Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/機能/コンテンツ幅の制限

概要

機能

リポジトリ

よくある質問

« 前へ

次へ »

Phabricator で追跡中
タスク T246420

このプロジェクトの主な目的の 1 つは、ウィキペディアや他のウィキメディアのウィキ群を、新規参入者にとってより快適なものにすることです。 そのためには記事をより快適に読むことができるようにすることが大切です。

快適な (あるいは不快な) 読書体験とは何か? 調査によると、いくつかの要因があるようですが、その中でも特に重要なのが行の長さです。 ピーター・オートン（IBM高等学習センター）の研究「画面で読む文章の長さは読解と理解に影響する」（Computer text line lengths affect reading and learning by Peter Orton, a Ph.D. at the IBM Center for Advanced Learning）では、1行が長くなるほど、読解が困難になり、究極的には文章の情報を学んだり記憶したりことが難しくなると結論づけています。 他にも関連するいくつかの研究がウィキペディアの記事 Line length に記載されていますが、いずれも 1 行あたり 40 文字から 75 文字を推奨しています。

ウィキメディアのウィキ群で推奨される行の長さを実現することは特に簡単ではありませんが、ウィキ上のテキストの大部分を推奨に近づけるために、max-width (最大幅) を使用してコンテンツの幅を制限する予定です。

この機能の背景にある研究や考察の詳細を参照してください。

機能の説明と要件

この機能の主なものは、記事コンテンツの幅を制限することです。 しかし、ページ上の他の要素 (サイドバーやヘッダー) がコンテンツから離れすぎないようにするために、2 つのコンテナーを追加しました。 2 つめのコンテナーは、サイドバーがコンテンツの近くに保持されるようにします。 さらに、ヘッダーがコンテンツとサイドバーの両方から離れすぎないように、ヘッダーの最大幅を制限する 3 つめのコンテナーがあります。

技術的な観点から言うと、ほとんどのページのコンテンツは、最大幅 960px のコンテンツ コンテナー内に配置されています。 さらに、ヘッダーやサイドバーなどのインターフェイスの他の部分の幅を管理するための 2 つのコンテナーがあります:「ワークスペース コンテナー」(最大幅 1440px) と「ページ コンテナー」(1650px) です。 以下は、これらのコンテナーがどのように機能するかを示す図です。 コンテンツ コンテナーによってコンテンツが制限されていないページがあります: 「履歴」「最近の更新」などの記録型のページがこれにあたります。

• 
  サイドバーを閉じた状態で、3 つのレイアウト コンテナーを表示した図
• 
  サイドバーを開いた状態で、3 つのレイアウト コンテナーを表示した図
• 
  3 つのレイアウト コンテナーと特別ページを示す図

設計要件とガイドライン

ここでは、現在のレイアウトと、上述したさまざまな幅の制限を受けた更新後のレイアウトの違いを示す GIF を示します:

現在のレイアウトと、コンテンツの幅を制限した更新後のレイアウトを比較した GIF

制約

ここでの主な問題点は、履歴や最近の更新などの特定の記録ページが、行の折り返しによって画面が狭くなるにつれて読みづらくなることです。 そのため、これらのページを特別な方法で扱い、コンテンツ コンテナー (960px) ではなく、ワークスペース コンテナー (1440px) にのみ制約をかけることにしました。 ここでは、記事ページと関連する履歴ページの切り替えを示すプロトタイプの GIF を示します:

新しいベクター レイアウトでの記事ページと履歴ページの幅を示す GIF

編集者の利用者テスト

複数のウィキで活動する編集者を対象に、コンテンツの幅を制限した試作品でフィードバック ラウンドを行いました。 編集者には試作品を見てもらい、中央管理の通知バナーを使用してフィードバックを提供してもらいました。 この特集についてはさまざまな意見がありました: 多くの編集者は、行の長さが短くなったことを評価し、この機能がより快適な読書体験をもたらすことに同意しています。 編集者の中には、コンテンツの周りにある空白を嫌い、無駄な余白だと感じる人もいました。 これらのすべての意見と、行の長さや読みやすさに関する既存の研究結果とのバランスをとっています。

目標と動機

読みやすさ

Research

The primary objective is to improve readability of Wikimedia wiki pages. We decided to work on the width of the content area. There are research-based recommendations on this issue.

• English Wikipedia article on Line length provides a good overview.
• So does the essay by Professor Laura Franz.
• Optimal Line Length in Reading - A Literature Review (2005), from the peer reviewed journal Visible Language – "studies concluded that moderate line length in between 50 to 70 cpl [characters per line] are the easiest to read and users do not prefer extreme line lengths (very short or very long) while reading from screen. There was no significant effect of line length found on comprehension, though fast readers benefit from narrow columns with short lines due to specific reading patterns (with one contradictory finding)".
• Effects of Surrounding Information and Line Length on Text Comprehension from the Web (2002), from Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology – "Comprehension was affected by whitespace; participants had better comprehension for information surrounded by whitespace than for information surrounded by meaningless information", which is more likely to happen if the text stretches to the edge of the browser.
• The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen (2001), from International Journal of Human-Computer Studies – "A line length of 55 cpl appears to support e!ective reading in terms of both rate and comprehension. However, as the line lengths used in this study were spread across a wide range, there may be a more optimal setting than this. By varying the range and extremes of line lengths in future research, it may be possible to more precisely identify an optimal format and to explore the relative contributions of mechanical and cognitive factors."
• Shorter Lines Facilitate Reading in Those Who Struggle (2013), from PLOS One – "short lines reduce the number of regressions, and generally improve reading speed and comprehension, simply by reducing the probability that crowded text in locations previously fixated can be perceived."
• The Effects of Line Length on Children and Adults' Online Reading Performance (2002), from Software Usability Research Laboratory (SURL) at Wichita State University – "This study examined the effects of line length on reading performance. Reading rates were found to be fastest at 95 cpl. Readers reported either liking or disliking the extreme line lengths (35 cpl, 95 cpl)".
• The Effects of Line Length on Children and Adults' Perceived and Actual Online Reading Performance (2003), from Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting – "No differences were found for either reading time or efficiency for either adults or children. However, adults preferred shorter line lengths to full-screen line lengths." and "The narrowest line length condition was perceived as promoting the highest amount of reader concentration, while the medium line-length condition was considered to be the most optimally presented length for reading."
• Reading Online Text: A Comparison of Four White Space Layouts (2004), unclear if this was peer reviewed – "Results from this study showed that the manipulation of the Margin white space affected both reading speed and comprehension; participants read the Margin text slower, but comprehended more than the No Margin text. In general, the results favored the use of Margins."

The popular recommendation is that there should be between 40 and 75 characters per line. The findings of multiple studies conclude that "short line lengths are easier to read". Regarding learning and information retention: "Subjects reading the narrow paragraphs had better retention than those reading the wide paragraphs".

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

• The Web Accessibility Initiative (WCAG) guideline 1.4.8 states that, in order to be accessible to all users, lines of text should be 80 or fewer characters (or 40 or fewer characters if the text is Chinese, Japanese, or Korean)."

Popular sites with limited width

One can find many popular sites that conform to these guidelines.

• Articles on the online science journal Nature have a max-width resulting in ~76 characters per line.
• New York Times articles are ~64 characters per line.
• Times of India articles are ~100 characters (Hindi).
• Oxford Academic journal articles are ~75.
• Articles on the World Health Organization’s website are ~96 (Latin alphabet), ~46 (Chinese alphabet), and ~85 (Cyrillic alphabet).
• When using reading mode in Safari or Firefox text is rendered at ~73 and ~77 characters per line respectively (Latin alphabet).

Comparison with Wikimedia wikis

Currently, an English Wikimedia wiki page on a browser window at 1280px has a character count of ~170 characters per line. それでも画面幅のばらつきでは、小さいほうに寄っています。

Wikimedia のウィキの場合、画面幅が広がると1行単位の文字数も増加します。 そこで普及率第2位のスクリーンサイズとして、1920px (利用者の21%が使用) の場合には1行単位の文字数は最大半角262文字となり、推奨値の 3倍相当です。

いちばん「単純な」解決策を選べば良いのに

Based exclusively on the recommended line length, it seems like somewhere around 700px is reasonable. Why not limit the width such that we achieve the recommended line length, as other online content sites seem to?

Because our pages are different, and therefore people read them differently.

• Wikimedia wiki pages are very long, contain a large amount of information, and they are not uniform from one page to the next. As a result, people have a need to skim and search within pages. This is different than linear reading a typical online article or book. This is supported by our research around reading time on Wikipedia.
• The more narrow we make the content, the longer the page gets. Perhaps the more difficult scanning becomes as well, because it involves more scrolling, etc. For more information regarding different types of online reading, please see this 2006 study conducted by the Nielsen Norman Group.
• Additionally, it is not straightforward to achieve a specific number of text characters per line. That is because Wikimedia wiki pages contain many elements that are floated inline alongside text.

Moon article at 550px wide, uninterrupted paragraph with a character count per line of ~83

Moon article at 750px wide, paragraph next to infobox with a character count per line of ~72

Our design must take into account these distinctions.

• We should limit the width by some amount to accommodate focused/engaged reading. This means shorter line lengths, and less density.
• At the same time, we should still enable readers to skim and search around, obtaining a visual map of the page without having to scroll too much This is an argument for longer line lengths, and more density.

How do we do that?

Our solution

There are two common experiences we might want to consider.

1. The top of an article, a paragraph of text situated next to an infobox
2. The middle of an article, a paragraph with no elements interrupting it

We can consider these two experiences at various widths, counting the character length per line for each:

Content width	Paragraph next to an infobox	Uninterrupted paragraph
600px	~30 characters per line	~94 characters per line
700px	~59	~109
800px	~76	~125
900px	~89	~142
1000px	~105	~154

At 1000px wide an uninterrupted paragraph of text is ~154 characters long, just about double the upper limit of the recommended range. Sometimes there are floated elements that are wider than infoboxes, resulting in more narrow columns of text next to them. Also there has not been a max-width. While some editors might edit on narrower screens (or check how pages look on narrower screens) there’s likely content on pages that won’t look great at a narrower width (yet), because it might not have been a consideration (e.g. large tables).

Another approach is thinking about a grid-based layout. This is an approach that aims for both visual harmony on the page, and making decisions about spacing, widths, etc. easier. The Vector skin does not currently use a grid. Something we could do is think about the width of the infobox as a grid column (since they are such common elements), and then use a multiple of that to determine the content width.

India article with content at 3x infobox width

India article with content at 4x infobox width

Establishing a common reading experience

Introducing a max-width would work towards establishing a common experience. Hopefully, it would be helpful to editors when making decisions about page layouts.

Note: 1024px is mentioned as a minimum size to consider in the WP:Manual of Style/Layout page. That’s not quite the same thing, though.

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 difference completely. There would still be variation below the fixed-width, for people with narrower screens. However, we would be greatly limiting the range of variation.

Conclusion

After thinking all of that through we’ve come to two conclusions:

1. It seems that a max-width in the range of 800–1000px is a sensible starting point. We will center the content on the page to ensure that it looks good with the sidebar both open and closed.
2. It seems worthwhile to conduct a study focusing on the readability of Wikipedia articles specifically. We hope to be able to find the resources to do this.

Showing content with a max-width of 960px (sidebar collapsed)

Showing content with a max-width of 960px (sidebar open)

追加的な注記

テンプレート/コンテンツ/特別ページ/その他が壊れている点について

ウィキペディアが、またWikimediaのウィキ群が知識配分の強力なツールとして成立する要素には、情報の表現方法にごく少しの制限しか加えていない点が挙げられます。 The result of this is a wide variety of different elements on the pages: tables, image galleries, diagrams, panoramic images, graphs, forms, maps, category boxes, and more. We have dealt with the challenges of designing the mobile site, and got the content to look good. これは、もし画面幅に上限設定をした場合（max-withの採用）、状況によってはページの見た目がよくなくなるという問題を予見させるものです。 現在の計画は :

• テストウィキコミュニティと協力して問題を特定し、テンプレートスタイルやその他の既存ツールを駆使して解決策を検討する。
• 特別ページに最大幅の上限値 max-widthを実装しない。 特別ページは「reading」の範疇ではありません。 They often function more as lists or dashboards. Until we have time to work through the details about more responsive layouts for these pages, we will be leaving them alone. こちらはこれがどのように動作するのかについての初期の試作品です。 感覚をつかむには、「履歴を見る」と「閲覧」を切り替えてみてください： https://di-collapsible-sidebar-5.firebaseapp.com/Tea

以前の会話

この議題は過去にも議論しています。

• 2014年 – 文字体裁改新プロジェクトの議論

よろしければ過去の議論のリンクはここに追加してください。

全幅トグル

The fullscreen toggle

Until October 2022, logged-in users were only able to switch between the limited and full content width using gadgets. According to the English Wikipedians, this was insufficient. We decided to build a toggle. (On the right, you can see a screenshot of this toggle.) It needed to be visible and available to both logged-out and logged-in users. As a result, we have:

1. Built a preference for logged-in users. It allows for the width to be set across pageviews and wikis. The preference is available in the appearance section of the preferences page (横幅制限モードを有効にする). It may also be set as a global preference.
2. Built a toggle for logged-in and logged-out users. The toggle is available on every page if the width of the screen is larger than 1400px. Selecting the toggle increases the width of the content area.
   • For logged-in users, the toggle also controls the preference mentioned in 1 above. For example, if you click the toggle on the page and visit your preferences page, you will notice that the enable limited width mode checkbox is unchecked.
   • For logged-out users, initially, the toggle set the width on a per-page basis. This means that after refreshing the page or opening a different page the width would return to the default (limited) state.
   • After making our skin the default on English Wikipedia, we heard concerns about the setting for logged-out users. After coordinating with many teams, we made a change. Since February 2023, all users see the width setting of their choice despite refreshing pages or opening new ones.

Why did the toggle work on a per-page basis initially? This was because in principle, preferences are not available for logged-out users. The lack of preferences for logged-out users doesn't only apply to this skin. (You may learn more about the technical limitations.) We have managed to find a short-term bypass. We have more work to do to make sure this solution may be maintained. We might use a better solution in the future. This could be applied to settings such as font size or dark mode.