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

Legibilidad
Nuestra principal razón para limitar el ancho del contenido es mejorar la legibilidad de todo el contenido sorprendente en nuestras wikis. Leer texto de manera eficiente es crucial para la gran mayoría de todos los casos de uso de lectura y edición en nuestros proyectos. Si bien hay varios factores que afectan la legibilidad, es decir, el tamaño de la fuente, el contraste, la fuente y la longitud de la línea, hemos decidido centrarnos inicialmente en la longitud de la línea. La investigación de longitud de línea formativa sobre lectura de textos impresos recomienda longitudes de línea entre 45 y 90 caracteres por línea (cpl). La investigación reciente sobre la lectura del texto del sitio web se centra principalmente en el rango de 35 a 100 cpl, y la mayoría de las recomendaciones se ubican en el extremo más pequeño de ese rango. Sin embargo, actualmente sin ninguna limitación de ancho en el contenido del artículo, los lectores pueden encontrarse con longitudes de línea muy por encima del rango recomendado. Un estudio de 2005 resume bien la investigación más reciente: "las líneas cortas son más fáciles de leer" y, además, con respecto al aprendizaje y la retención de información, "los sujetos que leen los párrafos estrechos tienen una mejor retención que los que leen los párrafos anchos".

Por último, si bien siempre es importante para nosotros hacer nuestra propia investigación y formar nuestras propias conclusiones, creemos que vale la pena señalar la abrumadora cantidad de sitios web importantes que tienen limitaciones similares en el ancho del contenido. Por ejemplo: revistas académicas como Nature, sitios web de noticias como The New York Times, sitios web gubernamentales e intergubernamentales como UN, documentos académicos como LaTeX y procesadores de texto como Google Docs y Etherpad. Estos ejemplos, combinados con la extensa investigación, nos dan confianza en esta decisión.

En resumen, limitar el ancho del contenido permite una mejor legibilidad, menos fatiga visual y una mejor retención de la información en sí.

¿¡Pero qué pasa con todo el espacio en blanco !?
Hemos escuchado de alrededor de 30 editores (particularmente personas con pantallas grandes) que están frustrados por todo el espacio en blanco creado en los lados de la página, aunque algunos de ellos están de acuerdo en que la limitación de ancho es mejor para la lectura. Parece haber dos causas principales para esta frustración: Nuestro objetivo es crear la mejor experiencia de lectura que podamos, no llenar cada píxel de la pantalla con contenido. Y en este caso, menos es en realidad más: las personas pueden leer más fácilmente con longitudes de línea más cortas y enfocarse más fácilmente sin la distracción de las barras laterales u otros elementos. Si el mejor diseño es uno que incluye espacios en blanco, está bien: no hay nada intrínsecamente incorrecto con los espacios en blanco.
 * 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 the first half of 2021, unless a community volunteers to join our testing. Currently, we are focusing on the development of our 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 later in the year.

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 default turned on?
Currently, these are:


 * sister projects:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * non-Latin script wikis:
 * bn:
 * he:
 * fa:
 * ko:
 * sr:


 * Latin script Wikipedias:
 * eu:
 * fr:
 * pt:
 * sr:
 * tr:
 * vec:


 * additionally:
 * Office Wiki
 * 

We are open to add more wikis to this list!

How can this be deployed on my home Wikimedia 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@wikimedia.org if you need support.

How can I enable it on my own (third-party) wiki?
First, make sure you have downloaded. Be mindful that the stable version will be released in mid 2021. If you accept the risk and would like to see our changes anyway, add following lines in your :

We are glad to learn that you appreciate our improvements!

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@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):.

Will you remove the link that allows to opt-out?
We will not remove the opt-out link. Legacy Vector will continue to be available through that link, similar to other skins that have been default in the past, such as Monobook.

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.