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

Readability
Our main reason for limiting the width of the content is to improve the readability of all of the amazing content on our wikis. Reading text in an efficient manner is crucial to the large majority of all reading and editing use cases across our projects. While there are several factors that affect readability – i.e. font size, contrast, font, and line length – we have decided to focus on line length initially. Formative line length research on reading of printed texts recommends line lengths between 45 and 90 characters per line (cpl). Recent research on reading of website text focuses primarily within the range of 35 – 100 cpl, with most recommendations falling towards the smaller end of that range. However currently without any width limitation on article content readers might find themselves with line lengths far above the recommended range. A 2005 study summarizes the latest research well: "short line lengths are easier to read", and furthermore, regarding learning and information retention, "subjects reading the narrow paragraphs had better retention than those reading the wide paragraphs".

Lastly, while it’s always important for us to do our own research and form our own conclusions, we think it’s worth noting the overwhelming amount of major websites that have similar limitations on content width. For example: academic journals like Nature, news websites like The New York Times, government and intergovernmental websites like the UN, academic documents like LaTeX, and word processors like Google Docs and Etherpad. Those examples, combined with the extensive research, gives us confidence in this decision.

In short, limiting the width of the content allows for better readability, less eye strain, and better retention of the information itself.

But what about all of the white space!?
We have heard from around 30 editors (particularly people with large screens) who are frustrated by all of the white space created on the sides of the page, though some of them agree that the width limitation is better for reading. There seem to be two main causes of this frustration: Our goal is to create the best reading experience we can, not to fill every pixel of the screen with content. And in this case less is actually more — people are able to read more easily with shorter line lengths, and focus more easily without the distraction of sidebars or other elements. 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.

我们如何确定960px的宽度？
请查看此页面，以了解有关我们如何做出此决定的更多信息：

最大的维基将在何时会提供这些更改？
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.

这些更改可在哪些维基上使用？
目前有：


 * 姊妹项目：
 * 
 * 


 * 使用非拉丁字母的维基：
 * he:
 * fa:


 * 使用拉丁字母的维基百科：
 * eu:
 * fr:


 * 以及：
 * Office Wiki

我们愿意向此列表添加更多维基！

我要如何将其部署到我的维基上？
如果您希望在您的维基上将“桌面版改进”作为默认设置，
 * 1) 询问您的社群并达成共识；
 * 2) 如果需要帮助，请联系SGrabarczuk (WMF)，他的电邮是：sgrabarczuk-ctr@wikimedia.org

Monobook或Timeless皮肤会受到影响吗？
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].

你们将改进图表、地图、信息框元模板、信息框、导航框和其他模板吗？
不. 我们不会更改浅灰色“文章内容”区域内的任何内容（目录除外）：

我要如何提出改进建议？
在[ 本项目主页的讨论页]新建段落，或联系SGrabarczuk (WMF)，他的电邮是：sgrabarczuk-ctr@wikimedia.org.

我要如何禁用它？
可以在用户首选项中开启和关闭改进. 我们还在左侧边栏中提供了一个退出按钮（在每个页面上都可以访问）：.

我要如何报告问题？
检查以下页面，查看您的错误是否是已知问题.

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

为什么不新增一个皮肤？旧版Vector会发生什么？
制作新皮肤是一个好主意，但对于维基媒体皮肤，更改现有皮肤比从头开始创建新皮肤要容易. 下面列出了各种原因：


 * 要使现有的插件、小工具和用户脚本兼容另一种外观会很复杂，并且维护它们兼容性的成本太高；
 * 构建和维护另一种皮肤太具有挑战性了（因为不能选择完全更换皮肤）；
 * 社群不太可能在构建新皮肤的过程中进行有效合作.

从技术上讲，桌面版改进与以前的功能或项目类似，例如或. 唯一的区别是这一次要做的更多. Vector的文档应保持相关性.

我们将保留和继续维护旧版Vector，并无意将其删除.

为什么不将其设为测试版功能？
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.

这个功能的成功指标是什么？
通过以下措施提高我们现有受众的效用：


 * 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.