Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Fifth prototype testing/ja

ベクター2022のデザイン決定について皆さんのフィードバックをお聞きできないでしょうか. ここで言うビジュアルデザインとは、文字の体裁やボタン類、枠線、背景、余白などを考えます.

説明
以下にご留意ください：
 * 1) このページの内容を評価
 * 2) 以下のフォームを使ってこのページに新しい節を作ります（設問が用意してあります. ）
 * 3) できた節に答えを記入してください.
 * これらは使用版のため、ほとんどの機能は動きませんし、触ってみてバグやおかしな挙動に気付くかもしれません.
 * The "new section form" unfortunately isn't compatible with the VisualEditor (VE). If you are using the VisualEditor, please manually create a new section and copy & paste the feedback questions (listed below).
 * You do not need to review every section; focus on the ones that are most interesting to you.
 * Design, and visual design specifically, can be subjective. While we are all entitled to our own opinions we ask that you do your best to explain yours, and how they relate to our design goals of simplicity and usability.
 * There might be good options that are not presented here. Feel free to suggest something else if you think it would work better than the options presented. If you are comfortable with design and/or coding please feel free to include mockups or prototypes of your ideas (this is not required). Design files: Figma, Sketch, Google Drawing. Prototype: GitHub.
 * If you are submitting your own ideas please do not edit this page; include them in your feedback form.
 * We appreciate amateur designers, and respect experienced designers. We will review all feedback and ideas, and ultimately we will rely on the judgement of experienced designers to make the final decisions.
 * If you would prefer to send feedback via email, please send feedback to [mailto:Olga@wikimedia.org olga@wikimedia.org].

Preview of Feedback Questions

 * 1) Menus — open prototype in a new tab: https://di-visual-design-menus.web.app/Brown_bear. Which option do you prefer and why? Please make sure to check the search menu, user menu, language menu, and tools menu.
 * 2) Borders and backgrounds — open prototype in a new tab: https://di-visual-design-borders-bgs.web.app/Zebra. Which option do you prefer and why?
 * 3) 目次と選択中の節 — 試作版を新しいタブで開いてください：https://di-visual-design-toc-active.web.app/Otter.  Which option do you prefer and why?
 * 4) Logo in the header — open prototype in a new tab: https://di-visual-design-header-logo.web.app/Panda. Which option do you prefer and why?
 * 5) リンク文字列の色 — 試作版を新しいタブで開きます：https://di-visual-design-link-colors.web.app/Salmon.  Is there any additional work you think needs to be done before we make this change?
 * 6) Font size — open prototype in a new tab: https://di-visual-design-font-size.web.app/Hummingbird. Do you have any concerns with the proposed font size?

Background and context
Over the past two years we have made various structural changes to the interface. We have moved the search box, the language switcher, and the table of contents. いくつかのリンクとツールをメニュー欄にまとめました. And we have limited the content width, added a sticky header, and moved the page title above the page toolbar. Now, with all of these various elements situated in the updated interface, we are turning our attention to the overall look. Some initial questions our team has been considering are:
 * How can we use visual design to improve the interface?
 * Do we think there is value in the skin having some additional personality (like the blue lines and gradients in Legacy Vector)?
 * At what point there's too much of it, such that it might become distracting or make the interface confusing?
 * What if we do as little as possible, and take a super minimalist approach similar to the original Wikipedia interface?

Historically our approach has been simple and functional. There is little styling (if any) to the HTML elements, which simplifies the interface both for people using it and for people designing and building it. It also means that our visual design is rather timeless. We don't chase the trends and don't need to make changes every couple of years. Looking at the screenshots below we can see how Monobook and Legacy Vector use visual design sparingly (mainly borders and background colors).

メニュー
We use several menus in our interface. Thus far our approach to how we style menus has not been consistent. We have an opportunity, with Vector 2022, to develop a more accessible and consistent approach to the styling of our menus. In their most simple form menus have two elements: a menu trigger, and menu items. We're considering blue vs. black (for both the menu trigger, and the menu options), and bold vs. non-bold (for the menu trigger).

選択肢を盛り込んだ試作版のリンク：https://di-visual-design-menus.web.app/Brown_bear

Borders and backgrounds
Should we add borders and backgrounds to help divide up the regions of the interface, and if so how should they look? As we mentioned in the Background and context section above, both Monobook and Vector use backgrounds and borders to separate the interface from the content. Backgrounds and borders can also add personality to the interface. However, it is difficult to know how functional or necessary they are. We've created several options with progressively more/darker borders and backgrounds.

選択肢を盛り込んだ試作版のリンク：https://di-visual-design-borders-bgs.web.app/Zebra



目次に表示中の節を示す
目次は今回、記事に対して脇（右書きで左）に配置して固定、ページをスクロールしてもいつでも見えるようにしました. 新機能として、その時点で読んでいる節を目次に表示するようにしました. （これを「選択中の節」active sectionと呼ぶことにします. ） 現状では、記事用タブとトークページ用タブのパターンを踏襲して、選択中の節は目次内で黒色で、選んでいない節は青色でそれぞれ示します. We like this pattern because it is simple, not distracting, and used elsewhere. 選択中の節を示すため、その他の書式設定を使っても良いかもしれません.

選択肢を盛り込んだ試作版のリンク：https://di-visual-design-toc-active.web.app/Otter



ヘッダー内のロゴ
Monobook とレガシー Vector のどちらも角形のウィキペディアのロゴと大きな地球を組み合わせてあります. 2022年版ベクターにさまざまな変更が加わったことから、より小さめで長方形に配置したロゴを端にレイアウトした方がバランスが良さそうです. しかしながら、さまざまな選択肢を試してみたいと思いました. これらの選択肢を試すなら、ぜひさまざまな画面サイズで実施してください. 画面サイズに応じて、レイアウトのバランスが変動するからです.

選択肢を盛り込んだ試作版：https://di-visual-design-header-logo.web.app/Panda



リンクの色
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. これらのガイドラインでは、リンクの色コントラストを最小にしてあります. 「使いやすさとアクセス性の両面から、リンクには既定で下線を付けるべきです. さもなければ、リンク文字列には地の文との比率を最小で 3:1 とすること、さらに彩色しない指標（一般に下線）をほどこし、マウスを当てたりキーボード操作でフォーカスしたときに現れるように指定します. 」 Since we do not underline links by default, our link color choice must meet the 3:1 contrast requirement. In order to check the contrast of our links with our body text we can use the contrast checker provided by WebAIM.

さらに加えて、提案の青色のリンクはすでにウィキメディアのデザインのスタイルガイドに採用されており、私たちのモバイル版のウェブサイト、あるいはさまざまなプロジェクトのロゴにも採用されており、一貫性が保てると予想されます.

提案した色を盛り込んだ試作版：https://di-visual-design-link-colors.web.app/Salmon 

フォント サイズ
The mission of our movement is to provide all of the world's knowledge to as many people as possible. Currently the majority of the knowledge we offer is in the form of text. Research has shown that typographic settings (such as font size, line length, and line height) influence the experience of reading, both in terms of general comfort (i.e. eye strain and fatigue), and comprehension and retention. Therefore it is important for us to use optimal typographic settings in our interface. An important factor to keep in mind when determining what is optimal for our projects is that people engage both in in-depth reading, as well as scanning of text.

当プロジェクトのこれまでの段階で、行の長さに関する調査を読み、結論として私たちのプロジェクト群では 1 行あたり半角で 90文字–140文字の範囲が最適と結論しました（追記へのリンク）. Recently we have spent time reading research studies about font size. The most convincing, and directly applicable, research we have found thus far is a 2016 study that used eye-tracking to evaluate the affects of font size and line spacing for people reading Wikipedia:

Using a hybrid-measures design, we compared objective and subjective readability and comprehension of the articles for font sizes ranging from 10 to 26 points, and line spacings ranging from 0.8 to 1.8 (font: Arial). Our findings provide evidence that readability, measured via mean fixation duration, increased significantly with font size. Further, comprehension questions had significantly more correct responses for font sizes 18 and 26. These findings provide evidence that text-heavy websites should use fonts of size 18 or larger and use default line spacing when the goal is to make a web page easy to read and comprehend. Our results significantly differ from previous recommendations, presumably, because this is the first work to cover font sizes beyond 14 points.

Firstly, we need to convert the measure used by the researchers (points) into the measure that browsers ultimately render (px). The conversion is: 1px = 72pt / 96. So the range studied in the research (10–26 points) is equivalent to 13.3–34px. Their conclusion, 18 points, is equal to 24px.

''' So should we increase the font size to 24px? ''' The research studied in-depth reading, however people often scan the page in order to find a certain piece of information. This is a different reading behavior, that arguably benefits from a smaller font size than in-depth reading does. Our conservative proposal, taking into account scanning, is to increase the font size to 16px to begin with. (We would be increasing the maximum width of the article as well, from 960px to 1050px.) As a next step, we will plan to conduct our own research to further study font size on Wikimedia wikis.

Annotated bibliography of typography and readability research

提案した大きさのフォントを盛り込んだ試作版：https://di-visual-design-font-size.web.app/Hummingbird

Feedback

 * Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Fifth prototype testing/Feedback