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

Lisibilité
Notre principale motivation pour limiter la largeur du contenu est d'améliorer la lisibilité des contenus passionnants de nos wikis. Les tests d'utilisation sur nos projets, aussi bien pour la lecture que pour la contribution, montrent que l'efficacité de la lecture est un critère-clé. Bien que la lisibilité dépende de facteurs multiples - taille de la police, contraste et longueur de lignes - nous avons décidé de nous concentrer dans un premier temps sur ce dernier facteur. Les recherches cognitives sur la lecture de textes imprimés recommandent une longueur de ligne entre 45 et 90 caractères par ligne (cpl) Les recherches récentes sur la lecture de sites web se concentrent principalement sur des largeurs de 35 à 100 cpl, avec des recommandations tendant vers des lignes plus courtes. De fait, sans limitation de la largeur des articles, les internautes peuvent se retrouver avec un nombre de caractères par ligne qui dépasse de beaucoup la largeur recommandée. Une étude de 2005 résume déjà les arguments des recherches les plus récentes : "une ligne plus courte est plus facile à lire", d'autant que, en matière d'apprentissage et de rétention de l'information, "les sujets qui lisent les paragraphes plus étroits retiennent mieux que ceux qui lisent les paragraphes plus larges".

Enfin, même s'il est toujours important à nos yeux de faire nos propres recherches pour tirer nos propres conclusions, nous pensons également pertinent de noter l'écrasante majorité de sites web qui ont déjà adopté des limitations similaires sur la largeur du contenu. Par exemple : des journaux académiques tels que Nature, des sites d'information tels que le New York Times, des sites gouvernementaux ou intergouvernementaux comme l'ONU, des documents académiques comme LaTeX, et des traitements de texte tels que Google Docs et Etherpad. Ces exemples, ajoutés à une recherche approfondie, nous confortent dans cette décision.

En bref, limiter la largeur du contenu permet une meilleure lisibilité, une meilleure rétention de l'information, et limite la fatigue oculaire.

Mais pourquoi autant d'espace blanc ?!
Nous avons reçu des commentaires d'une trentaine de contributeurs (en particulier des personnes avec des écrans larges) qui sont agacés par la quantité d'espace blanc laissé sur le côté des pages, quoique certains conviennent que la limitation de la largeur améliore l'expérience de lecture. Il semble y avoir deux causes principales à cet agacement : Notre objectif est de créer la meilleure expérience de lecture possible, pas de remplir chaque pixel de l'écran. Et dans cette perspective, moins c'est mieux : on lit mieux avec des lignes plus étroites, et on se concentre plus facilement sans la présence des éléments de la barre latérale. If the best layout is one that includes white space that is okay — there is nothing inherently wrong with white space.
 * 1) The white space feels like wasted space
 * 2) The white space is bright and distracting

Additionally, as the project proceeds, we are hoping to begin utilizing some of this space for other functionality. We have started experimenting with making the sidebar sticky to the left side of the page (link to prototype). 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?
Not in 2020, unless a community volunteers to join our testing. Currently, we are focusing on the development of our first features based on data we have already collected, and on the tests on the early adopter wikis. We do hope to see the changes set as default on all wikis in 2021.

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.

Which wikis these changes are available on?
Currently, these are:


 * sister projects:
 * 
 * 


 * non-Latin script wikis:
 * he:
 * fa:


 * Latin script Wikipedias:
 * eu:
 * fr:


 * additionally:
 * Office Wiki

We are open to add more wikis to this list!

How can this be deployed on my 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-ctr@wikimedia.org if you need support.

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-ctr@wikimedia.org.

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):.

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-ctr@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.