Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Archive8

Impact and goals
Second try, reposted from Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF team:

Thank you for this update. It's depressing that it takes a pitchfork mob on the English Wikipedia for the Wikimedia Foundation to answer an obvious question which previously went unanswered for a year: what are you trying to achieve here? How will we know that a certain version of the skin helps with the goals?

Unfortunately, this collection of cherry-picked statistics cannot tell us much, because we still have no idea what the strategy is behind this entire exercise. I could comment on the individual statistics but it would be pointless. I do notice there's nothing about onboarding new users, making editing more effective or "cross-project and cross-language functionalities" (recommended by WMF's own supposed strategy).

Because interfaces are a trade-off, changing things for the sake of improving some metric will inevitably worsen some other metric, so I can only assume that overall strategic goals are affected negatively by the changes.

Separately I also posted a comment on the strategy, which evidently failed to provide useful guidance for this project. Nemo 10:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like it.
For me, the old skin was fine. I was used to it, I knew where things were. No problem.

The new skin seems pointlessly different. Different isn't always bad, but in this case, there seemed to be way too much exra whitespace, meaning that the information density is lower.

I apologize to the people who I'm sure worked hard on it, but I did not follow the suggestion to "try it for at least one week prior to deciding whether to switch". I switched back to the previous Vector as soon as someone gave me the link. (Thanks, ). It was an easy decision.

This is unfounded speculation, but I suspect there's a certain amount of Politician's logic involved here. There was a (doubtless well-intentioned) goal to "make the interface more welcoming and usable", and there was money available to do the work... but once you've got a mandate and some money, you're not going to just tinker around the edges, you've pretty much got to do something big and bold and different, which means it's bound to be disruptive. —scs (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Tools menu and language switcher feedback
I will use https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:NGC_54?vectorpagetools=1&uselang=en and https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C8%9Ba?vectorpagetools=1&uselang=en as examples.


 * The tools in the "More" sections should be above tools in the "Tools" section.
 * The sister projects are missing.
 * I like the idea of adding the "Add interlanguage links" in the language switcher (T310259). The "Wikidata item" link could be moved there, too. Or maybe it cold be moved in the "In other projects" section.
 * "Upload file" and "Special pages" are not page-specific but are bundled with page-specific tools.
 * "Printable version" and "Download as PDF" are missing.
 * "User contributions", "Logs", "Block user", "Email this user", "Mute preferences" and "Change user groups" are user-specific, but they are bundled with page-specific tools.
 * T317898: The "move to sidebar" option should also be shown to unlogged users. This menu contains links interesting to readers, like "Cite this page", "Download as PDF", "Printable version", "Permanent link", "Page information" and the links to other projects.
 * There is no link to the page logs (https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Jurnal&page=Fran%C8%9Ba). This is not Vector 2022-specific, but Vector 2022 could fix this.

I propose the following order for pages that are not in the user space (like https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C8%9Ba?vectorpagetools=1&uselang=en):
 * Actions
 * Move
 * Delete
 * Protect
 * General
 * Page logs
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Page information
 * Print, share, link
 * Permanent link
 * Cite this page
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version
 * In other projects
 * (The list of pages)
 * Others
 * Special pages
 * Upload file

I propose the following order for pages that are in the user space (like https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:NGC_54?vectorpagetools=1&uselang=en or https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discu%C8%9Bie_Utilizator:NGC_54?vectorpagetools=1&uselang=en):
 * Actions
 * Move
 * Delete
 * Protect
 * General
 * Page logs
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Page information
 * User
 * "User contributions"
 * "User logs"
 * "Block user"
 * "Email this user"
 * "Mute preferences"
 * "User groups"
 * Print, share, link
 * Permanent link
 * Cite this page
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version
 * In other projects
 * (The list of pages)
 * Others
 * Special pages
 * Upload file

P.S. Please fix the T322978 bug. The task was created on 13 November, and now is 14 December. It is annoying to meet it daily :(

P.P.S. See ro:Special:Contribs/79.115.125.90 and ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea (permalink) for some feedback regarding the limited width and the new TOC (by an anonymous reader). -- NGC 54  ( talk |  contribs ) 17:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @NGC 54 thanks for this comment, it's very helpful. Regarding the missing items, those bugs will be fixed soon. Regarding the grouping and ordering of items in the menu, we've discussed enabling control of the page tools menu in a way similar to the main menu (which uses MediaWiki:Sidebar), which would allow individual wikis to customize the grouping and ordering. For now we are going to maintain the ordering and grouping that exists in Legacy Vector, but generally speaking we agree with you that there could be some improvements. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And I would also like a link to Special:CentralAuth. I often use this feature, and I would like quick access to it. -- NGC 54  ( talk |  contribs ) 13:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Old style TOC in Vector-2022 Skin
Is there a possibility to set up old style TOC in Vector-2022 Skin at my Mediawiki website v.1.39.0? Fokebox (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This problem has been raised multiple times both here and on en.wiki. Many users have expressed their preference for the old style TOC. However, this has been completely ignored by the developers, both here and on en.wiki. Moreover, in the general request for comment on en.wiki a majority of users expressed themselves AGAINST the implementation of Vector 2022; it has been completely ignored, and the result has even been sold as an endorsement. 37.161.248.115 05:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Basically I do like Vector 2022 except TOC style. I like how it is done in MW 1.38.x - there is a refreshed Vector skin, but with old TOC style. And I have couple wiki websites and just because of this fact I don't have desire to update to 1.39 ... if so I will have to change skin (Timeless as an example). Fokebox (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the new horrible TOC and the white spaces and width are the main problems of Vector 2022. But the complaints have been ignored by the developers. 37.161.248.115 09:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Very strange position ... I don't think it takes a lot of efforts for developers two make TOC view optional (old / new TOC style at vector-2022) for users and for those who has wiki websites!!! Fokebox (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I 1000% agree. I had to go back to the 2010 version of the skin just so I could navigate the page. This change is complete trash. This should have had a toggle to go back immediately. 24.42.211.97 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Fokebox and other folks in this discussion: I just want to acknowledge that the requests for the old style of the table of contents have not been ignored. We've read and responded to all of these comments, and we've written extensive documentation as to why we think the current implementation is a better approach. I understand it is frustrating: you want a certain change made, you think your idea is better than what is currently implemented, and you think we are ignoring you. However in this case your opinion represents a very small minority. It's not that we're ignoring you, instead it's that we've gotten more positive feedback than negative feedback, plus the extensive consideration of the 12+ designers at the WMF, so we've concluded to stick with the current implementation. Thankfully MediaWiki software is configurable, so you still have options. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "We've gotten more positive feedback than negative feedback". Where? On en.wiki a majority of users (165 vs 154) voted AGAINST Vector 2022, and many doubted the source and reliability of the data you presented in support on your choices. 37.161.68.229 15:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be this round of community feedback: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Third prototype testing/Feedback


 * Positive: 110, neutral: 38, negative: 23


 * You can read more here if you are interested: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Table of contents AHollender (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, your summary of the RfC is misleading in this context. Around 70% of the people who opposed Vector 2022 specifically opposed the limited width (which is now optional). Maybe 3 or 4 people objected to the table of contents. Every day, here and on Phabricator, we engage in fact-based conversations about the layout and various configurations/tradeoffs with community members, and are grateful for the engagement and feedback. If your goal is to make a case that the skin is poorly designed, and the WMF is not responsive to community feedback, I am confident you will not find evidence to support that. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How is the limited width optional? I'm sincerely asking as someone who has tried for the last half hour to get rid of it (without having to make yet another account on another website). It's either bugged or unintuitive... 92.234.239.124 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My Personal concern as a Mediawiki website owner. I do like new Vector style except the placement of TOC. And I do know that my website visitors also will be against of that. So that all I ask to make an option - to have new style TOC and have the old style TOC. Fokebox (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't tried the instructions, but this FAQ entry is entitled "How to restore the old table of contents". Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I tried by adding the script to my 2022 Vector javascript, but I saw no change in behaviour. I did not get the old TOC back. Jay (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't tried it. It looks like that text was added by, who is usually pretty good at communicating on talk pages. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hah, thanks :D So @Jay if it's not working now, then I'll try it out and ask my colleagues, developers at the team, to update the code. It will take a few days, though. In advance, I'd like to thank you for your patience! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

VPN Users Handicapped
As someone who reads wikipedia and its sister projects with a VPN and without an account, I have no way to revert back to the old legacy layout. The new layout is absolutely terrible especially since I am a desktop user with a wide monitor. I have no plans to ever use the 2022 vector layout as it just looks like the mobile layout which I also hate. Can you make it so that you can change the skin for your IP, so even if you don't have cookies enabled you can still have preferences? 172.58.174.193 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Maybe this little trick can help you: simply add «?useskin=vector» to every requested URL. It works for non-logged users. 37.134.90.176 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

New UI clearly not liked by the majority of people
Seeing how the UI was made default very recent and seeing how many people are talking about it looking bad and/or having multiple mistakes makes it very clear that the majority of people don't like this new UI, so I think that the new UI shouldn't be default on desktop. The old UI was much easier to navigate with and clearly more liked by the majority of people. I personally think that the old UI is also much better than the new one. 90.145.57.18 09:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree and I had to make an account to change back to the old one. Vector2022makesmesad (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 10/10 name 90.145.57.18 10:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think we can say that editors who don't like it are more vociferously opposed than those who do like it. I've not seen good quantitative info that the majority of readers prefer the old interface. But, similarly, the fact that the majority of beta testers and pilot wikis were broadly in favour may stem from self-selection in those groups. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The insolence to think you know better than me what my preferred reading arrangements are
I'm actually mad at you guys. Your stupid hamburger menus and your stupid wasted space. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR EVERYTHING. Stop hiding stuff behind stupid button presses. DON'T FORCE A MAXIMUM WIDTH ARE YOU STUPID? Skoinksx (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If you prefer the old look, you can switch back to it by changing the skin under user icon→"Preferences"→"Appearance" to "Vector legacy (2010)" —Kri 13:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the explanation. Hi Please read this Sockpuppetry, in particular the section Creating an illusion of support. About Vector 2022 you can find more information here and here, for example how to customize the content width. Please don't attack us, I understand you are frustrated but it is not very useful for us or for you. Please consider not using the capital letters too, on the internet it is considered like shouting. I'm hearing you and you are free to choose your preferred skin locally or globally. Hope those links should help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patafisik (WMF)  (User talk:Patafisik (WMF)  • Special:Contributions/Patafisik (WMF) )  16:01, 19 January 2023‎
 * Hey, you "forgot" to sign your post. It is considered good etiquette to sign your comments with ~ . Please explain why you are accusing this user in particular of sockpuppetry - there is really no need of using sockpuppets to post complaints about the new UX because many users are posting about it anyway. Freedomlinux (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I accused nobody. If this person is not concerning by sockpuppetry can just ignore my message. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? By telling them "using alt accounts is wrong" you are accusing them of socking. Why else did you bring it up? And could you "just ignore" their personal attack? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternative accounts? Do you think I'm the only person in the world that thinks your changes are idiotic? You think I'm the only person who thinks you didn't even read your own research? You REALLY think that?
 * And I AM SHOUTING because you're stupid and you need to be shouted at because you've forgotten yourselves. The absolutely gall to think that you know better than your users what their subjective opinions are BOGGLES THE MIND. You morons didn't even read your own UX research and that is plainly evident when you read the articles you use to explain it. They said "blank space is not wasted space" and "use blocks of blank space to separate logical blocks of information". You plonkers took it to mean that there must ONLY be blank space. How? What twisted mind led you to that conclusion?
 * Please tell me, exactly where in your research did someone come across the thesis: "the users will appreciate having to click multiple times to drill down into useless menus" OR "it's a good idea to hide information behind multiple disparate menus, located in every corner of the screen". You say you've been working on this redesign for years. In all those years, did not at least ONE of you say "oh you know what would be a good idea if we're limiting max text width?", and brace yourselves here, because I may just blow your little minds: PUTTING TWO COLUMNS OF TEXT PER PAGE. LIKE WORD? You know Word? You know WORDPAD? Fucking Wordpad understands stacking two pages side by side to fill the screen and Wikipedia doesn't.
 * The fucking gall. I wish I could take my donations back. Not because of the changes but because you've obviously grown to love the smell of your own farts to the point where you prefer them to air. Skoinksx (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Patafisik (WMF) Why are you bringing up of sockpuppetry for seemingly no reason when replying to people who are against the new design? You've done it multiple times on this page. I don't think it's helpful because it could end up making people assume that some of the posts that like the new redesign are actually sockpuppets, especially considering how few there are. WikEdits5 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not attacking you, he's attacking your ridiculous new layout that makes the site hard to use and makes everything unreadable. You should at least have the sense to take the current mass criticism and learn from it instead of accusing users of personal attacks. Freja Draco (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * did say ARE YOU STUPID?, so did use a personal attack. I agree with the rest though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming Page Tools sidebar: font size and line spacing too large
This is a comment about the upcoming Page Tools sidebar, which is visible by going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe?vectorpagetools=1

At least in my browser, the font size and line height used in this Page Tools sidebar, as is true with the font size used in the Table of Contents and Main Menu when they are pinned to the left sidebar, are all much too large. My browser tools "inspector" feature tells me that the font size in all three of these sidebar menus is the same as the font size in the main body of the article. In Vector 2010, the sidebar text is considerably smaller, with narrower line heights, allowing much better information density and the ability to scan for the desired option easily without having to scroll.

I have had to use custom CSS to restore the left sidebar and sidebar TOC to a reasonable (i.e. smaller) size and line spacing in Vector 2022, and I will have to do that with the page tools if the size stays the way it is.

I can post screen shots here or to a phab ticket if I am the only one experiencing this suboptimal UI. Pinging, who suggested that I post comments here. Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the same: standard body-text font size, and uniform line-spacing similar to a bulleted list in the body, make both right and left margins rather hard to read or to distinguish from body text. Sj (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the font size in those sidebars were reduced to the Vector 2010 size, the sidebars could be made much narrower while showing the same number of characters per line. This would make more space available for the page content, which is highly desirable (especially with two sidebars instead of one). Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops,, it appears that the sidebar was deployed with these problems in place. Here's hoping for a quick fix (or temporary revert). Jonesey95 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of visual contrast between areas of the page
I missed the original discussions, so hopefully there's still some room for feedback here. The reduced content width is actually one of the main things I like about the new skin as someone using a wide monitor, and the main reason I started adopting it a few months ago.

My main complaint is the lack of visual contrast between different areas of the page. Only the sidebar has a visual background and border separating it from the rest of the page, as well as infoboxes and templates within the article itself. Everything else is a sea of white: the article body is narrower than the white content area, increasing the appearance of unused space to the right and leaving no defined border around the content. There is no obvious separation of the header at the top of the page, reducing the apparent personality of the site.

There are also no borders between the TOC and the article section unless the TOC is long enough to show a scrollbar, which makes its appearance inconsistent. The TOC is also harder to identify because the "Contents" header is now in normal font and less emphasized than the current highlighted section of the page, as opposed to the old skin which has "Contents" in bold, and is hidden once the contents are long enough.

There are a number of unintuitive elements in the UI as well, namely the toggles to show or hide the sidebar and TOC. The positions of the header elements (search bar, talk, edit, history, and language dropdown) shift around when scrolling down enough for the logged-in floating header to show. The search icon position in particular is unintuitive, being moved to where the logo normally is.

These issues are magnified when toggling full width or having a narrower screen. There's no background change at all and the entire page only has the single white background, and the icons and links in the header are pushed even further to the sides.

Would it good idea to move either the sidebar or TOC to the right side of the page? This stops them from fighting for the same space on the left and partially resolves the issue of the right side being completely unused. - Sonicwave ( talk &#124; c )  19:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This lack of visual contrast is what's bothering me too, I think it makes my eyes strain more than before. I also was frozen for a moment when I clicked [hide] on the TOC for the first time and it just disappeared into the void. I actually had to reload the page and click it several times to find out how to enable it back. Sometimes I encounter very unintuitive UI on the Internet but I was surprised to see it here, on one of the most visited sites in the world. RoadTrain (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed feedback @Sonicwave32. We were working with the American Foundation for the Blind to improve accessibility of Vector 2022 but some changes are still in progress, look at T318373 and T310033 for further information. The Article tools will be soon moved to the right side of the page (you can see a prototype here). Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm also sharing this complaint. What i described was it was all borderless with no defined space. It gives it a "floaty" look.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions to fill right-side whitespace
First, thanks to the new redesign, it's fantastic.

Second: could you try out a few prototypes that would fill the white-space on the right side? That might address the criticism by some people, and it would still limit the width of the contents. Here are the ideas:


 * Don't include impose a content width limit on infoboxes and right-aligned thumbnails. If the page gets wider, the images & infobox can move beside the contents, so it gets more space to breathe.


 * Bring up references on the right, instead of scrolling the user to the bottom of the page. It would look like this (though it could be made cleaner & more usable than that).
 * The 2nd point would be especially nice if it could prevent the 2-steps necessary to read shortened footnotes (Sfn). Currently, click on a footnote, and you get scrolled down to, say, "Hawkins (2020), p. 4". Click on that, and you go to the reference, but there's no button to go back to the contents from that second reference (that button is only on the footnote). Usability could definitely be improved there. This would bring strong encyclopedic benefits, since it would help people follow the references more conveniently.

Note: I'm not suggesting that my two ideas would necessarily be better than the current version, which is basically perfect as-is. They're just things that I'd like to see tried out; maybe they'd be better. DFlhb (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your constructive feedback @DFlhb. I will pass your suggestions to the team. Indeed, whitespace at the right will be soon occupied by the Article tools. Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Congrats to the Vector 22
I am not sure if this is the correct venue where to place this, but I am getting more and more fond of Vector 2022. I just noticed that the script is bigger when searching special characters like Ω. Other features are good, too. For now, the one thing I am bit worried is if the reader will also know, the TOC is hidden behind the three bullets. The solution is great for the editors, though. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your feedback @Paradise Chronicle. Regarding the TOC, you can learn more about our user testing research here. Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wasting donation money on pushing some JS framework nobody cares about.
While you could be doing something useful with the money, you decided to invest a lot of time and money on creating a problem that now requires a lot of fixes because nobody likes it or just features don't work/are missing.

I believe it's an insult to Wikipedia readers to do such move. You wasted the money on creating a "postmodern low-quality Wikipedia" just because some JS framework marketing campaign washed your brains.

Change it back. Use the money properly, adding value instead of breaking what didn't need to be fixed. Microph123 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This response makes little sense. You might not like the design, but the entire implementation is standard CSS and HTML and the only thing that requires JS is to move the ToC while you turn your view from wide to narrow or the other way around. If anything, this is probably the least amount of JS an interface like this could be built with. I get that some people don't like the new design, but this technical argument brought forward here definitely does not apply. —Th e DJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Deployment roadmap on Chinese wikis
Hello, there is currently a local discussion about postponing the deployment on Chinese Wikipedia. In the discussion, some editor have shared concerns about the issue of Chinese Language Converter not working in Vector-2022 (T306862). Although Vector-2022 has already been deployed on most wikis, when will it be deployed on Chinese wikis? Will Vector-2022 be deployed on Chinese wikis after the issue of the Language Converter is fixed? Thank you. cc SCP-2000 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @SCP-2000 According to the ticket the issue is marked as a blocker and it seems last friday there was a new patch started to work on a fix for it. —Th e DJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @SCP-2000! Thanks for letting us know about that discussion. Right now, we are focused on the feedback coming from English Wikipedia where Vector 2022 became the default last week. We don't have any specific deadline set up for discussing with the communities of the Chinese-script wikis. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Font and Scrollbars — Bad Choice!
Font. The new skin turns every page into a section of the Great Text Wall, it's basically unreadable. Wikipedia is supposed to be read. A standard Wiki page has a great deal of text with a few illustrations. That's why Wiki's most important GUI feature, IMHO, is readability.

The basic readability requirements for websites are very simple. It's color (standard choices: white on black, black on white, and brown on sepia) and font. Font should be easy to read, that's all, nothing fancy, nothing "pretty", no personal preferences, nothing special. It should not be "stretched out" vertically or horizontally. There should be clear separation between paragraphs, a suitable interval between words and between lines, and even larger space before headers. Check any novel from a reputable publisher in any book store, see the width-height proportions, space between letters and words, and the paragraph formatting. Choose similar sans serif font and use the same formatting. That's all. Isn't it easy?

Scrollbars. I have 3.5" (9 cm) empty space between the content and the article (27" monitor), and 3 scrollbars to use (additional vertical scrollbar for the content). That's really ridiculous. Back in the 90s, all web designers raved about "liquid" design and scorned frames. 30 years later — yay! we've got our scrollbars back! I can still kind of understand 4-6 scrollbars in Google Sheets, but here?

In short.

The first time I opened Wikipedia with its new skin, I was greeted with a message like "We did some improvements". Was that a joke?

Spljushka (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to put this out there.. The font of the content and it's spacing didn't change, as far as I can tell using the web inspector...... —Th e DJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Much harder to read, lowers accessibility
I have problems reading text on screen if it is not black text on a light background, but of course having the entire page bright white is also not brilliant for eyestrain.

The previous style was great for me because parts of the page were a darker grey colour which evened out the eyestrain and I never had a problem reading wikipedia pages, but now everything is bright white and makes it very hard for me to read the page.

I don't see how the new design is intended to actually help accessibility for people like myself. RCTJ1991 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @RCTJ1991, thank you for your feedback, I will pass it to the team. We were working with the American Foundation for the Blind to improve accessibility of Vector 2022 but some changes are still in progress, look at T318373 and T310033 for further information. Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Success metric tracking
Hi, is there a place we can follow along with the initiative's success metric tracking? czar 05:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

menu design
Designing menu's is a tough puzzle. What helps:
 * 1) mutually exclusive options should be excluding each other in one menu. For example:
 * 2) *article/talk/history/wikidata item/page information
 * 3) *Chinese/English/French/Italian
 * 4) *read/edit/print/add-to-watchlist/download to PDF
 * This rule ensures that a user needs to look only in one menu to see mutually exclusive choices. This is hard to get right. It is tempting to move low frequency options to a separate menu.
 * 1) Options that can be combined should be in separate menu's, but close together. For example:
 * 2) *article English read
 * 3) *article English edit
 * 4) *article English add-to-wachtlist
 * 5) *article Italian print
 * 6) *talkpage French edit

An object - action approach 'article English read' deviates from spoken English 'read English article' and that is OK. It's UI design, not spoken language design. An object - action approach will make it easy to show the available actions for a chosen object. For example Uwappa (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * article English: read, edit or print
 * article Afrikaans: create, translate from English, translate from French
 * history English: read, print

New font size + linespacing for sidebars is very confusing.
Please revert to the original styling of the sidebar, for the l.h. sidebar and for the new r.h.s. presentation of tools.

The current setup is more linespace than the body text, rather than less; and the same font-size as body text. That's hard to read. The lack of different style for the sidebar section-headers makes it hard to find where you are. The extra linespacing also makes it hard to see all options at once... Written up as Sj (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)