Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions/ru

Читаемость
Наша основная причина ограничения ширины контента — это улучшить читаемость всего удивительного содержимого наших вики. Эффективное чтение текста имеет решающее значение для подавляющего большинства всех случаев чтения и редактирования в наших проектах. Хотя есть несколько факторов, влияющих на читаемость, например: размер шрифта, контрастность, сам шрифт и длина строки — изначально мы решили сосредоточиться на длине строки. Исследование о формировании длины строки при чтении печатных текстов рекомендует длину строки от 45 до 90 символов в строке (cpl). Недавние исследования по чтению текста веб-сайта сосредоточены в основном на диапазоне от 35 до 100 cpl, при этом большинство рекомендаций относятся к меньшему концу этого диапазона. Однако в настоящее время без каких-либо ограничений по ширине содержания статьи читатели могут обнаружить, что длина строки намного превышает рекомендуемый диапазон. Исследование 2005 года хорошо обобщает последние исследования: «короткие строки легче читать», и, кроме того, что касается обучения и удержания информации, «испытуемые, читающие узкие абзацы, запоминают лучше, чем те, кто читает широкие абзацы».

Наконец, хотя для нас всегда важно проводить собственное исследование и делать собственные выводы, мы считаем, что стоит отметить огромное количество крупных веб-сайтов, которые имеют аналогичные ограничения по ширине контента. Например: академические журналы, такие как Nature, новостные веб-сайты, такие как The New York Times, правительственные и межправительственные веб-сайты, такие как UN, академические документы, такие как LaTeX, и текстовые процессоры, такие как [ https://www.google.com/docs/about/ Google Docs] и Etherpad. Эти примеры в сочетании с обширными исследованиями вселяют в нас уверенность в правильности этого решения.

Короче говоря, ограничение ширины содержимого обеспечивает лучшую читаемость, меньшее напряжение глаз и лучшее запоминание самой информации.

Но что насчет всего пустого пространства!?
Мы слышали от примерно 30 редакторов (особенно людей с большими экранами), которые были разочарованы пустым пространством, появившемся по бокам страницы, хотя некоторые из них согласны с тем, что ограничение ширины лучше для чтения. По-видимому, есть две основные причины этого разочарования: Наша цель — создать наилучшие условия для чтения, а не заполнять контентом каждый пиксель экрана. И в этом случае меньше означает на самом деле больше — люди могут легче читать с более короткими строками и легче фокусироваться, не отвлекаясь на боковые панели или другие элементы. Если лучший макет — это тот, который включает пустое пространство, это нормально — в пустом пространстве нет ничего плохого по своей сути.
 * 1) Пустое пространство кажется потраченным впустую
 * 2) Пустое пространство яркое и отвлекает

Кроме того, по мере продвижения проекта мы надеемся начать использовать часть этого пространства для других функций. Мы начали экспериментировать с приклеиванием боковой панели к левой стороне страницы (ссылка на прототип). Further along in the project we plan to experiment with putting a table of contents and/or page tools next to the content. Also, as, limiting the content width gives us new options for content layout, such as a right-hand column dedicated to infoboxes and images.

Why can’t readers just make their browser windows smaller?
Several people have pushed back saying: if people want the content to be more narrow they can make their browser window smaller, or click the “Mobile view” link at the bottom of the page. As mentioned above: since we know that the majority of people come to read articles we should optimise the layout around that use case. We only have one chance to make a first impression and we should aim to give people a great experience as soon as they arrive, without them having to make adjustments.

Tables and other templates don’t fit within the limited width, isn’t that bad?
We have received several reports of tables with long horizontal scroll bars, or templates that expand past the limited width. We’d like to point out that a large percentage of our users, who don’t have large screens and are accessing Wikipedia from their laptops, already had issues with tables and templates even before the change. We should work to make sure that all of our content is as responsive as possible to accommodate all visitors.

Why don’t we just make it a setting?
One of the best parts of the MediaWiki interface is how configurable it is. And while we could make a setting for content width we wonder if it might be beneficial to encourage a common experience that is shared between editors and readers. This could potentially be helpful to editors when making decisions about page layouts (note: 1024px is mentioned as a minimum size to consider in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, though that’s not quite the same thing). Currently an editor might be editing a page at a width of 1500px, while a reader reads it at a width of 1200px. By implementing a max-width we don’t remove this discrepancy completely (because there would still be variation below the max-width, for people with narrower screens), however we would be greatly limiting the range of variation.

That said, we are not inherently against configurability. If you would like to continue using the new version of the Vector skin without the limited width, you can use a local user script or gadget to do so. We can recommend this one.

How did we decide on 960px for the width?
Please review this page to learn more about how we made this decision:

When will these changes be available on the largest wikis?
We hope to see the changes set as default on all wikis later in the year. Each community is welcome to join the early adopters.

Are the improvements to be implemented on sister projects and on non-Latin script wikis?
Yes. We have already made a list of early adopter wikis which represents various sizes and scripts. We also wanted to ensure that at least one non-Wikipedia project is selected.

On which wikis are these changes turned on by default?
Currently, these are: We are open to add more wikis to this list!

Additionally:
 * Office Wiki
 * 
 * MediaWiki wiki
 * Wikimedia Foundation Governance wiki
 * Collab wiki
 * Strategy wiki

How can this be deployed on my home Wikimedia wiki?
If you are interested to see the Desktop Improvements as default on your wiki,
 * 1) ask your community and reach the consensus,
 * 2) contact SGrabarczuk (WMF), email: sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org if you need support.

How can I enable it on my own (third-party) wiki?
First, make sure you have downloaded. Be mindful that the stable version will be released in mid 2021. If you accept the risk and would like to see our changes anyway, add following lines in your :

We are glad to learn that you appreciate our improvements!

Will Monobook or Timeless be affected?
No. These changes will be applied to Vector only. [ Vector] has been the default interface on Wikimedia wikis since 2010. No other skins will be affected, including [ Monobook], [ Timeless], [ Minerva] or [ Modern].

Will you improve charts, maps, a-/f-/o-/tmboxes, infoboxes, navboxes, other templates?
No. We will not change anything that's within the light gray article content area (except for the table of contents):



How can I suggest improvements?
Add a section on the [ talk page of the main page of the project] or contact SGrabarczuk (WMF), email: sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

How do you work with the communities?

 * 1) Prior to the deployments:
 * 2) We performed user research, and reviewed gadgets and user scripts. See the  for more details.
 * 3) We have been reaching out to various wikis asking to join the early adopters.
 * 4) We had a roundtable discussion at Wikimania in 2019 (see the outcomes).
 * 5) We have run two prototype testing rounds. Editors could gain an understanding of our ideas, and share what they appreciate or find confusing.
 * 6) Shortly after the deployment of each feature improvement, we collect usage data via  for each early adopter wiki.
 * 7) We run A/B tests for logged-in users. A half of them can experience the changed interface, and a half does not see any difference. Next, we compare the statistics. In the case of negative results, we improve the change or roll it back.
 * 8) For logged-out, we compare before and after. Unfortunately, we are not able to perform A/B tests on logged-out users.
 * 9) We watch the project talk page. We also engage in discussions on individual wikis regularly.
 * 10) Our  make it easier for us to work with a few communities more closely, react more quickly and effectively.

How can I disable it?
It's possible to turn the improvements on and off within user preferences. We have also provided an opt-out button in the left sidebar (accessible on each page): 

Will you remove the link that allows to opt-out?
We will not remove the opt-out link. Legacy Vector will continue to be available through that link, similar to other skins that have been default in the past, such as Monobook.

How can I report a bug?
Check the following page to see if your bug is a know issue.

You can add a task on Phabricator and add Desktop Improvements project tag or contact SGrabarczuk (WMF), email: sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Why not make a new skin? What will happen to Legacy Vector?
It would be an excellent idea to make a new skin, but in the case of Wikimedia skins, it's easier to change an existing one than to create a new one from scratch. There are various reasons:


 * it would be too complex to make the existing extensions, gadgets, and user scripts compatible with yet another skin, and too costly to maintain their compatibility,
 * it would be too challenging to build and maintain yet another skin (as a total replacement is not an option),
 * it would be less likely for the communities to collaborate effectively in the process of building a new skin.

Technically, Desktop Improvements are similar to previous features or projects such as or. The only difference is that this time, there will be more of them. Vector documentation should remain relevant.

We will keep and maintain the Legacy Vector. There is no intention of its removal.

Why not use beta features only?
Beta features are available for registered users only, and the improvements are intended to serve our readers and unregistered users as well. Therefore, using beta features only would give us feedback from a very specific type of user that is not representative of our entire base of users. And moreover, we wish to receive the readers' and anonymous users' feedback from the earliest deployments.

What are the feature's success metrics?
Increase utility among our existing audiences, proxied by:


 * Interactions
 * Increase searches per session by 5% over the course of the project
 * Increase language switching per project by 5% over the course of the project


 * Affinity
 * Increase in positive and welcoming sentiments towards the site (via surveys and user testing)
 * Increase in sentiments of trust and credibility (measured via surveys and user testing)

As we define the changes we want to make with more specificity, we will expand and iterate on this list.