Jump to: navigation, search

Previous discussion is archived at Talk:Winter/Archive 1.

Newest topics
By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL

Have you seen WikiWand?

Reply • 2 comments •
Sonitalk contribs

Hi. I wonder if you have checked out WikiWand, which does something very similar to Winter. It could be interesting to see what features they've implemented and how relevant they could be to Winter.

What's interesting is that the website claims to increase Wikipedia load speed by 3 times, which is astonishingly fast. I wonder if the Winter team could look into what makes Wikiwand faster, and maybe implement something along similar lines to increase speed as well.

Tar Lócesiliontalk contribs

Yup, WikiWand is well known (well-sold? :p ) and all possible questions have been probably answered. Imho the greatest difference between WikiWand and Winter is its target: Winter team works for contributors and readers when WikiWand team seems to underestimate "Edit" button (are they aware of the existence of our community?). This fact excludes WikiWand from further discussion. Moreover, projects that aim to modernise MediaWiki interface are numerous (I think there was an analysis of them!). WikiWand wants to be known as the most 'trendy', 'cool' etc. WMF staff was improving MediaWiki design it before it was cool :p

Reply to "Have you seen WikiWand?"

First impressions

Reply • 5 comments •
Diego Moyatalk contribs

I've just discovered the prototype, and I want to write down my first impressions before any other rational analysis:

  • I miss Wikipedia puzzle-ball logo. I've later discovered that it can be seen by zooming out to 90%, but the first gut feeling was one of a void, bare, unadorned page, not aesthetically pleasing. Recovering the left column with the logo made that impression go away.
  • I love the clean, modern design, new layout for tools and navigation, and the right sidebar with useful, contextual tools! Good work.

Accessed on chrome browser on Windows 7.

Diego Moyatalk contribs

Ok, I have now seen that the design is reactive and the left panel is shown with the window maximized, as well as the labels for buttons.

I have found a big no-no, a showstopper that would make me avoid using this interface in its entirety: none of the new interface buttons work as standard links with respect to the context menu and the "open link in new tab" option. As my navigation style involves opening lots of links at new tabs and accessing them later, I couldn't use this skin except by:

  • copying the url,
  • manually opening a new tab,
  • pasting and loading the url,
  • only then navigating to the target section,
  • repating the above for each link I want to open.

I usually do all that in quick succession with fast middle-clicks on several links, so this interface makes my usual workflow slow as molasses.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

Hrm. They *should* open in new tabs. You are referring to the links below the title (read/edit/history/etc.) ? I'll have to take a look at it.

Either way, this is not something that the production version will encounter.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

I should probably explain why the production version won't encounter it: the prototype isn't built on top of MediaWiki and is instead scrubbed entirely "in ram" from Javascript. That means that the links actually don't do anything when they first load, and have to have their actions connected after the fact.

Real MediaWiki installs won't have this problem.

Diego Moyatalk contribs

Yes, I was referring to those buttons. They appear as plain text button elements to the context menu, so the "open link in new tab" option is missing.

As these are navigation actions, and not POST forms, it would be best to make them links so that they work as expected for default browser operations (copying the target URL to the clipboard, opening in new tabs, "save target as...")

Reply to "First impressions"

Some confusing things

Reply • 1 comment •
Patrick Stützeltalk contribs

In my opinion the Idea oft winter is good, but there are some things which are a little bit confusing:

  1. The Design: It seems to be mixture of the actual vector surface and the mobile surface, two totaly different things which doesn't fit together. It has no clear structure, because there are three different kind of things to klick on. In the Personal Toolbar you have grey icons; in the toolbar on the top of the articletext you have a bold text with icons; below the wikiglobe you have "normal" links like in vector.
  2. The dropdownmenus and the toolbars: The personal toolbar contains all points which are also part of the dropdownmenu, why? Same question for the dropdownmenu next to the wikipedialogo, which contains all features of the toolbar on the top of the articletext. In my opinion you should use either a toolbar or a dropdownmenu.
  3. The Table of Content: it is a part of the article, so it should be visible on its normal position and not hidden in a dropdownmenu.
  4. The searchbar: It is too large for the desktop version.
  5. The right colum: If you have an article without infobox and Commons-Template (e.g. the german version of the winter, the colum is nearly empty and wastes much space on the screen especially on small screens. In my opinion it would be better to remove the collum an put the interwikis into the left collum, the infobox into the text area (like in vector) and the Commons-Template below the infobox, because the Article itself is the most important thing and should get as many space as possible.
  6. The technik behind the surface: if JS was turned off, it is impossible to read the article, because you don't see it. In my opinion the text must be readable without js, because there are people who disamble js or they use computers where js is blocked for security reasons. Because of this, there should be a textbox which says "you should enamble Javascript to see the full layout and use all tools" on the top of a readable version of the article itselft.
  7. the layout of the headlines: there should be a line below the headline like in the vector skin, because without this line you don't see where a main-section starts and ends, because all headlines nearly look the same.
  8. the history page: there must be a possibility to visit the diff-pages, because without this possibility the history-page looses much of its sense.
  9. the backgroundcolors: the background is completely white, only the background of the right colum is grey. Why? In my opinion there should be a clear difference between the article text background and the background of the rest of the page like in vector, so that the reader can see this is the article and this is the other stuff around the article, which is not a part of the article.
  10. the top bar which you see all the time: in my opinion this bar wastes much space, if you have a small display, so its better to remove the bar or give a possibility to fix the bar on the top of the article.
  11. hover-effects: they should be removed, because they don't work on a touchscreen and especially the hover-effect in the searchbar is very confusing.
  12. hiding things in dropdownmenus: in my opinion all links should be visible like in vector. Only buttons which are less important like move, delete or protect should be hidden in a dropdownmenu, if there is not enough space on the screen.
  13. the "more"-button in the toolbar on the top of the article (bug?): it behaves strange, because the box around the text, which apears, when you move the mouse over the button, ends around the "r" of "more" and does not include the arrow next to the text.

I think these are all things, which are confusing for me.

Reply to "Some confusing things"


Reply • 2 comments •
Llywrchtalk contribs

I don't like the default font. Is there a simple way to change it to a serif font, or will I need to edit the related javascript files?

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

Llywrch: You'll have to make changes in your personal css, I'm afraid. While I think many people can agree that serif fonts are subjectively "prettier" for display and reading, there are design constraints involved with font selection.

For users who have dyslexia, large text blocks of serif fonts can be extremely difficult to read (they create "gutters" in the text). (There are also issues involving people who have certain forms of macular degeneration where this can occur, too).

Accordingly, for accessibility's sake, we must stick with sans-serif fonts for blocks of text.

Reply to "Fonts"

Search bar inconsistent wording

Reply • 1 comment •
Lazowiktalk contribs
  • changning text on hover is really strange
  • why change placeholder text to page's title? That's really confusing. I initially thought that this would change search from global to inside article (was rightly expecting global search though) The intention was probably to keep the page's title visible, but that's certainly not the way to go.
Reply to "Search bar inconsistent wording"

Table of contents icon

Reply • 2 comments •
Wittylamatalk contribs

The icon indicating the table of contents (now located up to the left of the search box) looks the same whether or not the article currently being viewed is a 1-line stub, or a very long article. In the current WP interface, the table of contents automatically appears when there is a few sub-sections in the article. Now in 'Winter' it looks the same either way. I think this would be confusing to many people (even when they get over the initial shock of the ToC disappearing from where they're used to it. I would personally like to see if more visible than you've currently got it, but at least make a visual differentiation between when there IS and ISN'T a ToC to show.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

Wittylama: We are actively looking at this specific part of the interface. We agree that the icon isn't sufficient (and testing has shown that with actual data).

There are a couple ways we can move on this, including but not limited to:

  • Changing the icon to something more meaningful;
  • Modifying the icon based on the content it includes;
  • Applying a "bounce" effect on the menu (or something similar) to aid in discoverabilty;
  • Removing the in-header Table of Contents altogether;

We'll probably start with the bounce thing and see what that gets us.

Reply to "Table of contents icon"

Infoboxes that are longer than the article text

Reply • 3 comments •
TheCatalyst31talk contribs

In many shorter articles such as this one, the infobox is longer than the article text. The gray bar at the bottom of the page still appears at the end of the article text, though, so it obscures part of the infobox.

JKDwtalk contribs

TheCatalyst31: This is listed on the main page as one of the known issues. Below it, it says "This only affects the prototype; it's part of the way it is constructed."

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

TheCatalyst31: I'm just going to echo what JamesDouch said. It's a prototype-only bug.

Reply to "Infoboxes that are longer than the article text"

Navboxes and categories

Reply • 2 comments •
Imzadi1979talk contribs

Are these being removed? Michigan State Trunkline Highway System should have a navbox below the items in the bulleted list in the External links section, yet the box is missing.

Also, how are categories going to be displayed since they don't appear at the bottom of the articles.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

Imzadi1979: Some things are not displayed simply because they display buggy out of the gate and I haven't had a chance to clean up the css for them.

Reply to "Navboxes and categories"

Winter breaks some infobox applications

Reply • 2 comments •
Scott5114talk contribs

On the English Wikipedia's highway articles, we have some mini-infoboxes that serve as an infobox for a specific subsection of the article. Winter breaks pages making use of these by shoving all of these infoboxes to the right rail area. Compare under Vector with —note how the infoboxes no longer line up with the content they illustrate.

Imzadi1979talk contribs

This is also an issue in other applications where the smaller infobox for a related road or highway appears in a section. For example, look at compared to . There is the mini infobox for County Road 553, which is the immediate predecessor to M-553, that is located in the history section. Further down, there is a mini infobox for M-554, a highway whose history is intimately related to M-553 and CR 553. These are also slid over into the right rail and shoved to the top of the article, disconnecting them from the content they reference.

Reply to "Winter breaks some infobox applications"

The sidebar hiding doesn't work good.

Reply • 6 comments •
WOLF LΔMBERTtalk contribs

If I want to re-show it, I have to be fast and hover over the Wikipedia puzzle ball, then click on "show" before the sidebar is gone again. Also, editing, in a monospace font, please.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

WOLF LΔMBERT: Yeah; I'm not a fan of how this behaves at all. I honestly think this is a bit of a failed idea. It's an interesting thought - remove all the clutter - but I don't wonder if it's too much.

Scott5114talk contribs

Seconding the monospace font for the edit box. Editing in a proportional font is painful.

Jorm (WMF)talk contribs

Scott5114: You know what's weird? The font is proportional for me using the stock editor on a stock account instance. I'm not sure when that changed, or if I even noticed it.

Scott5114talk contribs

Jorm (WMF): Interesting. I am only seeing the proportional font on the editor in the Winter prototype, not anywhere else.

WOLF LΔMBERTtalk contribs

Indeed; it might be good for newbies but I really don't like it. And I'm not going to use the VE, I'm too used to wikitext. So please.

Reply to "The sidebar hiding doesn't work good."