Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements

Max width fix for logged out users
I've released a new max-width fix. Apologies for waiting so long, I've been making time to write it as a CSS user style, but it seems to be outside my web design abilities, so I've written it as a JavaScript user script. This one shouldn't break on future updates to Vector 2.0.

You can download it from https://pastebin.com/3KY1QmzU and install it with any user script addon. The most commonly used are GreaseMonkey, TamperMonkey and VioletMonkey, and they are available for pretty all commonly used browsers (Firefox and forks, Chrome and forks, Edge, Safari, Opera...).

Please report any errors here or on my talk page. Happy browsing! Vectorman007 (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Bug? Footer engulfes content
I've seen this from time to time. Examples (with activated new skin of course): Regards (PS: Sorry if it's the wrong verb in the header, I wasn't sure how to describe the effect, feel free to change to sth appropriate) --HirnSpuk (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Die_Rennmaus/_Haltung/_Käfigstandort
 * b:de:Computerhardware:_RAM:_Geschwindigkeit


 * You will need to use the ```

``` template here. This user-content error was previously taken care of in the older skins, but in this new skin is the responsibility of the editor. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you’re breaking something that worked for 15+ years just for the sake of breaking it? I don’t think there’s a single valid use case where content should get out of the content area. And it’s pretty easy to fix centrally instead of individually on hundreds of wikis, or, even worse, on probably tens or hundreds of thousands of pages as you advise. Simply  needs to be placed in whatever CSS/LESS file it belongs to. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I was breaking something " just for the sake of breaking it" ? My intention was to explain why it's happening.
 * Vector is essentially a new skin, so things can and will break, but the idea is that when they're fixed they are better defined and less fragile. New Vector has only been around approx 1 year and while it is based off of old Vector, and we're trying to keep it aligned with it, its not the same thing, so 15+ years comment here is a little misguided. It uses a completely different stylesheet.
 * " And it’s pretty easy to fix centrally instead of individually on hundreds of wikis" - I don't know, but you are probably right, but then that doesn't sound like a responsibility of Vector but of the skins code inside mediawiki core. The `mediawiki.skinning` module https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/tree/master/resources/src/mediawiki.skinning was set up to define rules that are common to all skins and is where such styles should live and there is currently no such rule for clearing user generated content, so this issue likely impacts other skins (most likely ones not deployed on Wikimedia wikis. I've created T277218 to document the problem. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The “you” was plural—silly English doesn’t differentiate between singular and plural here. :( Some developer broke it. I don’t care who was, but that person seemingly didn’t have any good reason to do so.
 * The 15+ years is relevant because editors have been designing pages for 15+ years with the assumption that content will remain within the content area. Breaking such assumptions needs very good reasons, which are not here.
 * I also don’t care what piece of software it’s fixed in, so if you think it’s better fixed in core rather than in Vector, feel free to do so, just fix it in software rather than forcing folks to fix it on-wiki. Anyways, thanks for opening the ticket! —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

We are on the same page. I just want to make sure any assumptions are defined and clear to all stakeholders whether editor or mediawiki developer rather than implied :) Jdlrobson (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Integrated Dark Mode color scheme
Dark themes are nowadays ubiquitous due to how easy on the eyes and optimized for displays they are. While there's also "hacky" ways (like browser extensions and scripts), they're community efforts at implementing this missing feature from outside, and it's hard to make them work perfectly fine and responsive for everyone. Please, consider implementing a native setting for it. --CapoFantasma97 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(See the rest in my answer to the "Night mode clash" below.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @CapoFantasma97, thank you for this suggestion. The concept of a native MediaWiki dark mode has got a long history now. Just take a look at the Community Wishlist Survey 2019 wish and 2017 wish. Our designers agree with you and would love to build the dark mode, but... ;)

Night mode clash
Hi

The status update from the Community Tech team indicated that they'd started working on this but were not able to proceed because their work would clash with this team, and therefore a night mode would ultimately need to come from another WMF tech team, either this or another.

Could you clarify what prohibited that effort, or what prevents night mode being scoped in as part of this project - it is a rare change that is overwhelmingly requested by both the editing community and a constant avalanche of reader requests. I've no doubt that WMF employees would also like it, or at least think its a good option, so it's more finding "what are the sticking points preventing resources being allocated to it" and then "what can we do about those"? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Nosebagbear, great question! Both teams are well aware that the dark mode is desired by many. It was decided that Web would take care of that because it was going to work on related improvements anyway.
 * Why the dark mode is not in the scope of the current project? It's a mix of reasons. Some of them are of technical nature and I'm not familiar with that part. So my apologies, but it's not going to be a full answer :/
 * First and foremost, we're all interested in something better than a smart replacement. It appears that such a feature requires more investment than you or I suspect. More than a year ago, there was a decision to make: either the team would build most of the features currently being on the list, or it'd pick the dark mode and a few other improvements. We know what the decision was, but I don't know the factors involved.
 * Now, the dark mode is a strong candidate on top of a list of potential future tasks. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update and correction: the dark mode has been a candidate for a long time, BUT first, we would need to have more servers. Physically. Then we would be able to develop how we cache. At the end, we would be able to build things like the dark mode. If we did a dark mode now, users would have to turn it on each and every page they would visit individually. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion (that most likely will be ignored)
It is true that reading a text written along the entire Great Wall of China is hard. But is also true that it is hard to read a text written on a flea wing. Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/First Prototype Feedback Report: The size of characters was took into consideration? And Wikimedia wikis also contain images, infoboxes, tables and other things that need space. And stop saying that I will can return to the original Vector; I want a good skin for editors and readers. -- NGC 54  ( talk |  contribs ) 10:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @NGC 54, you know your opinion would not be ignored! :) Yes, the size of characters as well as the size of the screens were both taken into consideration. We have made one step in this direction and we're not saying we won't make next steps. Watch the updates from the team and keep your fingers crossed for our plans after the already planned improvements! ;) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @SGrabarczuk (WMF): "you know your opinion would not be ignored!": How so? I repeat: the width is too small. -- NGC 54  ( talk |  contribs ) 11:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @NGC 54, first, I do read each comment posted on this talk page. Secondly, I see that some volunteers from various wikis raise a fair point: on large screens, the width does feel small. I loyally pass this information to the Web team. The team does recognize this issue, and we will talk about this with due respect to all Wikimedians who ask us to adjust the limited width to their needs. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a very good argument I didn't even think about: Wikipedia contains images, infoboxed and tables, and it's gonna be a big mess if this doesn't get any space. Edit: I've ready about this in the FAQ and the argument is given that "people with smaller screens have had the issue before". The most common monitor screen size is between 21-24 inch, and screens are even getting bigger/wider. Maybe some research has to been done about that. It's impossible to give literally everyone the best experience, but it is about giving the best experience to as many people as possible, in this case that group is people with a larger screen size. Lots and lots of Wikipedia articles revolve around tables and images, if we take that away (or even position them on the side, and they are not in their right section), the reading experience gets worse for lots of people. Just like a few others, the design on the right is best for me personally: a collapsible side bar on the left is fine, but keep the content through the rest of the page including infoboxes, tables, images, etc. Coldbolt (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Coldbolt, you are absolutely right. People buy larger and larger monitors, there are panoramic monitors, etc. When we will be planning the next fiscal year (which will happen soon because the fiscal year begins in July and the plans have to be ready earlier than that) we will be considering how to improve the experience of users with large screens. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How to localize logo when legacy vector turned off
Hello, I have recently started using the new Vector Skin in Assamese language Wikipedia. However, I see that the logo is not localized. Can you let me know how to do that? Does local interface admin will have to take care of that? --SlowPhoton (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is tracked in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T244486 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T142426. In the latter you can help provide the wordmark if you want and are able to help. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the Web team will eventually provide the logos. Volunteers are welcome to help. Specific permissions (like local interface adminship) or local edits aren't required. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Option to keep Legacy Vector as default
I don't accept a limit of content width. Users have the right to resize the window to achieve a proper width, and you shouldn't be opinionated.

Content width same limited, the new Vector looks full of disorder just compared with Skin:Timeless.

Hope my sites can keep Legacy Vector as default finally, or we may have to add CSS rules to revert such "improvement". Lt2818 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am one of the users that like the direction the new Vector is taking, and I disabled the Legacy mode on my side. A proper page layout greatly helps in readability, as the human eye can focus only on a small area, while peripheral vision is not useful to make out details, which is required for reading (otherwise we'd use smartphones only in landscape mode...). The website is still well responsive to window/screen size, it just has a maximum width. Filling a 16:9 screen side to side with text isn't "proper" width (nor is it on 21:9!) and makes it less comfortable to read.

Some people might not like space, but it's not a bad practice at all in typography; instead, it's a good thing when properly used. As such, it makes no sense to regard it as "wasted space" because it's not, it's helpful to format the page, and it could be used in the future for extra content like side panels; also, some modules and page sections could be moved there (imagine notes and references next to the paragraph they refer to!). --CapoFantasma97 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Vector is just fine as it is
>It has been 10 years since the current default Wikimedia skin (Vector) was deployed It has been 10 years of a damn fine interface is what it has been. It ain't broke, it works well, don't fix it, and for the sake of all that is holy, DON'T impose it on everyone. There is no logical reason, none whatsoever, under the sun, why you should remove the existing interface as an option. And there is no reason why PC users, who must surely make up the majority of editors, should have the use of half of their screen taking away by this thieving gang of cadres, eager to do something even when nothing needs to be done. Lord have mercy. Beaneater00 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

New location of search bar now available on all wikis
Please could you add details of how this is enabled — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 00:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @GhostInTheMachine, go to your preferences, second tab. Find "Skin preferences". Uncheck "Use Legacy Vector" (= don't use Legacy Vector), go to any other page, and the new location should be displaying. Does that answer your question? You can also set a global preference to see the new Vector on all wikis. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that does answer my question. Having the search bar moved in Vector would have been somewhat better. Perhaps the main page could also make this clearer? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Too much wasted space in desktop (sorry for bad english)
When connected from desktop with a resolution of 1920 × 1080, there are 1000 pixels of wasted space left and right. This is too hard to read and inefficient. --소언예 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you @소언예! Have you read our documentation: the FAQ and/or Limiting content width? What do you think about the arguments mentioned there? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)