>>1768I actually like the frames aspect of it.
No.1772
>>1763Enabling a third-party feature to restore something that was removed is about as much of a fix as youtube dislike addons are. Hell, this one's even more awkward than those, because it's a toggle instead.
>>1768>looks like people are already creating fixesProving once more that a lotta folks ain't stupid.
No.1773
I love old people.
No.1775
ojiisan daisuki
No.1776
that's what she said
No.1777
She, being either a busty jk with a herbivore bf or a loli
No.1779
>>1770Oh, I like frames too. It makes more sense than scrolling to the top, but it's weird to see the default windows scrollbar like it's 2002. I seem to remember that teenagers back then didn't have too much of an issue customizing it, so it's strange. But, maybe it looks "professional" for it to be plain.
No.1780
>>1778shotgun better be a euphemism
No.1781
>>1780lookit this nerd never shotgunned the front seat of a car
No.1782
>>1781I would hazard to guess most of kissu cant even drive
>>1772You know, the difference between something like youtube and Wikipedia is that I assume stuff done by Wikimedia is in good faith rather than Google protecting corporate interests.
No.1783
VROOM VROOM
gonna run over all the non driving kissuers in my humvee
No.1784
Baidu Baike could try to make an English version to capitalize on the dissatisfaction of this
No.1785
noooo this guy ran over me and left with the loli literally ntr
No.1786
>>1782The mistake is not to assume bad faith from Wikipedia, it's to discard good faith from Google.
>>1784I don't think it'd be feasible, having to rebuild the entirety of all Wikipedias while conforming to the standards of CCP and having the bad PR of being a Chinese replacement all at the same time. Impossible.
No.1787
If website redesigns were ever actually desirable and necessary then webmasters could put up a "switch to the new design" button and actually see how many people want to use it when it's not forced on them. Surely if the new design is so much better for all those rationalized reasons they vomit out then merely clicking a button is no great barrier to its adoption, right? All the users will hear about how much better the hamburger menu is and will choose to switch to it, right?
No.1788
>>1787they lay it out here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interface_changesAnd the other unwritten thing is that these changes don't get made in a few weeks. It takes a lot of effort.
And the end goal is making the end product have more features. The existing UI can't contain more stuff and potentially there's a lot of software clutter so they use a new design to rebuild the front and sometimes server code
No.1789
>>1788It also looks like its meant to bring parity with the mobile ui for what it's worth
No.1790
>>1788>a change for the better.>something that's clearly an improvement,Whether this is actually true or not is precisely what's in question in the first place.
No.1791
>>1790An obsession with good and bad is what makes you a neanderthal. It's closer to art and optimization, both topics that are inherently neutral.
You simply have to adapt to change. The sooner someone accepts that their way of life is as flimsy as a piece of paper the better it is for them.
No.1792
>>1791>An obsession with good and bad is what makes you a neanderthal.Neanderthals must have been truly epic. Things really were better in the past, the further back the better, all the way to human prehistory...
sighs for all that has been lost No.1793
The funny thing is nobody would care if it just used more of your screen, the changes are minimal aside from that
No.1794
>>1785There hasn't been a good give-you-a-persisent-s
tomachache-worsen-your
-mental-illness-ruins-
platonic-romance-make-
you-consider-becoming-
asexual in a few years or so
I wonder if its cuz slow burn bait and switch NTR only works a couple of times before you get desensitized to it
Or that the xration and MTSP + a handful of games and that pink hair 2000s hentai did it so well that the genre didnt even bother trying to top it and just started focusing on appealing to masos
No.1796
>>1795I like how images of feces are on the same level as extreme fetishes and gore to wikipedia
No.1797
>>1794Also, the fanbase of it has a bunch of hipsters leaving because of a certain doujin bringing in a bunch of norms
No.1798
>>1738I'm kind of mixed on this, honestly.
I think, in the broad strokes, this is a change for the better. Putting the contents in a floating sidebar makes it easier to navigate the article, and it overall the page feels less cluttered, more organized, and overall "cleaner".
I also appreciate that it's not hyper-aggressivly "new" looking like, say, Deviantart's eclipse redesign. It's definitely influenced by current web design trends, but it's not to the point where it'll be dated when trends change. It's a quality it has in common with the theme that it replaced.
With that said, there's this overall lack of polish that makes the whole thing feel like an amateur effort. On my tablet, the contents column is way too wide and the article itself is super squished. On bigger screens, you get stuff like
>>1760, which wasn't a problem for the previous skin.
I feel like they needed to do more testing and get more user feedback before rolling this out proper. That ship has sailed, obviously, so at this point I hope they listen to the feedback they're getting now and make adjustments.
>>1739>wikipedia is mostly dead now anywaysI don't know what your idea of "dead" is, but I don't want to live in a world where a site as big as Wikipedia is considered to be "dying".
>>1743>>1745>>1758Meh. In my experience, you'll always see a vocal minority of users complain about change early on because they're the sort of people who can be bothered to comment on it. Most people, even if they dislike the change, don't really care that much. See also Youtube's many redesigns.
I'm not saying that people are wrong to dislike it; as I said before there's definitely things worth criticizing. I just don't think the initial internet reaction to something like this is really worth much on its own.
>>1764It's apparently
not obvious, seeing as people are in disagreement on it!
>>1787The problem is that very few people will actually be bothered to click a button to switch to a different design. Your average user just wants to get to their content. The better strategy is to do something like Kissu, where the new design is considered standard and is what you see by default, while still giving users the option to opt-out and switch back to the old interface. This also gives better feedback, since if enough people switch back it's a sign there's something wrong with the new interface.
Wikipedia actually
does do this, kinda; you can switch back to older skins, but the mechanism for doing so is way more round-about and cumbersome than it needs to be, and the vast majority of casual users don't even know that such a feature exists.
>>1792Die hippie
No.1800
I want two hamburger menus muahahaha
No.1805
>>1798>The problem is that very few people will actually be bothered to click a button to switch to a different design. Your average user just wants to get to their content.Goes to show the value of new designs and how a forced change to a website's design just gets in the way of ordinary users. If the revealed preferences of users are that they are fine with the old UI, well tough, you wasted all that effort developing a new UI for nothing.
I started using Kissu after the vichan UI was put on original.kissu.moe and used it with that old design. (The ease of switching is much appreciated by the way.) Then I made the switch to the new design after the
Lala theme was introduced. You provide incentives to using the new thing, you don't disincentivise the old thing, that's how you do it right.
No.1808
>>1805God I fucking hate you. You want a flood of advertisement (COME USE OUR MOBILE APP!!) spam instead of having the new thing be adopted by default and dealing with people who would rather use a less feature dense and unmaintained system.
No.1809
Or wait, I probably missinterpretted your idiotic ideas and should have put more emphasis onto your idea that nothing should ever change because I never got any stability
No.1811
>>1754wait... the pieces on her head...
>>1761FUCK NO
No.1812
>>1808>>1809Dumb argumentative shitposter
No.1813
Having two hamburger menus would be great. One menu as a directory and one menu for the table of contents. This would actually make the article even WIDER now that you've hidden everything else under buttons.
No.1815
I take it back, the new sidebar is surprisingly bad. Why did they collapse its subsections? Turns out that, for any large page, going back to the top through turbo autoscrolling the old way was actually faster than the current thing sluggish expansion. You can't even see what's inside a section area before expanding it, unlike the previous one that gave you an entire overview of the article as soon as you entered the page. Moving it into the sidebar and making it accompany you also means you now have to scroll through the list itself when it becomes too long and, to top it off, it doesn't use the full height of my screen either. It's not worth it.
>>1798>needed to do more testing and get more user feedback before rolling this out properYeah, this was pointed out at least half a year ago in the Deployment page above, they didn't bother to do any proper testing even after working on it for three years. Literal years to write a basic-ass test plan for not a lot of features spread throughout a few platforms, but, apparently, for some reason they just didn't.
>>1808Wikipedia isn't some live service videogame that needs to constantly add features to remain relevant, it's an internet encyclopedia. A book with hyperlinks. Doesn't need to shoot lasers. You're perfectly able to update the backend without reinventing its frontend functionality.
No.1816
>>1815Websites aren't a book anymore. They're applications.
You need to start accepting that reality is not what it was when you were growing up.
No.1817
>>1814This made me laugh. Koruri is so cute
No.1818
>>1816Would you buy a sponge with an infrared sight?
No.1819
>>1818I would buy a strawman and sell it to you for an overpriced value
No.1820
>>1819>strawmanVerm-chama............
...
No.1822
>>1816Websites can be both.
No.1823
>>1822I mean something more technical than theoretical where you have traditional pages. The JS or WASM SPA style vs served HTML pages. Wikipedia is still served style with some minor tweaks which makes the conservative baby's in this thread all the more rediculous.
No.1824
>>1823Nobody has at any point argued that the site's code should remain stagnant, strawman seller.
No.1825
>>1824Of course you don't think software and UI are related. You are a moron who can't cook
No.1826
>>1823>>1825That sounds like a cop-out. I really don't think it would have been hard for them to reformat the page so the text lines up how it did before. They deliberately chose to have in centralised like this so it looks like it does on mobile phones, maybe even so the same page can be used for both.
No.1827
>>1826yeah yeah, it's a culture war against desktop users. I get it.
No.1828
The new UI is objectively trash because I need to zoom in to reduce whitespace and if I transfer that zoom to another monitor of a different size I no longer have full vision anymore
No.1829
How many of you guys finally stopped using ehentai by the way?
No.1830
>>1827It's not a cultural war, they either don't care, are basing their decisions on mobile users or it's a cost saving measure.
This isn't a good UI and even if you think it is the fact that we are having this conversation and the fact that others in this thread share the same opinion means that a significant portion of users will also share the opinion that it's bad, which given that it's a site meant to be used by the population as a whole, means it's turning away users and so failing at that.
Generally, making your encyclopedia difficult to read and hated by a good portion of the users is not a good idea.
No.1832
>>1828You're objectively trash. Stop abusing that word.
>>1830You're working under the assumption that you and the people you associate with are representative of the masses. I kind of doubt that you actually are, considering you're using a hard-core anime-culture imageboard that nobody knows about.
No.1833
>>1832>Stop abusing that wordObjectively I'm not because it's objectively lacking functionality when trying to browse normally.
No.1834
>>1832It does not matter what sites I use or what my interests are, the issue I have with the site is with the UI and readability, I really don't see how anime-culture would affect that or would be relevant at all.
No.1835
>>1834certainly interested in culture wars
No.1836
>>1835What are you talking about? I don't care about culture wars I just want the text of the site to be readable.
No.1837
V didnt start the fire
No.1838
>>1834Actually, it does. That you're using a site like Kissu means you're significantly more web and overall tech-literate and invested in the web than the average Wikipedia user.
Remember, most of the people on Wikipedia are kids using it to write essays and people looking up facts on their smartphones. These people don't care about this anywhere near as much as you do.
No.1839
>>1836that your drama is manufactured outrage over wikipedia removing two columns from their webpages
No.1840
>>1838I don't know that I am really. But kids reading pages for their essay are still human beings reading, they still are going to want information to be presented to them in the most accessible and readable format possible.
>>1839How is it manufactured? I find the changes to make the site less useable and thus voice my option on that. If anybody is manufacturing drama it is you as you do not seem to understand that other viewpoints do in fact exist and so you then turn everything into drama because to you if somebody sees something in a different way then it must be because they are engaging in culture wars, not because they just want a site to read better.
No.1841
>>1840Most kids won't really care. It's ultimately not that big of a change.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong for disliking the changes. I just think you're wrong-headed in terms of how you're approaching it.
No.1843
>>1835>>1839dumb argumentative shitposter
No.1845
>>1844Takes one to know one
No.1846
>>1826>maybe even so the same page can be used for both.That would be nice because getting linked the mobile page is always annoying, even on a phone. But they haven't gotten rid of the separate mobile page, at least not yet.
No.2019
I saw the whole post before it was deleted.