Wikipedia:Solicitudes de comentarios/Reversión de Vector 2022

Documento de solicitud: V22RFC2
WP:ROLLBACKVECTOR22
Página de inicio: RBV22

Lo que sigue es una discusión de solicitudes de comentarios (RfC) sobre si el legado de Vector debería restaurarse como la máscara predeterminada en el sitio de Wikipedia en inglés para computadoras de escritorio.

Fondo

El 18 de enero de 2023, a las 15:17 UTC, el equipo web de la Fundación Wikimedia implementó Vector 2022 como la nueva interfaz predeterminada para todos los usuarios del sitio de escritorio de Wikipedia en inglés, después de implementar un conjunto de cambios especificados por los editores que cerraron esta RfC . Esto reemplazó a Vector legacy, que ha sido la predeterminada desde 2010. Desde la implementación de Vector 2022, ha habido reacciones negativas tanto de los usuarios que expresaron inquietudes con la nueva interfaz de usuario, con quejas en Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 como en mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. Muchos editores tampoco estaban al tanto de este cambio hasta el lanzamiento y/o no participaron en la RfC anterior. Esto planteó dudas sobre si hubo consenso para implementar Vector 2022, aunque el equipo web participó en un proceso de varios años para investigar, diseñar, recopilar comentarios e iterar sobre el rediseño.

Tenga en cuenta que los usuarios registrados pueden cambiar su apariencia yendo a la pestaña Apariencia en Especial:Preferencias . Los usuarios anónimos no tienen la posibilidad de cambiar su apariencia. Para obtener una lista de preguntas frecuentes, consulte Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022/FAQ y mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions.

RfC: ¿Debería Wikipedia volver a Vector 2010 como máscara predeterminada?

La siguiente discusión es un registro archivado de una solicitud de comentarios . No la modifique. No se deben realizar más modificaciones a esta discusión. A continuación se incluye un resumen de las conclusiones a las que se llegó.

Es importante comenzar este cierre recordando a todos los participantes que Wikipedia no es una democracia y que seguimos una política de consenso . Esto significa que quienes cierran el debate deben tener en cuenta no solo la cantidad de votos a favor y en contra, sino también la solidez del argumento presentado por cada editor. A menudo, varios editores repetirán el mismo argumento para demostrar que están de acuerdo entre sí y, en casos como ese , se pueden contar los votos para ayudar a afirmar qué lado planteó los puntos más convincentes.

Si bien la mayoría de los editores experimentados ya están familiarizados con lo que constituye un argumento sólido, esta RfC vio una gran afluencia de nuevos editores, la mayoría de los cuales son lectores que querían hacer oír su voz. Muchos de estos lectores no están familiarizados con la política de consenso de Wikipedia. Los argumentos más sólidos son aquellos basados en nuestras políticas y pautas , mientras que los más débiles son aquellos basados en opiniones subjetivas , y aquí es donde deberíamos comenzar nuestra discusión. Esta solicitud de comentarios se produjo poco después del cambio de la apariencia predeterminada, y muchos !votes se basaron en opiniones personales sobre cómo Vector 2022 era mejor o peor que Vector 2010. Si bien estos suelen considerarse argumentos más débiles, no se descartaron por completo, pero no se les dio tanto peso como a otros puntos.

Hubo un debate extenso sobre las encuestas e investigaciones presentadas por la Fundación Wikimedia (WMF) para apoyar los cambios propuestos. Si bien algunos participantes creen que las encuestas organizadas por la WMF tenían un sesgo positivo hacia la nueva apariencia (por ejemplo, eliminando las respuestas que contenían lenguaje grosero), otros vieron las encuestas como una razón para apoyar la implementación de la apariencia. Aquellos a favor de mantener Vector 2022 también comentaron el hecho de que la apariencia ha estado activa en varias Wikipedias más pequeñas con distintos grados de aceptación.

Como señalaron algunos participantes, es probable que muy pocos de los que comentan en este RfC tengan experiencia en diseño de UI y, por lo tanto, las opiniones presentadas aquí son solo eso, opiniones. Los únicos datos concretos que tenemos son los estudios presentados por algunos, que, en su mayoría, coincidieron con los cambios que trajo el nuevo Vector.

Otro punto de discordia fue el hecho de que, si bien es trivial para los usuarios registrados volver a la apariencia anterior si no les gustan los cambios, los usuarios no registrados no disfrutan de esa opción. Muchos de los que apoyaron la reversión eran editores comprensivos que lo vieron como problemático. La única refutación ofrecida a esto fue que se demostró que la nueva apariencia era, según los estudios y encuestas antes mencionados, una mejora para los lectores, especialmente debido al ancho de texto reducido.

Uno de los puntos más comunes planteados por aquellos que apoyaban la reversión a Vector 2010 estaba relacionado con todos los problemas, errores y otros problemas que aparecieron cuando se implementó la nueva apariencia. Algunos de estos problemas se conocían desde la anterior RfC , que se realizó a fines del año pasado, y la declaración final dejó en claro que la implementación de Vector 2022 dependía de que algunos de estos problemas se solucionaran de antemano. Muchos participantes vieron esto como un error por parte de la WMF a la hora de seguir nuestros procedimientos.

Durante el debate, los usuarios publicaron enlaces a tickets de Phabricator que mostraban que se estaba trabajando en muchos de los problemas de los que se quejaban. Durante el tiempo que la RfC permaneció abierta, los empleados de WMF también publicaron varias respuestas, que incluían una lista de problemas que habían abordado y que abordarían en el futuro . Estas correcciones no solo significaron que WMF finalmente logró cumplir con las condiciones del cierre de la RfC anterior, sino que también plantearon la pregunta de qué tan fuertes eran cada uno de los votos ! centrados exclusivamente en estos problemas.

Esto no quiere decir que quienes se oponían a la reversión sólo presentaban argumentos sólidos. Además de los votos de tipo "me gusta" , también hubo argumentos de hechos consumados (o falacia de los costos irrecuperables ), lo que significa que, dado que el cambio ya se ha producido, no tiene sentido volver atrás. Algunos también argumentaron que decisiones como esta están fuera del alcance de la comunidad, según WP:CONEXCEPT .

A primera vista, tenemos una clara ventaja numérica para aquellos que apoyan la reversión a la antigua apariencia, pero muchos de estos votos positivos se basaron exclusivamente en problemas específicos con Vector 2022, como el ancho de texto fijo, la gran cantidad de espacios en blanco y el uso excesivo de íconos, así como algunos problemas de accesibilidad. Otros comentaron sobre errores que encontraron al usar la apariencia. La WMF ha corregido varios de estos problemas (por ejemplo, el interruptor de ancho fijo que no persiste) y es probable que se realicen más cambios.

Teniendo en cuenta todo lo que se ha discutido anteriormente, no vemos un consenso para revertir la apariencia predeterminada en la Wikipedia en inglés a Vector 2010. Si bien aquellos que estaban a favor de la reversión tenían una mayoría numérica, sus argumentos eran relativamente débiles y los cambios de la WMF a Vector 2022 desde su implementación han abordado las preocupaciones de muchos. Dado que vemos los cambios realizados por la WMF como cumplimiento con el RfC anterior, esto significa que el acuerdo anterior se mantiene.

Con respecto a la segunda pregunta presentada en esta RfC, los argumentos presentados por ambas partes fueron muy similares a la primera pregunta, en el sentido de que a algunos les gusta el nuevo ancho limitado y a otros no. Algunos de los que apoyan un ancho ilimitado señalaron que muchos artículos contienen galerías, tablas, etc., y se vieron afectados negativamente por el nuevo ancho. Hubo mucha discusión sobre si los artículos científicos alcanzaron algún tipo de consenso sobre el mejor ancho, y ambas partes presentaron estudios con puntos de vista opuestos sobre el tema. La gran cantidad de espacios en blanco fue una de las principales preocupaciones de quienes apoyaron la reversión de Vector 2022. Dado que los argumentos son iguales en fuerza, existe un consenso aproximado para hacer que el ancho ilimitado sea el predeterminado .

Como bien sabemos, el consenso puede cambiar , y una de las sugerencias que se hicieron durante este debate fue abrir una nueva convocatoria de propuestas en seis meses, después de que los lectores y editores hayan tenido tiempo de adaptarse a la nueva apariencia. Los editores interesados deberían intentar trabajar junto con la WMF para obtener estadísticas, como encuestas adicionales, que podrían usarse como base para la nueva convocatoria de propuestas. Esto también permitiría hacer preguntas más específicas a los participantes, como cómo presentar la tabla de contenidos, uno de los cambios más polémicos en el diseño o si el ancho predeterminado debería permanecer como está o cambiarse nuevamente a un ancho fijo.

Firmado,
Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:46, 16 de marzo de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Ingenio ( discusión • contribuciones ) 01:47, 16 de marzo de 2023 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

¿Debería Wikipedia volver a utilizar Vector 2010 como skin predeterminado? ~ HAL 333 20:32, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]

Nota: Esta RfC fue trasladada de Wikipedia:Bombas de agua para pueblos (propuestas) el 21 de enero de 2023, con esta edición . Las discusiones de esta página fueron trasladadas a la subpágina /Discusión el 14 de febrero de 2023, con esta edición . InfiniteNexus ( discusión ) 07:18 20 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]

Soporte para volver a Vector 2010

Apoyo como nom La WMF impuso unilateralmente la skin vector 2022 a la comunidad, a pesar de una discusión comunitaria que concluyó que no había consenso para tal cambio. La ONUS estaba en la WMF para convencer a la comunidad y fracasó . Y el argumento de que los editores somos solo una pequeña porción de los usuarios de Wikipedia está muerto al llegar: los editores y lectores de IP no pueden usar nada más que la skin 2022. La WMF había decidido que no tenían otra opción ni voz en este asunto. La skin 2022 en sí es inferior a su predecesora de 2010. Es indulgente, hecha por personas con como mucho un mínimo de experiencia en edición, y mal hecha, con excesivo espacio en blanco y sándwiches de generación y una miríada de otros problemas. Volvamos a lo que funcionó. Volvamos a lo que miles de millones de lectores de Wikipedia han contado con completo contento durante más de una década. En resumen, si no está roto, no lo arregles. ~ HAL 333 20:32 19 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Entonces Wikipedia no debería cambiar nunca, para siempre? 331dot ( discusión ) 20:43 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Felicito a tu hombre de paja. ~ HAL 333 20:51, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Puedes responder a la pregunta? Porque eso es lo que estás diciendo. Que nunca se debe implementar ningún cambio porque no le agrada a todo el mundo, lo cual es imposible. 331dot ( discusión ) 20:58 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso no es lo que está diciendo. Hay una diferencia significativa entre no complacer a todos y desagradar a una gran parte de tu comunidad. Tu argumento es vacío. Inicié sesión por primera vez en mucho tiempo solo para revertir este cambio innecesario que ninguna mayoría significativa quería. IronRook ( discusión ) 23:54 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nada en Wikipedia se decide por una mayoría de votos, sino por consenso y ponderación de argumentos. No se me ocurre ningún cambio potencial que no desagrade a mucha gente; esa es una receta para no cambiar nada. 331dot ( discusión ) 00:12 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No ha existido de ninguna manera un consenso de este tipo para aplicar el vector 2022 como predeterminado. La comunidad no lo apoya claramente. T v x 1 01:34, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El RfC que se iba a implementar no tenía nada de eso. No hubo consenso y, como señalaron los editores de cierre, el peso de los argumentos iba en contra de la cuestión del ancho fijo, es decir, obligar a los editores y lectores a utilizar un ancho limitado en lugar de permitirles utilizar el ancho completo si lo prefieren. Si se abordan satisfactoriamente todas las preocupaciones descritas anteriormente [...] , escribieron los editores. La WMF no ha hecho esto. En su lugar, agregó un botón que los lectores tendrían que presionar en cada página, cada vez que sigan un enlace o ingresen desde Google o naveguen a nuestro sitio. Esto es cómicamente inadecuado y me resulta difícil entender por qué los lectores realmente lo harían, en lugar de frustrarse y darse por vencidos y aceptar infelizmente lo que consideran una experiencia de visualización inferior. Como dijo 24.251.3.86 en mediawiki, es "demasiado pesado para ser útil o práctico y, como tal, básicamente podría no existir por todo el bien que hace". - Kiz o r 01:57, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Los lectores tendrían que presionar en cada página, cada vez que sigan un enlace o ingresen desde Google o naveguen a nuestro sitio. Esto es falso. El botón se mantiene, al menos para mí. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:05 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No para mí. Al pasar de las elecciones generales de Antigua de 2023 a Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, a Felipe Pérez Roque y al Partido Comunista de Cuba en una ventana de incógnito, tengo que alternar el ancho completo cada vez. -- Kiz o r 02:15, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El problema es probablemente el modo incógnito , supongo que esto se implementa con cookies. No estoy seguro de si esto es un problema para los objetivos de ethos, aunque me inclino más por decir "esto es un problema". Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:18, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) El problema real es que no guarda las preferencias de quienes no han iniciado sesión. Dios mío, esto es tan simple, ¿por qué no me di cuenta antes? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:30, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
A mí no me persiste y tengo habilitadas las cookies. Por cierto, uso Brave. De todas formas, no es de extrañar que se comporte de forma diferente en distintos sistemas, algo que los desarrolladores tendrían que investigar. Jeremy Jeremus ( discusión ) 02:21 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Jeremy Jeremus @ Kizor Me acabo de dar cuenta de que el factor era si habías iniciado sesión o no. Obviamente, se trata de un problema enorme que probablemente no se solucionará (salvo por el ancho máximo predeterminado) por parte de WMF debido a la sección § ¿Por qué no hay preferencias para usuarios anónimos? en las preguntas frecuentes. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:29, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy un lector (no me conecto y no puedo hacerlo por varias razones) y no me gusta el nuevo diseño. Hoy ya tuve que hacer clic en el botón de "ancho máximo" 10 veces. Preferiría la cantidad mínima absoluta de espacio en blanco, no entiendo cuál es el sentido del relleno, quiero usar todo mi monitor para leer artículos. 74.199.75.192 (discusión) 04:07 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es incorrecto en los hechos o, al menos, idealmente incorrecto. Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 19:00, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ambos enlaces son a ensayos, que pueden considerarse como consejos, pero de ninguna manera son políticas o pautas. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:59, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El cambio debería requerir como mínimo una mayoría, idealmente un consenso. No hay ninguna de las dos cosas aquí. No hay nada más que un abuso de poder por parte de WMF al imponer este cambio no deseado a la base de usuarios y negarse rotundamente a abordar nuestras quejas al respecto. Está claro como el día que WMF es un problema. 2600:1700:1471:2550:6002:A2:F43C:2665 (discusión) 22:12 10 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Así que ves el mundo en blanco y negro. Si la gente no está de acuerdo contigo, entonces etiquétala como adversa al cambio. Eso es triste.
No digo que no deban cambiar nunca, pero no veo en qué sentido esto sea un paso en la dirección positiva.
El objetivo de Wikipedia es transmitir información fácilmente a cualquier persona que acceda al sitio. No logro entender cómo es positivo colocar un espacio en blanco tan grande alrededor de los datos y hacer que la fecha ocupe aproximadamente 5/8 de su tamaño original en una PC. Ahora, cada vez que accedo a Wikipedia, lo que ocurre muy a menudo, tengo que hacer un paso más. Ahora necesito hacer zoom en la página para poder leerla fácilmente. Desafortunadamente, esto tiene algunos efectos secundarios indeseables.
Si el objetivo es que funcione mejor en los teléfonos, no penalicen a los usuarios de PC. Hagan que su software sea más inteligente para que detecte en qué plataforma se encuentra y muestre la página de manera adecuada. 134.243.253.241 ( discusión ) 14:38, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HAL333 , a pesar de una discusión a nivel de la comunidad que concluyó que no había consenso para tal cambio. La ONUS estaba en la WMF para convencer a la comunidad y fracasó . - desde el cierre de la RfC a nivel de la comunidad: vemos el apoyo de la comunidad para implementar el cambio (aunque debe notarse que está precedido por [i]si todas las preocupaciones descritas anteriormente se abordan satisfactoriamente, entonces ). — Qwerfjkl talk 20:44, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Qwerfjkl : Es un " si " muy importante , ¿no? Lo convierte en un consenso condicional, con la condición (parafraseada) de que "las inquietudes relacionadas con el ancho, los íconos no intuitivos y el selector de idioma deben resolverse de manera satisfactoria antes de la implementación".
Teniendo en cuenta que el ancho, los iconos/botones no intuitivos y, en menor medida, el comportamiento del selector de idioma son los tres temas principales recurrentes de las muchas, muchas quejas en los diversos foros de anuncios y páginas de discusión relevantes, claramente , de hecho, no se han resuelto de manera satisfactoria.
Por lo tanto, no se ha cumplido la condición y no hay consenso en la comunidad para este lanzamiento específico de Vector 2022. AddWitty NameHere 21:11, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@AddWittyNameHere , los principales problemas que se notaron en el cierre fueron el ancho y la tabla de contenidos. Hubo mejoras en estos aspectos (mejoras que no tengo tiempo de encontrar).
En cualquier caso, no se trata de un cierre condenatorio contra V22 ni de que WMF lo imponga a los editores. Puede que no sea perfecto, pero no vale la pena otro enorme RfC que difícilmente será constructivo. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:20, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Qwerfjkl : Tienes razón, olvidé agregar la tabla de contenidos como otra preocupación importante (que también es otro tema recurrente de quejas. Qué coincidencia). Sin embargo, tanto los botones no intuitivos como el comportamiento del selector de idioma también se mencionaron explícitamente en el cierre. Y, por supuesto, no dudo de que haya habido mejoras. Eso no significa que los problemas se hayan resuelto satisfactoriamente, en este momento.
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo en que no es un cierre condenatorio contra la versión 22 o su implementación futura . Es un "gran parte del concepto básico funciona, pero esto, esto y esto se deben arreglar antes de que esté listo para implementarse como configuración predeterminada".
¿Algunas quejas, especialmente de los editores diarios de en.wiki? Sí, eso es algo que ocurre con cualquier gran cambio y no prueba gran cosa. Pero cuando una gran cantidad de direcciones IP y nuevas cuentas (léase: lectores de Wikipedia, en lugar de editores) se esfuerzan por encontrar alguna página donde puedan registrar su insatisfacción, y esta insatisfacción casi siempre se refiere a los mismos problemas que se destacaron como "arreglar estos primero, implementar después", eso es una pista bastante clara de que las cosas no se solucionaron de manera satisfactoria, a pesar de todas las mejoras que se hayan podido hacer.
Si una RfC es o no una buena idea en este momento es una cuestión secundaria. Puedo ver buenas razones a favor y en contra, y qué lado ganará depende en gran medida de si se puede esperar o no que la WMF realmente solucione satisfactoriamente estos problemas ahora que se ha implementado la máscara; y de si existe o no alguna posibilidad de que tales soluciones ocurran en un futuro cercano. (Personalmente, sospecho que "sí y pronto" para los problemas que se inclinan hacia el lado de "es un error", pero no estoy tan seguro cuando se trata del resto de los problemas, especialmente porque la comunicación de los empleados de WMF hasta ahora no parece reconocer realmente que ciertas cosas son problemas en primer lugar). AddWitty NameHere 22:01, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@AddWittyNameHere , no estoy completamente seguro de que V22 fuera perfecta cuando se implementó (de hecho: no lo era), pero ahora que está aquí, supongo que nos quedaremos con ella. Esperemos que los errores se resuelvan y tengamos una apariencia completamente funcional (no es que V22 no sea funcional, y nunca me he encontrado con ningún error, pero otros sí).
Irónicamente, la principal queja que tengo es que V22 es demasiado ancha. De alguna manera he habilitado algo que ensancha V22, pero lo prefiero estrecho y lo veo de refilón cuando las páginas se cargan inicialmente. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:10, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, en cuanto a la gran cantidad de quejas, es probable que sea inevitable, sin importar lo que hagamos. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:21, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Qwerfjkl , creo que puedo estar de acuerdo con una buena parte de eso al menos desde una perspectiva práctica, y las partes con las que no estoy del todo de acuerdo probablemente no valgan la pena discutir más aquí, así que, ¿acordemos simplemente estar parcialmente en desacuerdo?
Re: tu problema de ancho, revisa tus preferencias, pestaña "Apariencia". ¿Está marcada la casilla antes de "Habilitar modo de ancho limitado"? Si no, márcala para volver a habilitar el ancho limitado. AddWitty NameHere 23:01, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@AddWittyNameHere , estoy de acuerdo . Y no tuve suerte, tengo habilitado el modo de ancho limitado. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Creo que es el botón de expandir. Parece que ya no existe. — Qwerfjkl talk 13:06, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
WP:FAIT - El hecho de que algo ya se haya hecho no significa necesariamente que no se pueda (o no se deba) deshacer. WalnutBun ( discusión ) 01:57 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese cierre no refleja con precisión el consenso de la comunidad. Más personas se opusieron a la propuesta que las que la apoyaron. No hubo ningún apoyo claro, sino más bien una fuerte división. En este caso, se justifica una revisión del cierre. T v x 1 01:37, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es horrible, me obliga a registrarme solo para revertirlo. No se lee bien y le faltan funciones de navegación. También es lo suficientemente malo como para impedirme donar a la fundación.
2A02:A450:F52:1:E9B8:23B6:ADAA:FDD2 ( discusión ) 19:19 25 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. Yo también creé una cuenta solo para deshacerme de ella. Tarkalak ( discusión ) 07:37 15 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Al menos vuelve temporalmente. Recibe comentarios de personas ajenas a la torre de marfil. Corrige cualquier deficiencia claramente identificada. Luego, tal vez inténtalo de nuevo. North8000 ( discusión ) 21:06 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se solicitó la opinión de la comunidad North8000 y no solo de una torre de marfil, y hubo una RFC que condujo a la implementación. Puede estar en desacuerdo con sus conclusiones si lo desea, pero se hizo. 331dot ( discusión ) 21:08, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me refería a los detalles, por ejemplo, si se deben o no enterrar y ocultar opciones muy utilizadas, separando la cuestión de tener todo ese espacio en blanco, etc. North8000 ( discusión ) 21:17 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ 331dot No es que me importe, ya que mi skin todavía está configurado en Vector 2010, pero los RfC que cierran con 154 apoyos y 165 oposiciones no deberían considerarse un éxito. Liliana UwU ^{( discusión / contribuciones )} 21:18, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
LilianaUwU Nada en Wikipedia se hace por mayoría de votos, sino por consenso y ponderación de argumentos. 331dot ( discusión ) 21:24 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y sopesando los argumentos todavía no se llega a un consenso a favor en ningún sentido. T v x 1 01:38, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto, tienes derecho a tu opinión y a estar en desacuerdo con la forma en que se sopesaron los argumentos. Pero así fue. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:53 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los argumentos se sopesaron en base a "vamos a hacer esto de todos modos, independientemente del consenso". Así que supongo que, al menos en ese sentido, tienes razón. Los argumentos se sopesaron, pero fueron irrelevantes. LeperColony ( discusión ) 01:49 25 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué pasa con las RfA? Allí la mayoría cuenta. Los contadores de votos fallaron al cerrar la RfC en el lanzamiento de Vector 2022 (aunque dejaron suficiente espacio para una RfC opcional antes del lanzamiento) y el problema del ancho tampoco es claramente visible, ya que hay numerosos editores que lo cuestionan. Yo tampoco lo he encontrado, aunque no me importa. En realidad, me gusta cada vez más Vector 2022, pero también puedo usarlo si está habilitado opcionalmente. De todos modos, ahora hay una nueva RfC y veremos el resultado. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 01:27, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En AfD también suele contar la mayoría. Si no hay un consenso claro, no hay consenso. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 14:42 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se hizo y luego se desestimó. El consenso se opuso a los cambios. Buen intento. LeperColony ( discusión ) 01:48 25 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte con un asterisco : una solución que creo que sería la más beneficiosa sería un botón en la barra lateral para alternar entre Vector 2022 y Vector 2010, con la posición inicial de Vector 2022. He descubierto que Vector 2022 hace que sea molesto navegar por WP en el escritorio sin necesidad de editar, pero reconozco que a la gente le gusta. Sin embargo, la libertad de elección para los no usuarios es absolutamente inexistente y debería corregirse. Soporte muy débil. No me gusta el cambio, pero teniendo en cuenta el punto que plantea Terasail y el hecho de que las IP no puedan elegir aspectos, solo puedo dar un soporte débil. Esta es una situación en la que nadie sale ganando, aparentemente. Lucksash ( discusión ) 22:30 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los usuarios no tienen las mismas opciones que los usuarios. Según la información sobre la skin, existen problemas de privacidad que impiden que las IPs elijan una skin. No todo en la vida puede ser una elección. 331dot ( discusión ) 22:56 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fue mi error. Debería haber leído un poco sobre los detalles de la codificación. Lucksash ( discusión ) 23:10 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿A qué te refieres con problemas de privacidad? Estuve en la llamada de Discord hoy y me dijeron que el problema estaba relacionado con el almacenamiento en caché , es decir, el sitio que se muestra a los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión tiene que ser el mismo para todos para que se pueda almacenar en caché. No se menciona la privacidad ni en la página principal de Wikipedia ni en la página de WikiMedia.
(Observo que debería ser posible tener una configuración persistente para al menos la cantidad de espacios en blanco (que parece ser la principal objeción) implementada puramente del lado del cliente, sin efectos significativos en el rendimiento o la privacidad). Bakkot ( discusión ) 01:20, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay problemas de privacidad que impiden que las IP elijan una skin.
Pero seguramente esto se solucione permitiendo que las IP elijan Vector 2010 por defecto. ¿Mediante cookies? En esencia, optar por no ser anónimo solo en lo que respecta a la skin que uses. El único argumento en contra que he escuchado es que usa más jugo del servidor. Y encuentro ese argumento extremadamente débil. ¿Cuánta jugo del servidor se usará con más clics, más cuentas y más protestas de anónimos que odian esto y cuentas que usan la skin anterior por defecto? — Shibboleth ink ^{( ♔} ^{♕ )} 18:12, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Shibbolethink , se explica más adelante, pero esto requiere almacenar en caché cada página tanto en V22 como en V10, lo que sería muy costoso. No se puede almacenar como una cookie o algo similar para evitar un destello de contenido sin estilo . — Qwerfjkl talk 22:05, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ahora que lo pienso, ¿qué impide que el sitio lea las cookies primero antes de mostrar las páginas? (Tenga en cuenta que aquí solo estoy hablando del modo de ancho máximo) Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 22:21, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para ahorrar aún más dinero, podríamos dejar de contratar diseñadores web que se encarguen ~~de la desinfección de teléfonos~~ . Card Zero (discusión) 05:40 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : el nuevo estilo es estéticamente malo y tiene demasiado espacio en blanco (en lo que parece ser un intento de adaptar la vista de escritorio a los dispositivos móviles); no hubo un consenso adecuado para implementarlo; y la versión anterior no estaba rota y no necesitaba ser reemplazada. CuriousCabbage ( discusión ) 22:33 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Entonces no se debería cambiar nada en Wikipedia nunca, para siempre? 331dot ( discusión ) 22:49 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo digo con todo el respeto que puedo, pero ¿te das cuenta de lo ridícula que es esa respuesta? Te dejaré que mires Template:Falacies para ver dónde encaja tu comentario. Para ayudar: el hecho de que no me guste un nuevo anuncio en particular de algún producto no significa que deban dejar de hacer anuncios o nuevos productos. Pero bueno, para seguir tu línea de pensamiento, tal vez nunca deberíamos tener páginas web; o computadoras; o electricidad; o tecnología. Todo porque simplemente se sugirió que se revirtiera alguna edición de un sitio web que a ti te gusta y a otra persona no. - jc37 23:02, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece interesante que la gente no responda a la pregunta, sino que me critique por hacerla. No es una falacia porque eso es lo que estás insinuando con "si no está roto". Algo no tiene por qué estar roto para que se lo cambie. He visto muchos más comentarios que dicen que Wikipedia parece haber sido diseñada en los años 90 que comentarios que dicen que debería seguir igual. No estoy seguro sobre el diseño, pero lo estoy probando. No hay ningún cambio que agrade a todos. 331dot ( discusión ) 23:11 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es lo que yo estaba insinuando en absoluto. Pero responder a otra persona que dice que no cree que el estilo necesite un reemplazo total con "¿Entonces no se debe cambiar nada en Wikipedia nunca, para siempre?" es sumamente ridículo. No creo que nadie esté diciendo eso. Este cambio es realmente un paquete de cambios y, en este caso, el paquete parecería tener problemas. Si me sirven una comida gourmet, pero el pan tiene moho, no significa que nunca más quiera otra comida gourmet. - jc37 23:25, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si dices que los cambios deben hacerse poco a poco, está bien, pero sigue existiendo el problema de que ningún cambio agradará a todos, y hacerlo poco a poco solo alarga el proceso sin mejorarlo. Es mejor arrancarlo como si fuera una curita. La frustración que tengo aquí es que quienes dicen que esto se hizo sin la participación de la comunidad por dictadores en una torre de marfil, lo cual es demostrablemente falso. No estés de acuerdo con esto todo lo que quieras, propone todos los cambios que quieras, propone ideas para una mejor comunicación, todo eso está muy bien. Pero ver que las personas que trabajaron en esto sean atacadas, insultadas y maldecidas o que se les diga "no saben tanto como yo con 30 años de experiencia" por hacer su tarea es triste de ver. Solo quiero ver que la gente sea civilizada y tenga comprensión. 331dot ( discusión ) 23:38, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los cambios tampoco deberían hacerse por el simple hecho de hacerlo. Tu razonamiento es totalmente falaz. T v x 1 01:41, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No lo han cambiado por el mero hecho de cambiarlo. Hay razones, si quieres leerlas. Siéntete libre de estar en desacuerdo, pero esto no se hizo sin una razón. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:50 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Toda mejora implica un cambio. Pero no todo cambio implica una mejora. Tenlo en cuenta. 37.134.90.176 ( discusión ) 08:55 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
He estado siguiendo los comentarios de 331dot y son tan consistentemente falaces que solo puedo suponer que son vándalos con malas intenciones. "Hubo una RfC" Sí, nadie la vio. Si vas a hacer un cambio en todo el sitio, publica un enlace en CADA página durante un mes. 2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (discusión) 19:47 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD , por favor, suponga que es de buena fe . — Qwerfjkl talk 20:36, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No se puede asumir buena fe cuando sus preguntas reductio ad absurdum se plantean con mala fe desde el principio. 73.119.237.50 (discusión) 01:03 27 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es eso lo que dije. Pero no hay nada malo, incompatible, roto, obsoleto o estéticamente desagradable en la apariencia anterior, y todos estos cambios en la apariencia nueva sirven (i) para agregar más espacio en blanco, lo que hace que las páginas sean más difíciles de leer; y (ii) para hacer que el menú de herramientas sea plegable y, por lo tanto, más inaccesible y difícil de usar. Bien puede ser que dentro de cinco o diez años sea necesario un rediseño para mantener las páginas con un aspecto fresco, o para incorporar alguna nueva tecnología o capacidad técnica que esté disponible. Pero Wikipedia en este momento todavía se ve limpia y sigue siendo fácil de usar. Este cambio de apariencia específico solo empeora las cosas que no estaban rotas. CuriousCabbage ( discusión ) 00:31, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Hay alguna posibilidad de que dejes de repetir los mismos argumentos sin sentido? 82.9.90.69 ( discusión ) 01:51 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Correcto. Nunca se debe cambiar nada en Wikipedia. Safari en macOS (discusión) 19:25 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es exactamente mi experiencia. Se desperdicia mucho espacio en el escritorio, que es principalmente como uso Wikipedia, y es mucho más difícil de leer. Definitivamente parece privilegiar los dispositivos móviles a expensas de los dispositivos de escritorio. El nuevo aspecto tiene un efecto secundario, que es que me registré en Wikipedia porque esa es la única forma que pude encontrar de volver a una versión más agradable y fácil de leer de Wikipedia. Definitivamente pasaré menos tiempo en Wikipedia porque ahora es más difícil de leer. Shoutandecho ( discusión ) 17:03, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Apoyo Creo que este cambio se hizo mal. No estoy en contra del cambio, pero no de este, todavía se debe trabajar en él y corregir muchas cosas. Soy francés, llevo 2 (?) años sufriendo este mal diseño. De todo lo que me molesta de la WMF es la total ignorancia de los comentarios negativos y el enfoque en la opinión de unos pocos editores cuidadosamente seleccionados. Hasta que V2022 aterrizó en la Wikipedia en francés, yo era un simple lector como cualquier otro, y creo que el enfoque en los editores es desalentador, nosotros los lectores también deberíamos tener voz en eso, en mi punto de vista esto se ha decidido a puerta cerrada. DerpFox ( discusión ) 22:36 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay contenido para leer sin editores. El proceso fue abierto y se llevó a cabo durante años con comentarios y estudios. 331dot ( discusión ) 22:53 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Sí? ¿Y? ¿Hace que los editores sean más importantes que los lectores? No, no es así. Y ahora, si pudieras dejar de intentar silenciar cualquier voz disidente de la versión oficial de la WMF, estaría bien, gracias. DerpFox ( discusión ) 23:11 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy silenciando a nadie y me ofendo por la sugerencia. Estoy respondiendo a los comentarios de manera civilizada como parte de una discusión. Tampoco me silenciarán. 331dot ( discusión ) 23:15 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@DerpFox, ¿te diste cuenta de que ahora se puede ir del final de esta discusión al principio de la misma con un solo clic en el panel lateral izquierdo, presionando el botón (arriba)? ¿Que las secciones de un artículo ahora se muestran en el panel lateral a la izquierda o en las viñetas junto al título del artículo sin separar la introducción del cuerpo? Para mí, esas cosas pesan mucho más. También hay otras características que parecen buenas o excelentes. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 09:07, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte por ahora. Los problemas técnicos importantes, como la compatibilidad con la rueda del mouse y las configuraciones de IP permanentes, deberían haberse solucionado antes del lanzamiento, los íconos de "carne misteriosa" son insostenibles y los botones de idioma son un tremendo paso atrás. Estos problemas deben solucionarse en segundo plano, no en vivo después del lanzamiento, y esto se comunicó claramente a WMF en la RFC anterior. VQuakr ( discusión ) 23:34, 19 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo hasta que se resuelvan los problemas, especialmente el contenido comprimido. Esto era muy predecible y muy evitable . Thebiguglyalien ( discusión ) 23:42 19 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Decir que la nueva skin es horrible es quedarse corto, ¿sabes? ¿Por qué demonios empezaron a diseñar esto? — Mike Novikoff 00:00, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si aún no lo has hecho, consulta WP:VECTOR2022 para obtener más información. 331dot ( discusión ) 00:14 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es realmente interesante. La pregunta era solo retórica. Estoy seguro de que hay muchos enlaces e incluso atajos para justificar el horror, pero sigue siendo uno. Un horror. Lo apagué lo antes posible. Gracias por tener un enlace para hacerlo, al menos. — Mike Novikoff 04:49, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sabes, me acaban de robar Twinkle (porque no puedo soportar ES6), así que ya me estoy relajando y pensando en Inglaterra . ¿Ahora quieres que pruebe un DP? Por cierto, parece que hay demasiado 331dot por ahí, por favor deja de apalearme . — Mike Novikoff 05:27, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte mientras siga siendo imposible que los usuarios que hayan cerrado sesión vuelvan a iniciarla de forma persistente, lo que, si no me equivoco, parece ser el caso por razones técnicas. Jeremy Jeremus ( discusión ) 00:21 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En aras del consenso, plantearé mi argumento con más claridad. Espero que esto acabe con los negativismos y las opiniones poco convincentes y nos acerque al final de esta discusión: 1) La opinión de todos los lectores es importante, no solo la de las personas activas con cuentas, y ciertamente no solo la de los desarrolladores o sus donantes. No todos los que usan Wikipedia pueden leer con sesión iniciada, y las personas activas pueden cambiar su configuración de todos modos. Esto no significa necesariamente que una encuesta global sea la mejor manera de averiguar qué es lo mejor, pero no me opondría a una, siempre que la interpretación de los resultados y la metodología se acuerden de antemano. 2) No se llegó a un consenso y las personas que lo convocaron cometieron un gran error al pensar que no habría una reacción mayor. Debido a esto, no hay ninguna razón legítima para decir que el hecho de que Vector 2022 sea la opción predeterminada está justificado como un hecho consumado . La única razón por la que seguiría siendo así sin ningún intento de llegar a un consenso adecuado es porque las personas poderosas pueden salirse con la suya. 3) Hasta donde sé, no sería algo muy difícil de revertir desde el punto de vista técnico, y los desarrolladores aparentemente están probando con usuarios que no tienen otra opción que no sea no usar el sitio web. No veo ninguna razón por la que no se pueda hacer esto al menos hasta que se llegue a un consenso real, excepto que las personas con las claves están irracionalmente apegadas a Vector 2022 o tienen intereses comerciales que les impiden hacerlo, ninguno de los cuales está al servicio del propósito de este sitio web. Jeremy Jeremus ( discusión ) 18:22 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : Vector 2022 es un espantajo y mucho más difícil de navegar que el Vector heredado. La apariencia también daña muchas páginas cuyo diseño no estaba optimizado para Vector 2022. El equipo web no comunicó claramente el cambio a todos los usuarios activos con anticipación, lo que resultó en una avalancha de quejas en WT:VECTOR2022 en los últimos dos días. El hecho de que muchos editores no estuvieran al tanto de este cambio hasta el lanzamiento, y/o no participaron en la RfC anterior, plantea preguntas sobre si hubo consenso para implementar Vector 2022 como sugiere el equipo web. InfiniteNexus ( discusión ) 00:46, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo a Shinanoki ( discusión ) 01:08 20 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : no soy un editor tan activo como lo fui durante un tiempo, pero aún soy conocido como "el tipo que edita Wikipedia" en muchos lugares donde frecuento. El último día he visto una enorme ola de oposición de un amplio espectro de lectores... todos los que conozco, francamente. Estallidos absolutos de "esto es horrible" mucho más allá de lo que se obtiene de la mayoría de los cambios de diseño de sitios web. A los lectores que prefieren el escritorio no les gusta la estética del sitio móvil (hay una razón por la que hay esos bots diseñados para eliminar m. de los enlaces móviles, dado que aparentemente está más allá de nuestras capacidades hacerlo a propósito), y detestan una nueva apariencia que pretende copiar la estética del sitio móvil. Las estadísticas de exclusión voluntaria miden mal las opiniones de los lectores sobre las apariencias, porque los lectores no tienen cuentas y no se puede esperar razonablemente que las creen para cada contexto en el que leen Wikipedia. En ningún lugar entre miles de lectores de diversos ámbitos de la vida he escuchado una sola palabra positiva sobre la nueva apariencia, ni siquiera como rechazo. También conservo todas las muchas quejas que he tenido personalmente sobre esta skin durante los últimos dos años; los íconos de idioma son terribles, la falta de opciones genuinas en la barra lateral es terrible, el formato de la imagen es malo, la cantidad de espacios en blanco distrae, la comunidad en realidad no apoya el cambio, etc. (Cada una de estas que no está basada en la comunidad que he visto se repitió vocalmente y con enojo durante el último día).
Si Wikipedia fuera un sitio web más típico, sería bastante trivial resolver el problema de la apariencia; simplemente podríamos agregar un menú desplegable para que todos los lectores seleccionen su apariencia preferida. El problema es que Wikipedia no puede hacerlo bajo su marco ideológico/filosófico actual, ya que el compromiso requeriría un seguimiento de cookies para permitir que persista entre sesiones. Esto da como resultado que a las personas que se quejan a info@ se les diga que "simplemente creen una cuenta", lo que no es una solución escalable (e ignora el hecho de que los lectores tienden a leer Wikipedia en cosas distintas a sus computadoras personales, donde aún quieren ver su diseño preferido). Mi única solución seria es "generar automáticamente una cuenta para cada dirección IP". Si esto te parece insostenible, está bien: ¡estos cambios son controvertidos y difíciles de revertir individualmente y es precisamente por eso que es malo imponerlos a literalmente miles de millones de personas! Profeta vaticida 01:13, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Ha encuestado a miles de lectores? Me interesaría ver los resultados. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:24 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Así no debería funcionar. Eso debería ocurrir antes, no después de exigirlo... - jc37 01:30, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La Fundación hizo encuestas y pruebas. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:31 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ver mw:Lectura/Web/Mejoras en el escritorio/Repositorio/Encuesta de opinión Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 01:33 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es interesante ver cuán polarizadas fueron las respuestas de satisfacción general, aunque la sección de Introducción se escribió en septiembre anticipando que Vector 2022 se convertiría en la opción predeterminada de manera inevitable e irreversible. Jeremy Jeremus ( discusión ) 01:40 20 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Su encuesta solo encuestó a 152 personas, y de ellas, solo el 24 % les dijo que "la nueva máscara es más fácil de usar que la anterior". No solo no se trata de una muestra representativa, sino que siguieron adelante con esto con solo un 24 % de respuestas positivas. WalnutBun ( discusión ) 01:43 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué te hace pensar que esta discusión será más representativa? Por lo general, son las personas que están insatisfechas con algo las que más se expresan al respecto, más que las personas que no tienen ningún problema. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:46 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigues diciendo cosas como esta, pero cuando la queja es "El proceso utilizado para generar esta acción fue malo", una respuesta de "El siguiente proceso también puede ser malo" es bastante poco convincente. La forma correcta de hacerlo es con encuestas amplias de todo tipo de usuarios, no de 152 personas (¿aparentemente en su mayoría editores?). 72.49.221.183 (discusión) 04:03 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Yo diría que esta convocatoria de propuestas debería anunciarse en la página principal y en Wikipedia:Noticias , para solicitar opiniones de la mayor cantidad posible de usuarios. Como se trata de un rediseño radical de todo el sitio, creo que la convocatoria de propuestas original debería haberse publicitado de la misma manera. Todos deberían haber tenido la oportunidad de opinar, y yo diría que confiar en que la gente busque información en una página que tal vez ni siquiera sepa que existe no contribuye a generar un verdadero consenso comunitario, especialmente en asuntos que realmente afectan a todos los usuarios del sitio. WalnutBun ( discusión ) 20:53, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ni siquiera diría que la página principal sería útil; visito Wikipedia casi todos los días y nunca miro la página principal. Colóquela en uno de esos avisos publicitarios: veo regularmente quejas sobre solicitudes de donaciones, por lo que la gente debe estar prestando atención a esas HerrWaus ( discusión ) 12:16 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Este porcentaje es muy alto en comparación con la cantidad de personas que votaron que la skin original era más fácil. La mayoría votó por neutralidad, por lo que este porcentaje es tan pequeño. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 04:22 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En casos como este, cuando se considera un rediseño radical de un sitio web completo que utilizan cientos de miles de personas cada día, una respuesta neutral a una encuesta debería considerarse una preferencia por el diseño actual, no una autorización para cambiar las cosas. Como mínimo, debería haberse exigido una pluralidad de personas. WalnutBun ( discusión ) 20:38 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una cosa que me llama la atención de inmediato es que se eliminaron las respuestas con "lenguaje grosero". Las respuestas negativas fuertes suelen utilizar lenguaje grosero; tengo curiosidad por saber cuántos de los comentarios eliminados eran realmente irrelevantes y cuántos eran del tipo "este diseño es terrible".
OVasileva (WMF) , ¿están disponibles los datos brutos de esto? ℰmi1y_{⧼ T · C ⧽} 08:28, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buen hallazgo, no me había dado cuenta. Otra cosa que hay que señalar es que agruparon las respuestas neutrales y positivas. No hay ninguna razón válida para hacerlo, salvo la manipulación de la percepción del lector: hace que parezca que más gente estuvo de acuerdo con el cambio de la que realmente estuvo de acuerdo. Un artículo verdaderamente neutral habría separado más claramente las tres categorías de respuestas.
Además, al releer el artículo se ve que también eliminaron "respuestas que no respondían a todas las preguntas de la encuesta". ¿Cuántos comentarios se descartaron simplemente por no haber completado el formulario completo? WalnutBun ( discusión ) 20:48 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta encuesta A/B es un ejemplo de una conclusión sesgada y una interpretación engañosa de los resultados para su objetivo.
Después de descartar inicialmente la mayoría (398/550 = 72%) de las respuestas, el desglose de los resultados restantes (válidos) fue el siguiente:
60 respuestas indicaron que la experiencia anterior era más fácil de usar.
49 respuestas indicaron que encuentran ambas máscaras igualmente fáciles de usar.
37 respuestas indicaron que la nueva experiencia era más fácil de usar.
Téngase en cuenta que la suma de estas tres respuestas arroja un número mayor de respuestas totales (146) que la cantidad realmente informada (142), lo que no me da confianza en la precisión general del informe.
A pesar de que las respuestas válidas preferían la experiencia anterior en una proporción de 1,6 a 1 (60:37), la interpretación proporcionada fue que "la mayoría de los encuestados informaron que la nueva experiencia es más fácil de usar o que la experiencia nueva y la anterior son igualmente fáciles de usar". Si bien esto es cierto, ya que 86/142 es de hecho una mayoría, podría haberse afirmado igualmente que "la mayoría de los encuestados informaron que la experiencia anterior es más fácil de usar o que la experiencia nueva y la anterior son igualmente fáciles de usar". Estas cifras serían entonces 109/142, una cifra mucho más convincente.
Dada la redacción de la interpretación elegida en el informe, los autores parecen haber engañado al lector con su conclusión de que la nueva experiencia (V22) era preferible a la máscara anterior. Loopy30 ( discusión ) 05:03 27 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como lector que ha estado usando este sitio durante más de una década, ¿qué encuesta? Nunca he visto ninguna mención de una encuesta. Está muy bien afirmar que hubo una encuesta pública, pero bien podría haber sido dentro de un archivador detrás de una puerta cerrada con un cartel que dijera "cuidado con el leopardo". Como se mencionó anteriormente, la encuesta encuestó a 152 personas, lo que según la propia página de Wikipedia es el 0,00014% de los usuarios registrados y quién sabe cuántos no registrados. Tuve que crear una cuenta solo para revertir este cambio inútil. DutriusTwo ( discusión ) 16:03 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@DutriusTwo, bonita referencia a la Guía del autoestopista galáctico . — Qwerfjkl talk 19:15, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
No entiendo lo que estás diciendo aquí. ¿Antes de qué? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 01:32 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo, en realidad no hubo consenso para implementar esto en primer lugar y la nueva apariencia es claramente peor que la anterior. Dado que los desarrolladores no están dispuestos a permitir que los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión elijan entre las dos apariencias, deberíamos volver a la apariencia que la gente prefiere y a la que está acostumbrada. Elli ( discusión | contribuciones ) 01:13, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es una cuestión de voluntad, hay problemas de privacidad al hacerlo; esa información tendría que almacenarse en algún lugar. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:18, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No existe ningún problema de privacidad al usar una cookie del lado del cliente para una configuración como esa. Elli ( discusión | contribs ) 01:27, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ver Wikipedia discusión:Vector 2022#No fuerce la creación de una cuenta de usuario , que es donde leí esa afirmación. 331dot ( discusión ) 01:38, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si revisas el hilo al que haces referencia, verás que el representante de WMF admite que no tiene los conocimientos técnicos necesarios para saber si este es el caso y que simplemente está repitiendo información que ha leído en otro lugar. Incluso lo admitieron antes de que publicaras esto. Para que quede claro, no es necesario que haya un equilibrio entre la privacidad del usuario y tener esta función. 89.102.98.143 (discusión) 19:35, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Consulte la Directiva sobre privacidad y comunicaciones electrónicas de 2002#Cookies . Actualmente, Wikipedia es quizás el único sitio web importante que queda que no tiene que mostrar una ventana emergente gigante que diga "¿Acepta las cookies?" a los visitantes de la UE. Esto cambiaría eso. –  Joe ( discusión ) 05:41, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tu afirmación es falsa. No existe ningún requisito para mostrar banners para las cookies de configuración de temas. La mayoría de los banners que ves están en sitios que no están dispuestos a dejar de rastrear a sus usuarios. Además, hay 6 cookies que se envían actualmente a los visitantes que no han iniciado sesión, incluida una que parece contener una geolocalización y muchas otras con marcas de tiempo. Claramente, una cookie para rastrear una preferencia de tema oscuro o de apariencia no erosiona más la privacidad que las que ya se utilizan. 89.102.98.143 (discusión) 19:26, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no tiene nada que ver con la privacidad. Ver mw:Lectura/Web/Mejoras del escritorio/Preguntas frecuentes §§ ¿Por qué el enlace de cancelación de suscripción no está disponible para los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión? y ¿Por qué no hay preferencias para los usuarios anónimos?. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 01:30 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, esta nueva skin afecta principalmente a los lectores frecuentes que no han iniciado sesión y la opción menos disruptiva debería ser la predeterminada para aquellos que no han iniciado sesión. Jeremy Jeremus ( discusión ) 01:22, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo al menos temporalmente, basado principalmente en la reacción del "público". Personalmente, prefiero 2010, pero la preferencia personal no es el punto. La existencia de un RFC bien publicitado en el pasado no impide que ahora se responda a los comentarios negativos. Dicho esto, espero ver que la WMF/quien sea responda rápidamente con cambios en el diseño en función de los comentarios o una reversión mientras lo ajustan. Spinning Ceres 01:23, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Mi mayor problema con este lanzamiento es que no se dio publicidad en absoluto, o al menos no se dio a conocer bien. Uso Wikipedia casi a diario (tanto con la sesión iniciada como con la sesión cerrada) y puedo decir honestamente que no vi ninguna señal de que se estuviera considerando este cambio antes de que se implementara repentinamente, y no soy el único: Wikipedia_discusión:Vector_2022 está llena de personas (y al menos un administrador de wiki) que también se vieron sorprendidas por este cambio. WalnutBun ( discusión ) 01:37, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoye de la manera más firme posible . Esta acción es una de las peores que he visto por parte de la WMF. Se realizó una RFC para medir el apoyo y se ignoró por completo. El cambio se impuso de manera unilateral y, si la WMF tiene algún respeto remoto por su comunidad, lo revertirá lo antes posible. T v x 1 01:51, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La RfC NO se ignoró por completo, de hecho, el problema fue que los encargados de cerrar la comunidad decidieron equivocadamente que si se realizaban los cambios propuestos por la parte contraria, entonces la implementación se podría realizar sin ninguna nueva RfC. La fundación simplemente actuó en base a este cierre equivocado en el que confiaban porque no provenía de la fundación. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:01, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces se justifica una revisión del cierre. T v x 1 02:04, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy más nuevo en Wikipedia que tú, ¿existe alguna revisión de cierre especializada? De lo contrario, ¿no bastaría esta RFC como revisión de cierre? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:07, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las revisiones de cierre de RfC generalmente se llevan a cabo en WP:AN , pero esta RfC servirá. InfiniteNexus ( discusión ) 03:51, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En este caso, no hay nada de malo con WMF, el RFC se cerró demasiado rápido, lo que provocó este malentendido. Lemonaka ( discusión ) 02:03, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Seguro que la WMF está equivocada. El cierre indicaba claramente que era necesaria una RFC de seguimiento, pero la WMF simplemente lo ignoró y forzó el cambio unilateralmente. T v x 1 02:07, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso fue exactamente lo que dijo el cierre en contra, para citar y en nuestra opinión no se requeriría más RfC Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:11, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, incluso si hay un consenso para volver a cambiar, creo que WMF no lo aceptará. Si realmente dijeran
En nuestra opinión, no se requeriría más RfC
, entonces todo es inútil. @ Aaron Liu Lemonaka ( discusión ) 02:17 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Lemonaka Nuevamente , eso no fue de WMF, fue de dos editores respetados que no tienen relación con WMF y que cerraron el asunto. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:22, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Volver a la versión anterior Sé que no hay nada malo en WMF, pero la RFC anterior claramente no es un consenso.
Por cierto, creo que si este caso se está volviendo cada vez más candente, Arbcom debería tomar nota. Lemonaka ( discusión ) 01:57 20 ene 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Soporte . Como usuario ocasional que ha usado Wikipedia durante más de una década, he descubierto que la nueva interfaz de usuario es extremadamente frustrante. Siento que me han obligado a crear una cuenta para un sitio web que nunca antes había tenido que usar con regularidad solo para poder revertir los cambios. Si de alguna manera se pudiera realizar esta implementación sin necesidad de crear una cuenta para revertir, podría haber sido mucho más sencillo para toda la comunidad. Tal como están las cosas, sin la posibilidad de revertir sin iniciar sesión, encuentro estos cambios como hostiles hacia los usuarios ocasionales, lo que parece ser contrario al objetivo principal de la implementación de los cambios en primer lugar... — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 2601:600:9681:ffa0:7002:7aac:8a4b:b978 (discusión) 01:58, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Soporte hasta que haya una manera fácil de volver a la interfaz anterior sin tener que crear una cuenta. Por ejemplo, Reddit aún mantiene old.reddit.com (la interfaz anterior, que en mi opinión es mejor) junto con reddit.com (rediseñada) - F ASTILY 02:07, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La forma más sencilla es utilizar una extensión de redireccionamiento como fastforward y redirigir cada enlace /wiki a https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Page_title_with_underscores&useskin=vector y redirigir cada enlace /w a un enlace con el sufijo &useskin=vector. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:10 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué tan desconectado y fuera de onda tienes que estar para pensar que esa es la forma "más fácil"? Eres solo otro ( ataque personal eliminado ) en su torre de marfil que cree que sabe más y que todas las personas a las que no les gusta el cambio son simplemente idiotas retrógrados a los que "no les gusta el cambio". 198.21.192.40 (discusión) 23:57 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El mayor apoyo posible : navegación misteriosa, romper cosas que no necesitan romperse, quitarle al usuario el control del ancho del texto, espacios en blanco sin sentido, densidad de información reducida motivada por estadísticas dudosas en un ejemplo típico desbocado de la Ley de Goodhart en la que las medidas gradualmente ganan importancia percibida hasta que el diseño se hace al servicio de las métricas en lugar de las métricas al servicio del diseño... este rediseño no tiene buenas características y muchas malas. Como autodidacta, investigador independiente e historiador aficionado que ve docenas de páginas aquí por día, y por lo tanto algo así como un usuario avanzado a pesar del hecho de que no edito la enciclopedia, si no tuviera los conocimientos técnicos para crear una cuenta para evitar este terrible rediseño, ya habría comenzado a buscar información en otro lado tanto como sea posible. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack ( discusión ) 02:22, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo hasta que los editores que no hayan iniciado sesión puedan darse de baja. Cualquier sitio web para el que tenga que crear una cuenta solo para leer está muerto para mí . Las cuentas son para interactuar . No quiero recordar otra maldita contraseña. Ahora resulta que tengo una cuenta aquí. Resulta que interactúo aquí. Esto no se trata de mí, ni de la mayoría de las personas que pueden encontrar esta página. Se trata de la persona que solo quiere leer sobre la historia francesa o el bosón de Higgs, y le acaban de imponer esto, y nos va a dejar para siempre como otro sitio web inutilizable de mala calidad. Denles a los lectores una opción. Esto no es imposible. Si no es trivial, reviertan el cambio temporalmente. Suffusion of Yellow ( discusión ) 02:23, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La mayoría de las personas lo verán en un teléfono y, de todos modos, no verán la nueva apariencia. Si a los lectores les importara tanto la apariencia como sugieres, crearían una cuenta para cambiarla. Garuda3 ( discusión ) 19:49 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La mayoría de las personas no llegan más lejos que Google cuando se trata de leer Wikipedia. Todo es cuestión de perspectiva. — The DJ ( discusión • contribuciones ) 08:48, 25 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los problemas principales que tengo con el cambio son el espacio en blanco masivo que no sirve para nada y es un color demasiado duro para monitores de alto contraste, la falta de persistencia de las configuraciones principales a diferencia de otras wikis con la función de ancho limitado, la poca visibilidad del botón de expansión debido a su diseño delgado y su ubicación dentro del espacio en blanco que de otro modo no se utilizaría donde se mezcla, y la vista expandida que tiene menos cuerpo visible que la versión 2010. Dado que hay advertencias en la parte superior, tuve que encontrar la discusión original sobre vector 22 en reddit de todos los lugares desde allí encontré que la solución era crear una cuenta (tenía una, nunca la usé realmente) o usar scripts de terceros. Deadoon ( discusión ) 03:08, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Deadoon , solo comparto una actualización de que casi hemos terminado con el trabajo que hace que el interruptor de ancho completo sea persistente para las personas que no han iniciado sesión (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498). Con respecto al espacio en blanco, se ha demostrado que una cierta cantidad de espacio en blanco alrededor del texto ayuda a la legibilidad, pero más allá de eso, el espacio en blanco adicional realmente no está destinado a cumplir un propósito en sí mismo. Más bien, es el efecto secundario de seguir el criterio WCAG y la mejor investigación sobre la longitud de línea. Reconozco que es molesto para mucha gente; creo que porque sienten que el espacio se desperdicia, o simplemente no les gusta lo diferente que se ve la página ahora. Sin embargo, creo que es una mala idea llenar el espacio solo porque a la gente no le gusta cómo se ve. Creo que debemos seguir centrados en la utilidad y tal vez tratar de ser más constructivos a la hora de proponer ideas para poner cosas allí que aumentarían la utilidad. ¿Tienes curiosidad por saber si eso tiene sentido? Saludos, AHollender (WMF) ( discusión ) 02:20 26 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ AHollender (WMF) En lugar de llenarlo para apaciguar, ¿por qué no llenarlo para brindar funcionalidad o como parte del formato? Por ejemplo, mover los cuadros de información, las imágenes y los subtítulos a los costados y hacer posible la expansión de los subtítulos. En lugar de simplemente restringir el área de lectura, ampliar las capacidades.
Un problema importante que tengo con el espacio en blanco es que simplemente no está interrumpido y es excesivamente brillante; las áreas vacías oscuras o las áreas con elementos que rompen ese brillo son mucho más atractivas y menos duras para la vista cuando se usan en pantallas con mayor brillo y contraste. Esto, combinado con la ubicación del botón de expansión en la parte menos visible del espacio en blanco, hace que se mezcle y sea bastante difícil de ver. De hecho, tuve que buscar detalles sobre este cambio porque los que me dirigían los artículos normales eran inútiles. Así es como terminé aquí (a través de aproximadamente 4 redireccionamientos y discusiones inconexas) desde el reddit. Deadoon ( discusión ) 12:29, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Deadoon gracias por tu respuesta. En resumen: sí, estoy de acuerdo en que deberíamos estar considerando ese tipo de cambios/opciones, y Vector 2022 abre la posibilidad de hacerlo. Ahora hemos implementado la cuadrícula CSS y tenemos mucha más flexibilidad para pensar en el diseño de la página y en cómo formateamos el contenido. Creemos firmemente que al limitar la longitud de la línea ya hemos mejorado significativamente la experiencia de lectura para la mayoría de los lectores (es decir, Vector 2022 ya es un gran paso en la dirección correcta). ¿Seguiremos iterando para mejorar aún más la experiencia? Sí, al 100%. ¿Cuánto tiempo deberíamos haber esperado antes de introducir Vector 2022 en la Wikipedia en inglés? Este es un tema muy difícil y polémico. Pero el punto principal que quiero comunicar es: no tomamos esta decisión a la ligera. Si revisas la documentación del proyecto, nuestras profundas colaboraciones con varias comunidades, etc., creo que descubrirás que es cierto : ) AHollender (WMF) ( discusión ) 13:53, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, me lo ha empeorado mucho. ScrewV22 ( discusión ) 12:46 29 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ver Wikipedia sin iniciar sesión es una molestia porque, si bien antes un artículo ocupaba el 80 % de mi pantalla, ahora ocupa aproximadamente el 50 %. Qué desperdicio de espacio en la pantalla. RPI2026F1 ( discusión ) 03:17 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte condicional No puedo encontrar ninguno de los artículos citados que respaldan las afirmaciones sobre que los espacios en blanco son buenos en las preguntas frecuentes para el rediseño (Lin 2004 o el estudio de laboratorio de Wichita State cuyo número DOI no va a ninguna parte). Creé una cuenta después de casi 18 años de uso diario porque no estaba satisfecho con los espacios en blanco. Me sentiría impulsado a cambiar mi opinión si alguien pudiera mostrar los estudios empíricos que respaldan la existencia de espacios en blanco para la comprensión lectora sin sacrificar la velocidad de lectura. Puedo entender que este es un principio de diseño que muchos sitios han ocupado, pero no veo por qué Wikipedia debe sumarse a tal tendencia. Lo que es elegante hoy, mañana envejece. Vector 2010 me parece un diseño atemporal. Guidethebored ( discusión ) 03:25, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que cuando vi que la gente de WMF citaba las fuentes, decían que las fuentes decían que ralentizaba la velocidad de lectura a cambio de la comprensión lectora. Recuerdo que la gente de WMF dijo que consideraban que esto era una compensación aceptable. Las compensaciones sin costo son muy raras. Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo con ellos en este punto. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack ( discusión ) 04:22 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
A continuación, alguien me vinculó a dos artículos: Wichita State y un artículo diferente sobre la longitud de la línea.
Ahora me siento inclinado a cambiar mi Condición a Apoyo Total . El estudio de Wichita State no se aplica a Wikipedia; no compara márgenes ni nada. Wikipedia ya tenía un margen que, por supuesto, ayudaba a la legibilidad. El otro artículo sugiere que no hay correlación entre la longitud de la línea y la comprensión lectora de los adultos. Sus párrafos Completo, Medio y Estrecho fueron calificados de manera variable según las métricas de facilidad percibida de desplazamiento, concentración y presentación, sin que haya un ganador claro en absoluto. Personalmente, necesitaría ver más para convencerme. Guidethebored ( discusión ) 15:52, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Encontré Lin 2004 aquí. No estoy seguro de si es accesible para todos, pero el texto probado estaba en chino (Taiwán) y se realizó con 24 participantes de entre 62 y 80 años reclutados entre los que tomaban una clase introductoria de informática en un instituto de bienestar social. Eniteris ( discusión ) 12:51 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Guidethebored , @ Eniteris : gracias por sus preguntas sobre la investigación. Hemos recopilado una serie de estudios de investigación a los que hicimos referencia, así como otra información general sobre el ancho limitado, como las pautas de accesibilidad WCAG sobre el ancho en la página de características del proyecto. Allí, también puede obtener más información sobre nuestra lógica detrás de realizar el cambio. ¡Espero que esto sea útil! OVasileva (WMF) ( discusión ) 17:41, 27 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Un retroceso total en términos de legibilidad. La mayoría de los participantes en la última convocatoria de propuestas se oponían a ello y solo el 24 por ciento de los encuestados pensaba que la nueva interfaz era más fácil de usar. Tkbrett (✉) 04:11, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo – No puedo evitar el hecho de que la RfC de octubre/noviembre terminó con 154 votos a favor y 165 en contra y, de todos modos, siguieron adelante. Me doy cuenta de que "no se trata de una votación", pero leí esos comentarios y no veo cómo los que estaban a favor de cerrar el proyecto llegaron a esas conclusiones. Y cuando leí ese cierre Wikipedia:Solicitudes de comentarios/Implementación de Vector (2022)#Discusión pensé que al menos significaba que algunas cosas se solucionarían antes de la implementación. Bueno, ninguno de los problemas que mencioné en esa RfC se solucionaron. DB 1729 ^discusión 05:05, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @ DB1729, gracias por participar tanto en la convocatoria anterior como en esta. Lamento que el menú de herramientas personales te esté causando frustración. Por curiosidad, ¿qué herramienta de ese menú utilizas con más frecuencia y cuántas veces por visita/sesión dirías que la utilizas?
En relación con la RfC anterior: creo que quienes cerraron la última RfC identificaron que la principal causa de oposición era la longitud limitada de las líneas (que mencionaste que era tu "gran problema"). En respuesta a eso, creamos un interruptor/configuración para que las personas puedan cambiar a un diseño de ancho completo si lo prefieren. En unos días, este interruptor también será persistente para las personas que no hayan iniciado sesión (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498). Esperamos que esto satisfaga las inquietudes de los miembros de la comunidad al respecto. Después de la RfC, hablamos con la gente de Fandom que se enfrentó a una oposición similar durante su reciente rediseño, lo que resultó en la creación de un interruptor. Compartieron datos con nosotros que mostraban que el 0,1 % de las personas usa el interruptor para hacer que el contenido tenga ancho completo (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T319449#8379920). También nos pusimos en contacto con Mary Dyson, la investigadora líder en legibilidad de texto en pantalla, quien nos aseguró que una longitud de línea limitada conduce a una mejor experiencia de lectura en general. Con esa información, combinada con el criterio WCAG y una amplia investigación, estamos bastante seguros de que la experiencia predeterminada debería ser la de ancho limitado. AHollender (WMF) ( discusión ) 02:30 26 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ AHollender (WMF) : Lamento que el menú de herramientas personales te esté causando frustración. Por curiosidad, ¿qué herramienta de ese menú usas con más frecuencia y cuántas veces por visita/sesión dirías que la usas? Nunca me he molestado en llevar un registro de cuántas veces hago clic en cada enlace, pero supongo que te refieres al menú desplegable. Fácilmente sería mi enlace "Contribuciones". De hecho, tengo un acceso directo en mi navegador, lo uso muy a menudo. No entiendo por qué alguien querría que estuviera oculto en un menú desplegable. Mencioné la lista de seguimiento en esa RfC anterior. ¿Por qué usar un símbolo en lugar de simplemente llamarla "Lista de seguimiento"? Por cierto, ¿"Frustración"? Actualmente elijo no usar V22, por lo que no me está causando ninguna frustración. ¿Cómo estás ? Supongo que estoy "frustrado" y me opongo en general a la noción de que reemplazar un texto perfectamente descriptivo con símbolos vagos y ambiguos sea de alguna manera una mejora. ¿Los símbolos están diseñados para analfabetos o lectores de mentes? Creo que quienes cerraron la última convocatoria identificaron que la principal causa de oposición era la longitud limitada de las líneas (que usted mencionó que era su "gran prohibición"). Como dije en la convocatoria anterior, justo después de la "prohibición", el problema es el ancho reducido que rompe el diseño de las tablas e imágenes, evidente en innumerables artículos, incluido el artículo que la WMF eligió presentarnos como ejemplo para esa convocatoria. La forma en que se colocan las tablas en la página en relación con las demás no tiene nada que ver con la "experiencia de lectura". Implementar una máscara que coloca incorrectamente innumerables imágenes y tablas es descuidado y descuidado. Cuando planteé esta inquietud en otro hilo, la respuesta fue esta, [1] lo que implica que la idea es que nosotros (editores habituales) arreglemos los problemas que ha creado la nueva máscara. (No tengo ningún interés en hacer eso, por cierto) DB 1729 ^talk 15:46, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ DB1729 , creo que estas tablas pueden haber aparecido rotas en la versión móvil del sitio web. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:45, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, eso es lo que se dijo. Entonces, ¿está bien romperlos también en el escritorio? DB 1729 ^talk 16:47, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ DB1729 , no, deberían arreglarse en ambos casos. El hecho de que los editores no puedan ver una tabla rota no significa que deba ignorarse. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:52, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, entonces supongo que sería mejor que se deshicieran por completo de las máscaras de texto ancho que sigo usando si quieren que me preocupe por esas cosas. DB 1729 ^talk 17:20, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte en la versión de escritorio, ahora todo parece un sitio móvil barato. Es muy difícil navegar y la experiencia de usuario no es satisfactoria. Juno ( discusión ) 05:10, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte soporte . Las herramientas que se usan con frecuencia (incluso por parte de usuarios ocasionales y sin cuenta) ahora están ocultas en menús y menús desplegables. Esto no solo hace perder tiempo al requerir que el usuario abra el menú y luego se desplace hasta su selección, sino que también hace que sea menos probable que se descubran dichas funciones. Una cosa sería si el espacio ahorrado se usara de manera eficiente, pero en cambio obtenemos el espacio en blanco de moda. Como mínimo, se debería buscar la opinión de los usuarios ocasionales y sin cuenta con banners de página que soliciten comentarios. Kilómetros a Verona ( discusión ) 05:26, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El uso de esta versión móvil para todos es simplemente una estafa para que los lectores de escritorio creen cuentas. Алхимик Темногорск (discusión) 05:52 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Алхимик Темногорск. Gracias por tu comentario. Solo para aclarar, la skin Vector 2022 no se usa en el sitio web móvil. El sitio web móvil usa la skin Minerva, que también puedes explorar en tus preferencias. OVasileva (WMF) ( discusión ) 17:46 27 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Usuario:OVasileva. La skin Vector 2022 no se usa en el sitio web para dispositivos móviles, PERO Vector 2022 es una skin para dispositivos móviles y se usa para usuarios de escritorio, eso está mal y es de eso de lo que estamos hablando. 83.30.229.13 (discusión) 16:54 29 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
83.30.229.13 , no es una skin para móviles. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:06, 29 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Gracias por abrir este RFC, que me ha ahorrado el problema de encontrar una consulta que planteé hace un par de años después de que se impusiera este cambio en algunos WP no ingleses o de plantear una nueva. He vuelto inmediatamente a Vector2010. Detesto Vector2022 por dos razones principales. (1) Hace que cambiar entre idiomas sea difícil y tedioso. No puedo enfatizar esto lo suficiente. Quiero que la lista se muestre alfabéticamente en la página, no en una especie de menú desplegable temático; para poder ver inmediatamente si hay o no un equivalente. No se trata simplemente de cambiar entre idiomas favoritos, sino de búsqueda multilingüe, que es lo que hago más que la mayoría o posiblemente cualquier persona; vea mi UserPage. (2) Quiero una tabla de contenidos que se pueda usar correctamente en páginas largas como WP:ANI , no una lista flotante difícil de navegar.
Solo noté el cambio porque compré una PC nueva hace tres días y no se trasladó a ella con mis preferencias. Gracias de nuevo; me han ahorrado muchas frustraciones.
No estoy en contra del cambio, pero estoy totalmente a favor de opciones fáciles de encontrar, y esta no es una de ellas . Narky Blert ( discusión ) 06:08 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Narky Blert , gracias por compartir tus opiniones sobre Vector 2022. Dos notas rápidas:
- Estamos explorando varias opciones con el selector de idioma, una de las cuales es hacer que el menú de idioma se pueda fijar. Puedes ver un prototipo de esto aquí: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki//File:Prototype_of_pinning_the_language_menu_to_the_sidebar.gif. Otra opción podría ser una configuración que permita la ordenación alfabética. La investigación que hicimos fue bastante clara en cuanto a que los recién llegados podrán encontrar el selector de idioma mucho más fácilmente con él en la nueva ubicación. ¡Estamos seguros de que podemos encontrar una solución que sirva a todos adecuadamente!
- Hemos recibido comentarios similares sobre la tabla de contenidos en páginas de administración específicas, una de las cuales es WP:ANI. Pronto trabajaremos en esta tarea, lo que debería mejorar la situación: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T317818
Tengo curiosidad por conocer tus opiniones sobre lo anterior. Saludos, AHollender (WMF) ( discusión ) 02:35 26 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo La audiencia principal de Wikipedia son los usuarios no registrados o que han cerrado la sesión, que son los que no pueden cambiar la apariencia del sitio web. Inicié sesión hoy con el único propósito de revertir este cambio visual, y es probable que haya un aumento en los usuarios que han iniciado sesión desde que se implementó este cambio. Reddit tiene su dominio "old.reddit.com" que permite a los usuarios que han cerrado la sesión usar la apariencia anterior, y no veo ninguna razón por la que Wikipedia no pueda usar un método similar aparte de la disociación completa del sitio web de su comunidad. La capacidad de la mayoría de los usuarios de Wikipedia de poder revertir la apariencia debería haber sido un mínimo indispensable para la implementación de Vector 2022 como predeterminado. Esta no debería ser la apariencia predeterminada hasta que Wikipedia pueda brindarles a los visitantes del sitio no registrados un método simple para revertir los cambios visuales que no constituya iniciar sesión o crear una cuenta. GalacticRuler456 (discusión) 06:15, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo De todos modos, nunca hubo un consenso para Vector 2022. Vector 2022 se ve horrible para los lectores y tiene peor usabilidad para los editores (los enlaces utilizados con frecuencia ahora están ocultos en los menús desplegables). Y WMF nos dirá que el aumento repentino en los nuevos registros (porque realmente mucha gente odia el rediseño y no hay una opción diferente para cambiarlo de nuevo) sería un éxito de la nueva apariencia, jajaja. -- Icodense ( discusión ) 06:34, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Por favor, vuelvan a colocar la sección de contenidos ampliada y en línea. Por ejemplo: https://imgur.com/a/TULEHvp. --LDF092 (discusión) 06:48 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Soy un usuario aleatorio que estaba lo suficientemente molesto por un cambio de función mal implementado anteriormente como para crear una cuenta para quejarme, y aquí estoy nuevamente con otra elección de diseño mal considerada. El diseño es un error. Claramente es la versión móvil del sitio la que se muestra erróneamente a los usuarios web. ¿Por qué, si no, tener un texto diminuto en una franja estrecha y grandes áreas de espacio vacío a cada lado? Creen una versión web adecuada del sitio o reviértanlo. Ikaruseijin ( discusión ) 07:22, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Ikaruseijin , solo para aclarar, la máscara Vector 2022 no se usa en el sitio web para dispositivos móviles. El sitio web para dispositivos móviles usa la máscara Minerva como predeterminada. Si te interesa obtener más información sobre la decisión de limitar el ancho del texto en la versión de escritorio, el equipo ha publicado su investigación y documentación en esta página del proyecto. OVasileva (WMF) ( discusión ) 18:21, 27 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ OVasileva (WMF) Excepto que claramente fue diseñado para dispositivos móviles, dado que el texto ocupa 1/3 de la página, con amplias áreas de espacio en blanco a ambos lados... ¿Por qué, si no, todo ese espacio muerto y texto restringido, excepto para que quepa en un iPad/tableta o teléfono inteligente? La única explicación alternativa es que fue mal diseñado, no fue probado ni examinado adecuadamente y no debería haberse utilizado. Ikaruseijin ( discusión ) 02:37, 28 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Ikaruseijin Por favor, lea mw:Lectura/Web/Mejoras del escritorio/Preguntas frecuentes § ¿Por qué se limita el ancho del contenido? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 14:44 28 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, ya lo he leído. Es una tontería. Me parece que el diseño anterior, con su texto ancho, es mucho más fácil de usar y leer que esta vista estrecha. La vista estrecha es apretada y me resulta una tarea ardua. Tengo que cambiar de línea una y otra vez en rápida sucesión y pierdo mi lugar verticalmente en el párrafo y tengo que volver a leer para encontrarlo de nuevo. Interrumpe activamente mi lectura y, por lo tanto, me lleva más tiempo comprender el contenido. Los usuarios de la web han sido entrenados durante años para leer texto de esta manera y, de repente, decides cambiar de estándar debido a alguna tontería vaga que no concuerda con la experiencia de... cualquiera que conozca que use Internet para aprender sobre cosas. Por lo tanto, reitero: el nuevo diseño está mal diseñado, no se ha probado ni examinado adecuadamente y no debería haberse utilizado .
Para enfatizar mi posición, publiqué en las redes sociales una captura de pantalla de la apariencia actual de la página principal de Wikipedia y no recibí ningún comentario positivo y todos los que comentaron pensaron que era un diseño terrible y difícil de leer.
Soy una persona normal, no un editor de Wikipedia. Abrí una cuenta específicamente para presentar quejas, ya que Wikipedia NO tiene otros medios para recibir informes de errores o quejas sobre funciones y Wikipedia tiene la costumbre de introducir funciones poco meditadas y se da palmaditas en la espalda por dificultarle las cosas a la gente. Esto es como si yo me hubiera esforzado y me hubiera causado inconvenientes, además de perder el tiempo... Si estoy aquí para quejarme, puedes estar seguro de que miles de personas que no se molestaron en tomarse la molestia que yo he tenido sienten lo mismo. Eso debería decirte algo, pero no estás escuchando. Ikaruseijin ( discusión ) 10:33 29 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Interrumpe activamente mi lectura y, por lo tanto, me lleva más tiempo comprender el contenido. Bueno, entonces eres una minoría de personas. No digo que no se pueda tener en cuenta tu opinión, solo digo que decidieron atender a la mayoría de las personas.
{tq|No he recibido comentarios positivos}} Siempre habrá más comentarios negativos sobre cualquier cosa. Si uno está contento, no comenta nada. Si uno piensa que algo es realmente muy, muy bueno, entonces comentará. Si uno piensa que es malo, comentará. Wikipedia NO tiene otros medios para recibir informes de errores . Puede que te interese nuestro phabricator. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 15:16 29 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por otra parte, una interfaz diseñada para dispositivos móviles no tiene por qué imponer un límite en el ancho del flujo de texto principal, porque el dispositivo lo hace por sí mismo. Un ejemplo más indicativo de diseños compatibles con dispositivos móviles son las páginas compuestas por bloques modulares cuyas posiciones relativas no influyen en su función, por lo que se pueden reorganizar fácilmente para que encajen en el espacio disponible. Vector 2022 no es muy diferente del Vector original en este sentido. Estoy de acuerdo en que la mayor dependencia de los íconos está influenciada en parte por los diseños para dispositivos móviles. isaacl ( discusión ) 18:00, 28 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me alegra que sepas sobre estas cosas porque yo no las sé. Todo lo que puedo hacer es relacionar cómo se siente el diseño. Eso es lo que estaba expresando. Se siente como si hubiera sido diseñado para dispositivos móviles; mal diseñado y con un formato inadecuado para la experiencia web de escritorio. Eso es lo que es el nuevo diseño: mal diseñado y con un formato inadecuado. Ikaruseijin ( discusión ) 10:42 29 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Claro, solo estaba respondiendo a tu pregunta "¿Por qué, si no, todo el espacio muerto y el texto restringido no encajan en un iPad, una tableta o un teléfono inteligente?" De hecho, dado que las pantallas más pequeñas tienen menos espacio para el contenido, el espacio en blanco suele reducirse en estos dispositivos, por lo que, si un diseño determinado no tuviera en cuenta las pantallas más grandes, el contenido llenaría todo el espacio. Entiendo que no te gusten los aspectos del diseño y está bien discutirlos por separado, sin preocuparte de si el espacio en blanco está relacionado o no con un diseño compatible con dispositivos móviles. isaacl ( discusión ) 22:26, 29 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, @Isaacl. Hace tiempo que me pregunto sobre esto. ¿Por qué tanta gente piensa que V22 parece un dispositivo móvil? Tu punto sobre que no hay grandes márgenes en el móvil coincide con mi forma de pensar. ¿Son los íconos? (Disculpas por publicar en un hilo antiguo, he estado tomándome un descanso de WP "inside baseball".) ⁓ Pelagic ( mensajes ) 08:48, 26 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los iconos son más delgados y tienen un aspecto más simple. Esos son los tres factores que probablemente hagan que la gente piense que se trata de un rediseño orientado a los dispositivos móviles. Cessaune [discusión] 10:11 26 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que la gente está eludiendo un poco sus comentarios en su reacción a las influencias del diseño móvil. Como mencioné, el uso de íconos está en parte influenciado por los diseños móviles (la internacionalización es otra influencia). Los menús plegables siempre han estado presentes en los sitios web enfocados en computadoras de escritorio desde que se agregó soporte para Javascript (y más tarde, características CSS adicionales) a los navegadores, pero debido al espacio limitado en la pantalla, los diseños móviles generalmente han movido los menús largos a la parte inferior de la página o los han hecho accesibles a través de un menú plegable. Por supuesto, las interfaces de apariencia más simple no se inventaron para dispositivos móviles (Google es el ejemplo obvio), pero a un nivel instintivo, menos cosas en la pantalla podrían equipararse con cómo aparecen las páginas en dispositivos móviles, incluso si las razones son diferentes (elección de diseño versus limitación del tamaño de la pantalla). isaacl ( discusión ) 17:44, 26 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que debería haber una discusión sobre si este diseño es incluso mejor que Minerva. Este es un diseño tan enfocado en dispositivos móviles (aunque no era eso lo que pretendían hacer) que creo que Minerva es en realidad un mejor diseño de escritorio que Vector 2022. 2601:246:CD80:8210:148C:E4F4:B7FF:B83F (discusión) 19:13 27 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No se trata solo de iconos y simplicidad, aunque estos sin duda contribuyen a la sensación de móvil. Los diseños que priorizan los dispositivos móviles suelen añadir más desplazamiento vertical para compensar el área de contenido horizontal reducida, así como utilizar una semántica que prioriza los dispositivos móviles, como ocultar todo detrás de iconos (porque no se quiere desperdiciar espacio en la pantalla con palabras en una pantalla de teléfono pequeña). Además, los sitios con un ancho extremadamente limitado suelen ser indicativos de que un desarrollador web está creando un sitio para una pantalla estrecha sin entender cómo implementar un diseño responsivo correctamente. Básicamente, solo imagina un sitio que se ve bien en un teléfono pero que se muestra en un monitor de escritorio mucho más ancho sin cambios de código. Se verá como un diseño de teléfono en el medio de la pantalla con enormes cantidades de espacio en blanco a ambos lados. Y eso es exactamente lo que Vector2022 se ve en pantallas de alta resolución. Trynn ( discusión ) 22:47, 27 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, como mencioné, el contenido y la iconografía colapsables son característicos de los diseños móviles. Pero un sitio que se ve bien en un teléfono que no fue diseñado para adaptarse a pantallas más grandes no tendrá espacios en blanco masivos, porque el espacio en blanco se reduce para los diseños orientados a teléfonos con el fin de maximizar la cantidad de contenido mostrado. Las páginas web no son como las antiguas aplicaciones de teléfonos iOS que simplemente se ampliaron para caber en la pantalla del iPad. Entiendo y aprecio por qué a algunos no les gusta el espacio en blanco con Vector 2022, y ciertamente deberíamos discutir esto. Sin embargo, no debemos preocuparnos de que la motivación fuera hacer que la página se ajustara a la pantalla de un teléfono. isaacl ( discusión ) 23:16, 27 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las páginas web no son como las antiguas aplicaciones de los teléfonos iOS que simplemente se ampliaron para que cupieran en la pantalla del iPad , pero ese es exactamente el punto. Las páginas diseñadas de manera adecuada no deberían verse como las antiguas aplicaciones de los teléfonos iOS escaladas para caber en una pantalla más grande, pero Vector 2022 se ve así. Esa es una parte importante de la crítica de que parece que fue diseñado para un teléfono. Trynn ( discusión ) 22:23, 28 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La ironía es que las páginas diseñadas incorrectamente solo para pantallas de teléfonos tienen el problema opuesto: áreas de contenido excesivamente amplias. isaacl ( discusión ) 02:10, 1 de marzo de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo a menos que se adopte la Pregunta 2. Tomar una de las preocupaciones principales del RFC original como un interruptor opcional es ridículo. "¡Puedes desactivar la horrible cantidad de espacios en blanco!" nunca debería ser la respuesta a los comentarios. Deberían desaparecer de forma predeterminada. Crea un interruptor que diga "¡¡¡Una forma de leer con apoyo de la investigación!!!!" que los vuelva a introducir. Parabolist ( discusión ) 07:25, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo totalmente: pasé un par de horas intentando, sin éxito, volver a algo en lo que pudiera navegar fácilmente (por ejemplo, una lista de seguimiento en la página en lugar de a través de un menú desplegable opaco). Pero para hacerlo, hay que entender más que yo, por ejemplo, saber qué significaban CSS, Monobook y el Vector original. Algunas de las nuevas funciones son, de hecho, bienvenidas (por ejemplo, poner los contenidos en la barra lateral en lugar de debajo de la barra principal), pero, en general, el nuevo diseño es molesto, frustrante y difícil de navegar. Si es técnicamente posible (de una manera más fácil y menos confusa), deje que los editores elijan lo que les resulte útil o preferible. —— Shakescene ( discusión ) 07:41, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Shakescene Aunque no está claro a primera vista, la lista de seguimiento ya está en la parte superior, está representada por un botón con tres líneas y una estrella a la izquierda o el menú desplegable del usuario. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 12:43 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es una de mis quejas sobre la nueva versión: ¿por qué usar íconos cuando las palabras funcionarán mucho mejor? ¿Por qué agregar algunos de los enlaces claros en la parte superior de la página en un cuadro desplegable? (Uso mucho el Sandbox y ahora tengo que hacer dos clics cuando antes solo hacía falta uno. Si quiero ir a mi lista de seguimiento, tengo que mirar los íconos poco claros e intentar descifrarlos). - SchroCat ( discusión ) 14:39 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
De manera similar, suelo utilizar "Contribuciones" para seguir trabajando en artículos que he editado recientemente, y Vector 2022 lo coloca a dos clics de distancia en lugar de a un clic como en 2010. ~ HAL 333 22:32, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
A mí me pasa lo mismo. Æo ( discusión ) 22:35 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es increíble, ¿no? En su afán por conseguir clics en dispositivos móviles, se olvidaron de que los humanos de este sitio usan palabras en inglés, no emoticones. Macktheknifeau ( discusión ) 12:16 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo Soy un usuario que utiliza Wikipedia varias veces al día con fines profesionales, personales y casuales. Normalmente mantengo la sesión cerrada, ya que no tengo ninguna razón para hacerlo a menos que quiera participar en una página de discusión o editar una página protegida, lo cual es una ocasión poco frecuente. Tengo dos cosas importantes que decir sobre esto. PRIMERO: la primera vez que escuché sobre esta nueva apariencia fue hoy, cuando sucedió, pero aparentemente, ¿se ha estado discutiendo sobre esto durante meses? Obviamente, esta discusión excluyó a las grandes franjas (¿probablemente la gran mayoría?) de usuarios como yo: personas que utilizan Wikipedia constantemente pero nunca inician sesión y se mantienen al día con la comunidad. Esto, para mí, es evidencia de que todas las conversaciones que se tuvieron fueron fracasos: ¿cómo pueden los usuarios diarios de este sitio no haber sabido que esto se estaba preparando durante meses si las conversaciones que se tuvieron fueron adecuadas? SEGUNDO: ¿Por qué este diseño se inclina tanto hacia un diseño orientado a dispositivos móviles? ¿No existe ya el sitio móvil para las personas que querían este diseño? Mi primera reacción a esta actualización fue asumir que había entrado en el sitio móvil por accidente. Si un artículo tiene muchas imágenes (como la mayoría de los artículos sobre temas que son incluso dignos de mención), apenas se puede leer una oración completa que no esté dividida a la mitad por un salto de línea. Las últimas cosas menores que tengo que decir: 1) Al menos la opción de preferencias personalizadas me da una razón para permanecer conectado ahora. 2) En el futuro, no donaré a la WMF cada vez que pregunten si se tomarán decisiones como esta sin un aviso o comentario significativo (una vez más, estoy en este sitio todos los días y no tenía idea de esto) de antemano. 3) Incluso Monospace es una mejor apariencia que esta nueva. Para concluir, simplemente vuelvan a usar la apariencia predeterminada a Vector 2010. Las personas que realmente querían esta nueva pueden cambiar sus propias preferencias para reflejarla. Teddybearearth ( discusión ) 07:46, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Independientemente de los méritos del diseño en sí, esto se aprobó con una interpretación de consenso extremadamente inestable y debería revertirse hasta que haya un consenso real. ℰmi1y_{⧼ T · C ⧽} 08:56, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo a todas las razones de apoyo dadas anteriormente, porque las oposiciones y las críticas como "los desarrolladores saben más" no son convincentes (ciertamente considerando el historial de los desarrolladores de WMF), y porque el nuevo diseño es una experiencia más pobre y poco intuitiva, con problemas como opciones raramente utilizadas que se muestran de manera destacada (incluso en modo texto, no como un ícono) mientras que herramientas mucho más comunes están ocultas detrás de íconos oscuros; todos los problemas con el menú desplegable "idioma" (demasiados para enumerarlos aquí); y la elección de diseño básica y extremadamente pobre de tener una banda adicional de elementos de menú entre el título del artículo y el cuerpo del artículo, creando un orden de "menú superior - título subrayado - segundo menú subrayado - texto" que no tiene absolutamente ningún sentido. Fram ( discusión ) 09:19, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Personalmente, creo que mover el segundo menú debajo del título del artículo tiene sentido. Es el contenedor del artículo. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 12:51 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está mezclando contenidos y menús de una manera innecesaria y distractora (acabo de volver a Vector22 para verificar mi respuesta, y es incluso peor de lo que recordaba, con un menú en la parte superior, uno en la misma línea ("idiomas") y uno debajo del título! También volví a verificar el menú desplegable de "idiomas" y, vaya, qué desastre total (prueba en Prix-lès-Mézières ). "Mundial", obtengo español, portugués y francés. Luego una subsección "América", donde obtengo los mismos idiomas, más cosas como "Véneto" (¿en América?). Luego una subsección "Europa", que de repente aparece en dos columnas, con un espacio en la columna del lado izquierdo sin ninguna razón discernible. En la sección "África", falta el francés. Y así sucesivamente... prueba en Barack Obama : el subtítulo "Mundial" significa que en lugar de un orden alfabético neutral, ahora obtienes un orden decidido por algún desarrollador (lo sé, ellos lo saben mejor, deberíamos callarnos) lo que significa que muy Los idiomas de pequeña construcción aparecen cerca de la parte superior (en la sección "Mundial"), mientras que los idiomas más importantes, como el japonés, están cerca del final. En los artículos con pocos idiomas, como Miguel Escalona (futbolista chileno) , se obtiene una búsqueda abreviada en los idiomas, con el texto "buscar un". Sí, claramente probado, funciona como se esperaba. Fram ( discusión ) 13:32 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todavía no veo por qué distrae, para mí está bien. No entiendo el error de "buscar un" abreviado y me gusta la idea, pero ¿qué diablos es esta clasificación? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 13:39 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien por ti si 4 en lugar de 2 lugares para encontrar los elementos del menú no son una distracción, ni la anomalía de "subraya el título, luego subraya el menú debajo de él también", ni la anomalía de "oye, tenemos elementos de menú de texto y elementos de menú de íconos, pero aún no teníamos un texto + ícono, ¡usémoslo para "idiomas"!". Los desarrolladores infalibles parecen haber confundido el antiguo diseño de "pestañas" de la línea de menú "artículo/discusión/..." con uno subrayado, y al ponerlo debajo del título, han recreado un poco ese aspecto que ya no tiene ningún significado aquí, y solo distrae (el antiguo menú tenía "artículo" y "leer" en blanco como "pestañas" activas, y cosas como "discusión" y "editar" en gris como pestañas inactivas: el nuevo vector intenta lograr esto mediante un subrayado más en negrita en lugar de un subrayado menos en negrita, lo que simplemente parece amateur. Cuanto más lo uso, más veo pequeños problemas que indican que este producto no está terminado en absoluto; por ejemplo, en el diseño anterior, si abro Twinkle (el menú desplegable "TW") y luego "Más" (el menú desplegable "Mover"), estos aparecen uno al lado del otro: en el nuevo diseño, el de Twinkle oscurece parcialmente el de Mover. Otro problema: en la vista previa, ¿no aparece ninguna tabla de contenidos? Eso es realmente molesto. Fram ( discusión ) 14:41, 20 Enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo La forma en que se aprobó el cambio en primer lugar me parece dudosa. Este fue un cambio lo suficientemente importante como para justificar la publicación en la página de discusión de todos para pedir una opinión. Pero se ocultó en un tablón de anuncios, frecuentado por algunos, pero no lo suficiente como para justificar el cambio. Incluso entonces, hubo muchos en oposición, con un consenso sospechoso. Wikipedia puede no ser una democracia, pero es un proyecto comunitario y la comunidad no fue consultada lo suficiente sobre el cambio, simplemente porque la mayoría de la gente no estaba al tanto. JohnmgKing ( discusión ) 09:36, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . No creé esta cuenta para cambiar la apariencia de Wikipedia de esta horrible pseudociencia móvil "New Reddit" a la buena - si me obligas a hacer eso, claramente no me quieres aquí, así que ni siquiera me voy a molestar - creé esta cuenta para hacerte saber que toda esta debacle demuestra que tienes un gran desprecio por tus usuarios, blanqueado a través de pseudociencia cursi del peor tipo, y si realmente vas a imponer esta tontería a todo el mundo, arruinando lo que queda del bien que la gente ha creado a través de esta institución - algo legendario en toda la historia de la humanidad, como una Biblioteca de Alejandría moderna, como un subconjunto particularmente brillante de Internet en su conjunto - entonces todos están muy, muy profundamente en una etapa irrecuperable de colapso. Espero sinceramente que lo reconsideres. Hazme sentir como un joven investigador curioso que recopila información sobre todos los temas más fascinantes del mundo, no como un moribundo aburrido con demencia en un asilo de ancianos leyendo revistas insultantemente feas con letra grande sobre nada. Buenas noches. Tu diseño es malo (discusión) 09:49 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se movió este comentario hacia arriba desde la sección Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Vector 2022 Actualización posterior a la implementación del equipo WMF . -- Kiz o r 10:14, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo a la reversión. Las numerosas respuestas que veo, de editores y lectores, van desde "¿Qué pasó?" hasta "Por favor, revierte" y lo que no se puede imprimir. Veo muy pocos elogios por el cambio. Obviamente, muchos desarrolladores han trabajado mucho y duro en Vector 2022, y les agradezco que hayan producido una apariencia alternativa que algunas personas preferirán. Sin embargo, está muy lejos de ser la opción popular y no debería ser la predeterminada. Certes ( discusión ) 10:43 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo El nuevo diseño es una completa broma. Extremadamente malo, absolutamente inútil. Si no recuperan el diseño anterior, Wikipedia se caerá con seguridad. Dejaré de contribuir y usar Wikipedia de ahora en adelante si no se recupera el diseño anterior. 130.88.16.130 ( discusión ) 10:42 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo de la manera más fuerte posible . No me gusta nada la nueva skin. Creo que la gran mayoría de usuarios y editores sienten lo mismo que yo. Edito tanto con inicio de sesión como sin él. ¿Cómo vuelvo permanentemente a la skin anterior sin iniciar sesión? Simplemente no puedo y me siento incómodo editando en la nueva skin. Sunlitsky ( discusión ) 10:56 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Ni siquiera estoy seguro de si mi estado de IP me permite comentar, pero el nuevo requisito de necesitar JavaScript para ver la Tabla de Contenidos es malo. Por seguridad, no tengo JavaScript habilitado en ningún sitio, por lo que actualmente no puedo ver ninguna Tabla de Contenidos, ni puedo ampliar la vista con el ícono del cuadro. Por lo tanto, disminuye la utilidad de Wikipedia. Además, tener enlaces útiles ocultos detrás de íconos sin nombre que requieren clics adicionales solo para ver lo que hay es molesto y una pérdida de tiempo. 113.211.110.53 (discusión) 11:17, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, es una práctica terrible exigir el uso de JavaScript. Existen numerosos problemas con JavaScript, y uno de ellos, y no el menor, es la seguridad. Mucha gente en todo el mundo deshabilita JavaScript porque es peligroso. No hay ninguna buena razón para exigirlo en Wikipedia. 2600:1700:1471:2550:6002:A2:F43C:2665 (discusión) 22:50 10 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte La nueva versión tiene demasiados problemas, especialmente en lo que respecta al espacio de pantalla desperdiciado de manera inflexible. Los cambios estéticos y de usabilidad están bien, pero este es considerablemente menos útil en muchos sentidos que la máscara existente. -- Jayron 32 12:04, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Volví a Vector 2010 inmediatamente. El antiguo Vector permite trabajar mucho más fácilmente con respecto a los idiomas (sin tener que abrir un menú para ver si hay una versión de idioma disponible), tiene mucho menos espacio en blanco y es compatible con las herramientas desarrolladas. Además, creo que la mezcla de varios grises en la misma página (barra lateral vs. artículo) es una mala elección de diseño. Vector 2022 puede seguir estando disponible para optar por ello, pero definitivamente es menos utilizable y menos estético que la máscara anterior. Lo único que me gusta de la nueva máscara es la disponibilidad de la tabla de contenidos al desplazarse. Es triste que la Fundación haya impuesto unilateralmente su decisión a la comunidad sin un consenso adecuado, pero no la haya apoyado donde realmente importa (por ejemplo, en lo que respecta a la tecnología para Commons). Si hay una desaparición de Wikipedia, se derivará de la brecha cada vez mayor entre la Fundación y la comunidad. -- TadejM ^{mi charla} 12:14, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En particular, destacaría la falta de una tabla de contenidos estática como elemento clave que rompe visualmente el diseño de las páginas. Por ejemplo, el encabezado de sl:Wikipedija:Pod lipo (versión eslovena de la bomba Village) parece estar muy bien con Vector2010, pero con Vector2022 tiene un enorme espacio vacío. Además, los identificadores de tabla de contenidos utilizados por ambos encabezados difieren, por lo que la plantilla:Skip to bottom no funciona con ambas versiones y se debe insertar un ancla manualmente. Muy espantoso. Muchos usuarios siguen usando Vector2010 y es extremadamente difícil diseñar el diseño de manera sólida para ambas apariencias. -- TadejM ^{mi charla} 05:35, 11 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Como dije en la RfC anterior sobre el tema, Vector 2022 tiene demasiado espacio en blanco y no hay una razón clara para ello, particularmente cuando se ve la máscara en un monitor de escritorio grande. El interruptor para agrandar la página para llenar el ancho de la pantalla es demasiado pequeño y prácticamente imposible de notar hasta que te dicen que está allí (lo sé porque lo probé y pasé varios minutos buscándolo). Ocultar el menú de idiomas detrás de un menú desplegable de idioma inglés también es de poca ayuda para los usuarios. En general, hay demasiado oculto detrás de los íconos que, si bien pueden ser claramente visibles en una pantalla móvil, deben buscarse en una pantalla de computadora de pantalla ancha normal. Vector 2022, en mi humilde opinión, debería retirarse (al menos para los usuarios de escritorio), al menos hasta que la Fundación descubra una manera de hacer posible que los usuarios no registrados seleccionen sus preferencias y que esas preferencias persistan en todas las sesiones. La mayoría de los usuarios no registrados no quieren crear cuentas simplemente para cambiar el aspecto de Wikipedia; Si quisieran una cuenta, no serían usuarios no registrados. Si queremos que nuevas personas creen cuentas, se debería hacer mejorando Wikipedia (de todas las maneras posibles), no diciéndoles a las personas que se registren para corregir lo que perciben como un fracaso en la mejora de Wikipedia. Ping @ HumanBodyPiloter5 . silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( consultar dentro ) 12:19, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . El nuevo diseño es peor simplemente por el gran desperdicio de espacio en la pantalla. Endianer ( discusión ) 12:27 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo de parte de todas las personas que no editan aquí y que han expresado su desagrado por esto. XOR'easter ( discusión ) 13:29 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
También me han dicho que la representación de las fuentes ahora cambia en medio del desplazamiento. Toda esta "actualización" es extraña y no se ha probado lo suficiente. XOR'easter ( discusión ) 01:29 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gran soporte . Qué desperdicio de espacio en la pantalla. Si quieres cambiar a un idioma diferente, solo se muestran 10 de 100. Para los demás idiomas, tienes que desplazarte dentro de una pequeña ventana. -- Boehm ( discusión ) 13:37 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nota: después de cambiar de idioma varias veces, te recomendará los idiomas que te gustan y hay una barra de búsqueda. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 13:40 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no se recomendará nada, porque normalmente borro las cookies después de cerrar el navegador. Y, por cierto, no tengo un idioma preferido. Solo quiero seleccionarlo yo mismo. Todo estaba bien antes del cambio. -- Boehm ( discusión ) 14:22 20 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : Ha habido una fuerte reacción negativa contra Vector 2022 tanto por parte de usuarios registrados como no registrados (por ejemplo, aquí y aquí). La nueva interfaz tiene muchos problemas: el ancho, la tabla de contenidos lateral, la impresión general de que está diseñada para dispositivos móviles, entre muchos otros. En definitiva, a la comunidad no parece gustarle ni aprobar la nueva interfaz. -- Æo ( discusión ) 14:19 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fortalezco aún más mi apoyo : cuanto más experimento con V2022, más creo que V2010 es mucho mejor. Incluso la eliminación de las líneas azules que en V2010 trazaban claramente los límites entre el artículo/enciclopedia y las herramientas/menús del usuario es un paso atrás hacia la confusión total; por favor, restablezcan una diferenciación funcional apropiada entre las partes del "organismo" wikipedista.-- Æo ( discusión ) 16:31 31 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Esta no debería haber sido la interfaz predeterminada para lectores no registrados sin que se abordaran adecuadamente los problemas de accesibilidad. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 14:20, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @ Hey man im josh . Si tienes un momento, ¿podrías especificar a qué problemas de accesibilidad te refieres? Esto nos ayudará a clasificar las inquietudes específicas. ¡Gracias! OVasileva (WMF) ( discusión ) 18:37 27 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : todas las respuestas que he visto sobre este cambio por parte de personas no registradas que no son editores han sido abrumadoramente negativas, lo que descarta cualquier sugerencia de que este fue un cambio por el bien de los lectores y que los editores que participaron en la discusión fueron una muestra sesgada. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( discusión ) 14:23 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En todo caso, los comentarios estarán sesgados hacia lo negativo, ya que si un lector observa y piensa que no hay ningún problema o que hay una mejora, no se molestará en dejar un comentario a menos que sea excepcionalmente bueno. También hubo encuestas de lectores que indicaron que a más lectores les gustó la nueva skin. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 14:43 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte – Me parece interesante la nueva versión, pero en definitiva inferior. – zmbro _{( discusión ) ( cont )} 14:41, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
O al menos crear un identificador .old.wikipedia con la antigua apariencia (tampoco es perfecto, pero es mucho mejor que este diseño orientado a dispositivos móviles, difícil de leer, derrochador y quema los ojos para usuarios de escritorio), esta introducción de una nueva apariencia para los usuarios parece realmente forzada e innecesaria. IJustCreatedAccountBecauseOfThis1diocy ( discusión ) 14:02 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como se dijo en las preguntas frecuentes, esto es muy complicado para los recursos. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 14:50 20 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte mientras no se responde la pregunta n .° 2. Como lector y editor de IP, además de crear una cuenta o realizar ajustes de programación, la única forma que encontré para usar la antigua y buena interfaz de usuario es agregar « ?useskin=vector » a cada URL solicitada. 37.134.90.176 ( discusión ) 15:01, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Admitir la antigua skin 2010 como predeterminada. Como mínimo, debe haber una forma de volver con un solo clic (que dure la sesión) a la skin 2010, y esto debe estar disponible para todos los usuarios. No solo para los usuarios que hayan iniciado sesión. La mayoría de los usuarios nunca inician sesión. Wikipedia está muy degradada en los navegadores de escritorio en la actualidad. Esto realmente necesita ser corregido. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (discusión) 15:19 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - La nueva apariencia, Vector2022, es inferior a Vector2010. La nueva versión puede ser mejor para los lectores, pero es horrible para quienes editamos regularmente. Mis herramientas, que antes eran visibles sobre el contenido de la página, ahora están enterradas en menús desplegables con íconos tontos que no tienen sentido para mí; pierdo el tiempo buscando cosas que ahora están en lugares ilógicos. La barra lateral izquierda definitivamente NO es una mejora, es solo un mal diseño, y esas herramientas también desaparecieron, reemplazadas en algunos casos por la tabla de contenidos. La tabla de contenidos debería permanecer en el contenido del artículo. La probé varias veces antes del lanzamiento oficial y la he estado probando desde que se convirtió en la predeterminada, y estoy convencido de que la nueva apariencia NO es una mejora. Vector2010 no estaba roto, así que ¿por qué "arreglarlo"? Por favor, restablezcan Vector 2010 como la apariencia predeterminada y llamen a Vector 2022 de otra manera. Netherzone ( discusión ) 15:46 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , supongo... pero nada impidió que WMF implementara la skin independientemente de la RfC anterior. Así que no espero nada más que esto sea desechado con el argumento habitual de "resistencia al cambio". En este punto, me opongo a los objetivos de diseño equivocados más que a cualquier otra cosa. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:07, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nuevamente, WMF lo implementó de acuerdo con el consenso de cierre equivocado de la RFC, no en contra de él. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 16:20, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No dije nada sobre la implementación de acuerdo con o en contra de la RfC. Dije específicamente "sin importar... la RfC". — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:03, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy confundido, ¿no significa que lo ignoraron? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 17:06 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En principio, apoyo , aunque nunca sucederá. La solución real es crear extensiones para Scalar que restauren las estructuras básicas de Vector. small jars 16:17, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]tc
Soporte . Los gustos difieren, a mí personalmente no me gusta el nuevo diseño aunque creo que hay muchos que lo aceptan. Pero la forma en que se aplican los cambios es claramente insultante. Para un editor veterano como yo esto ha sido inmensamente frustrante y me imagino cómo se sienten los usuarios no registrados. Los cambios deben revertirse. La comunicación no se produjo. La notificación visible y clara (no un banner) debe colocarse en el encabezado, en la página principal, en todas partes, con una explicación: qué va a pasar y qué hacer. El interruptor para encender o apagar debe ser accesible para todos los usuarios. Sin patrones oscuros. Se debe proponer un formulario simple a todos los usuarios: ¿Prefieres este o aquel? No se permiten interpretaciones de mala fe de las métricas. La forma en que se hizo es humillante. — 2dk ( discusión ) 16:19, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - WMF ha fracasado fundamentalmente en lograr que la comunidad se sume a este cambio. El diseño tiene muchos problemas bien discutidos: limitar el ancho del área de contenido es una tontería absoluta, ocultar herramientas y botones detrás de clics adicionales empeora la experiencia, ocultar la opción de cancelación en las preferencias y luego afirmar que la tasa de cancelación no es alta es engañoso, la tabla de contenidos es peor que antes, hay errores notables, por nombrar solo algunos. Todo esto se ve agravado por el hecho de que los usuarios que han cerrado sesión no tienen ningún medio para usar el diseño anterior y que el botón de ancho no es persistente para los usuarios que han iniciado sesión.
Además de esto, WMF ha demostrado que no tiene interés en generar consenso o interactuar con la comunidad, como es muy evidente por el hecho de que cuando recibieron una RFC en su contra, la ignoraron y decidieron que no era necesario realizar más RFC ya que obviamente no daría como resultado la respuesta correcta.
Este diseño es la definición misma de la forma por sobre la función. La implementación podría haberse hecho mucho mejor, implementando progresivamente el tema para cada vez más usuarios y escuchando atentamente los comentarios y monitoreando las tasas de cancelación de suscripción. Dado que se trata de un producto creado por diseñadores pagos que trabajan a tiempo completo durante años, no debería haber tenido una recepción tan mala. WMF debería revertir este cambio y volver a intentarlo más tarde cuando la comunidad apruebe su diseño. Mel ma nn 16:23, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - Se ha dicho que esta apariencia es mejor para los lectores, sin embargo, las necesidades de los lectores dependen del dispositivo y su pantalla. Es obvio que la apariencia es una especie de puerto de la interfaz móvil a una de escritorio, una tendencia desafortunada pero cada vez más común en las interfaces de usuario actuales. Esto es un perjuicio para los usuarios de escritorio. El impulso no es la usabilidad, el diseño racional o la estética, sino el desarrollo de software unificado, una prerrogativa de eficiencia (reducción de costos). La idea subyacente es que la mayoría de los usuarios leen la mayor parte de los resultados en pantallas móviles/pequeñas/optimizadas hápticas, y no se van a molestar mucho por el cambio a interfaces de escritorio. Este puede no ser el caso de los artículos de Wikipedia, que pueden ser más largos y complejos con medios agregados a los que se puede acceder visual y lógicamente mejor con una pantalla más grande, de modo que uno obtiene el impacto completo del artículo en lugar de desplazarse constantemente por fragmentos (aparentes). Esta nueva tendencia de móvil a escritorio también es inadecuada para sitios interactivos con algo más que una entrada de usuario muy simple. Para funciones altamente interactivas que requieren de mucha participación del usuario, como escribir prosa, agregar medios, organizar un artículo de manera lógica, etc., es totalmente inadecuado. No todos los cambios son buenos, ni siquiera neutrales, y el progreso de una persona puede ser la regresión de otra. 208.253.152.74 (discusión) 16:51 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La nueva skin no fue diseñada teniendo en mente los dispositivos móviles, consulte las preguntas frecuentes Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 16:56, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, pero este RfC es un ejemplo de mi comentario anterior. Cualquiera que pueda seguir esta discusión en una pantalla de 6 pulgadas con la misma comodidad y comprensión que en una pantalla de 26 pulgadas es mejor persona que yo. 208.253.152.74 (discusión) 18:29 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es una mentira descarada y ellos lo saben. Todo este nuevo diseño se diseñó teniendo en cuenta dos cosas: el espacio publicitario y los usuarios móviles. 198.21.192.40 (discusión) 23:47 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy en total desacuerdo. No hay ninguna posibilidad de que esta skin haya sido diseñada para espacios publicitarios. Si la WMF hubiera publicado anuncios de terceros en Wikipedia, la controversia sobre WP:FRAM parecería una gota en el océano. — python coder ( discusión | contribs ) 06:42, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, nunca digas nunca. La reorganización del espacio en pantalla ciertamente permite la opción futura de agregar todo tipo de material extraño, incluidos anuncios. Como toda burocracia, WMF sigue encontrando cosas nuevas que hacer, expandiendo sutilmente, de manera incremental (y a veces unilateralmente) su alcance más allá de lo que se había propuesto originalmente. El lenguaje es un aliado: cuanto más parecido a un eslogan sea, más confuso, vago y, por lo tanto, expandible será su significado. 172.254.255.250 (discusión) 16:23 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Realmente no veo ninguna razón para que WMF agregue anuncios. Por un lado, viola un montón de políticas, pautas y ética, y por otro lado, ya son financieramente sostenibles. Además, dado que la mayoría de los usuarios habituales de Wikipedia (al menos los editores) tienen bloqueadores de anuncios, eso le quitaría mucho dinero a WMF. Incluso si todavía usan campañas de donación después de colocar anuncios, habría mucha menos gente donando porque los anuncios ya están ahí. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 02:26, 29 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El mayor apoyo posible : ¿Qué ventajas reales ofrece esta máscara que no se puedan implementar en un híbrido de Vector 2010? ¿Enlaces violetas en los que se puede hacer clic para daltónicos? ¿Índice de contenido en la barra lateral izquierda? ¿Imágenes en la búsqueda? Es absolutamente posible incluir estas cosas en Vector 2010 (y ya tengo las dos primeras a través de complementos). Un ancho de lectura restringido podría ser una opción activable en un híbrido de este tipo. No me interesa tirar al bebé con el agua de la bañera, pero no veo ninguna razón para mantener Vector 2022 como predeterminado para mantener estas mejoras marginales para nuestro lector final a expensas de muchas desventajas extremadamente plausibles. También me haría eco de la propuesta de prueba A/B de Red-tailed Hawk como evidencia real en lugar de la suposición que se nos ha proporcionado. — Shibboleth ink ^{( ♔} ^{♕ )} 17:57, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte No odio Vector 2022, aunque me gusta menos que 2010. Sin embargo, creo que es casi inaceptable que tengas que iniciar sesión para cambiar de estilo. Creo que, para un cambio tan grande como este, se debería haber creado un apoyo más amplio y firme antes de que WMF impulsara el cambio. Creo que intentar implementar el cambio sobre la base de resultados muy inestables solicitados a ~300 editores activos es casi negligente: los lectores tienen tanto interés en la usabilidad de Wikipedia como los editores, tal vez más, ya que es probable que tengan menos experiencia en el uso y la navegación del sitio, y esa es una fracción minúscula de los editores, de todos modos. Por mi parte, no vi ni escuché nada sobre el cambio venidero que pueda recordar, y uso Wikipedia todos los días, y veo múltiples comentarios arriba en el mismo sentido. Supongo que obtener una buena indicación de las preferencias de los lectores puede ser difícil, pero Vector 2022 no debería ser obligatorio ni predeterminado sin un mandato claro de los usuarios de Wikipedia en su conjunto. Yspaddadenpenkawr ( discusión ) 18:44 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Aunque no estoy en contra de un rediseño en general, la gran cantidad de espacio en blanco distrae cada vez que se carga. Creo que estoy en la versión móvil. chiffre01 ( discusión ) 15:30, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo El RFC anterior no estableció un consenso comunitario para cambiar el estilo predeterminado. Otro ejemplo más de la WMF simulando preocuparse por las preocupaciones de los voluntarios, pero en última instancia haciendo lo que tenían previsto desde el principio. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte He tenido una cuenta durante casi 15 años, rara vez edito, pero me horrorizó tanto el cambio de diseño que tuve que hacer oír mi voz, por favor cámbienla nuevamente. -- Flappychappy ( discusión ) 21:50, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Agradezco a las personas que hicieron lo mejor que pudieron y se esforzaron por hacer lo que creían que mejoraría la lectura y edición para todos en Wikipedia, pero está claro que el diseño no fue realmente aprobado de antemano por la mayoría de los usuarios. Esto, junto con los problemas que han surgido, me hace sentir que volver a la versión de 2010 como estándar es lo mejor. ★Trekker ( discusión ) 21:57 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Mi principal preocupación es el ancho del texto, pero en términos más generales, según lo que he leído hasta ahora, parece que no se ha llegado a un consenso antes de la implementación, que es lo que debería hacerse primero. Nl4real (discusión) 22:08 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo per nom . Nunca había oído hablar de la nueva skin antes de que apareciera de repente con el horrible espacio en blanco y el diseño defectuoso. Un cambio tan grande y tan controvertido debería haber tenido un consenso real antes de ser impuesto a todos los lectores. -- HappyWith ( discusión ) 22:32 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo: al menos mientras los usuarios que no hayan iniciado sesión tengan que usar este diseño como predeterminado, estoy en contra. Exigir la creación de una cuenta solo para usar el diseño que podría decirse que es mejor no es diferente a lo que hace Fandom/Wikia. No tengo ningún problema con que sea una opción , pero no la predeterminada . gangplank galleon ( discusión ) 23:10 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte He pensado en esto durante un tiempo y aterrizo en la columna de Soporte por una variedad de razones. Primero, en mi opinión, el RFC original no tuvo un consenso para implementar Vector 2022 y la declaración final del RFC siempre me ha desconcertado un poco, pero eso no viene al caso en este momento. Segundo, me encanta el cambio de ancho, pero el hecho de que no persista debería haberse solucionado antes de que se llevara a cabo el lanzamiento. Tercero, realmente siento que las Herramientas de página y el menú de usuario personalizable también deberían haber estado en la máscara antes de que se llevara a cabo el lanzamiento. Creo que eso al menos habría calmado un poco las quejas sobre los espacios en blanco. Tampoco insistiré en el punto, ya que aparentemente será más fácil desarrollar uno con Vector 2022, pero tener un modo oscuro también habría ayudado con esta queja. En cuarto lugar, me fío de la palabra de la WMF de que Vector 2022 no fue diseñado para dispositivos móviles, pero sí tiene algunas de las características del diseño web para dispositivos móviles (texto en el medio, botón de hamburguesa, etc.). Sé que son solo dos personas, pero aquí están las reacciones de dos de mis amigos al ver Vector 2022 por primera vez (advertencia: lenguaje inadecuado): https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/499649691714060299/1066137406576787506/image.png. No sé cómo los desarrolladores de Vector 2022 pudieron hacer que pareciera menos móvil, pero ahí lo tienen. En quinto lugar, el problema misterioso de la navegación por la carne que se mencionó en la RFC original y nuevamente aquí no se ha solucionado. Por último, siento que Vector 2022 todavía no está listo para el horario de máxima audiencia. Parece una versión 0.7 o 0.8, ya que está llegando, pero no está completamente lista. De todos modos, esas son mis opiniones. ♠ JCW555 (discusión) ♠ 23:39 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo para volver a Vector 2010. Creo que mi principal queja es la tabla de contenidos. Entiendo que hay una opción de configuración, pero la vista predeterminada es bastante mala y creo que aumenta la cantidad de clics para llegar a la información que quiero. Por ejemplo, en una página con muchas subcategorías, a menudo me resulta útil escanear TODA la lista para saltar directamente a la sección que me interesa. Ahora, nuevamente, a menos que se personalice, las cosas están contraídas de manera predeterminada Y con un formato que dificulta la lectura de títulos largos. Entonces, si no estoy conectado, o para cualquiera de la ENORME cantidad de usuarios y editores con IP solamente, ahora son varios clics para llegar a la información relevante. En el pasado, esto era literalmente un clic para abrir la página y un clic en la sección deseada. Ahora tenemos hasta 4 o 5 clics potenciales después de llegar a la página para lo que la semana pasada era una acción de un solo clic.
También voy a poner aquí un texto similar de mi publicación en la página de Discusión sobre Mejoras en Lectura/Web/Escritorio:
Ahora que se ha lanzado este cambio, ¿por qué no se lo mostramos a TODOS los usuarios? Coloque un banner en la parte superior de los artículos similar al banner de donaciones y vea cómo responden realmente los usuarios de escritorio. Si la actitud de "sabemos que el cambio da miedo, se acostumbrará a él, ¡hemos investigado!" que se muestra en este artículo condescendiente debe ser impuesta, estoy seguro de que a un desarrollador le encantaría asegurarse de que el banner aparezca solo en dispositivos que hayan tenido el nuevo diseño durante "tiempo suficiente". Incluso podría aleatorizarlo, ver qué piensa un usuario el día 3 en comparación con el día 15.
Si a la Fundación Wikimedia realmente le importan los comentarios de los usuarios, no veo por qué no se puede hacer esto. Creo que es bastante obvio que una pequeña fracción de los usuarios de Wikipedia realmente crean una cuenta y basar este cambio en lo que ha ascendido a ~170 comentarios de usuarios es engañoso. Demuéstrenos que le importa, demuéstrenos que quiere ver su investigación realmente validada, puede ser, pero también está bien equivocarse. Entiendo el valor de mirar continuamente hacia adelante y no conformarnos donde estamos, pero si va a utilizar la "investigación" como respaldo, vea si la hipótesis es correcta. Zdwagz ( discusión ) 23:27 20 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es la opinión de un usuario nuevo. Es su primera edición. Es genial no tener que desplazarse hacia arriba en un artículo largo o una página de discusión, sino poder desplazarse rápidamente por las secciones en la barra lateral. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 00:29, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Entonces un usuario nuevo (que, por lo que sabes, ha sido un usuario de IP durante años) no debería tener voz ni voto en el asunto? Tengo curiosidad. 73.8.230.57 (discusión) 02:37 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
A menudo, las opiniones de los usuarios que aparecen específicamente para defender una causa en particular reciben menos peso. Sin embargo, en este caso, definitivamente no deberían tenerlo, ya que se trata de una cuestión de preferencias de diseño en la que todos los que leen este sitio web tienen un interés razonable. — Compassionate727 ^{( T · C )} 05:47, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y yo que pensaba que una opinión se valoraba según su propia validez, no según la pertenencia a un club oficial o no oficial, ni teorías conspirativas ni prejuicios sobre las presuntas intenciones de la firma. Esa firma es tan válida como el último comentario que la precede. 172.254.255.250 (discusión) 16:29 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, perdón por la respuesta tardía, no me avisaste. En cuanto a mí, si quieres colaborar en Wikipedia en serio, deberías crear una cuenta. Ahora, para volver a Vector 10 para IP o cuentas recién creadas cuyos votos incluyan términos que puedan entenderse de manera negativa... de ninguna manera. Esos votos simplemente no tendrán peso frente a los votos de cuentas con varios años de antigüedad. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 17:18 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, primera edición, pero si la ves, la cuenta se creó en 2013. Soy lector , lo cual es un uso perfectamente válido de Wikipedia. No todo el mundo está aquí para editar y los editores no deberían tener una influencia especial sobre cómo ven las cosas los lectores. Zdwagz ( discusión ) 13:45 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@73.8.230.57; @ Compassionate727 : El mensaje de Paradise Chronicle se refería al hecho de que el comentario de Zdwagz se publicó originalmente en la parte superior del RfC cuando estaba ubicado en la bomba de Village; el comentario se trasladó más tarde a la subsección correspondiente y luego todo el RfC se reubicó en su (esta) página separada. Æo ( discusión ) 14:17 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo puedo estar de acuerdo con Zdwagz sobre los problemas de la nueva tabla de contenidos lateral: ha perdido por completo su funcionalidad de dar una visión general completa del artículo, de permitir al lector/editor pasar directamente a la sección/subsección de interés, de crear una distinción entre la introducción y el cuerpo del artículo. Estos problemas han sido planteados por muchos usuarios, tanto registrados como no registrados. Permítanme resumir: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, entre otras discusiones, incluido mi comentario y propuesta de alternativas en la RfC anterior. Æo ( discusión ) 15:00, 21 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para mí, se convierte en un problema cuando la tabla de contenidos es extensa en longitud y profundidad. Para tablas de contenidos breves, la tabla lateral es más que aceptable. ¿Quizás podría haber una opción "__ FORCE_INLINE_TOC __" para dichos artículos? Praemonitus ( discusión ) 15:10 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, la antigua tabla de contenidos era útil especialmente en artículos largos y páginas de discusión, mientras que los artículos cortos y los esbozos sin una cierta cantidad de subsecciones no la tenían. Como señaló StarTrekker aquí, la nueva tabla de contenidos "hace que cada artículo parezca un esbozo" . Æo ( discusión ) 15:16 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Æo , ¿podrías eliminar mi nombre de la lista anterior o marcarlo de alguna manera para mostrar que no estoy de acuerdo con tu conclusión? No quiero que me cites para apoyar tu posición; creo que la nueva apariencia es una mejora en general y el problema de la tabla de contenidos es un punto menor que no cambia mi opinión. Veo que en tu lista se cita al menos a otro editor que se ha opuesto a esta RfC, a continuación, por lo que podrías hacer que tu advertencia sea más general que simplemente nombrarme. Mike Christie ( discusión - contribuciones - biblioteca ) 16:21, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Mike Christie : Sí, he eliminado tu nombre. Disculpas. La idea era que fuera una lista de comentaristas de las distintas discusiones sobre los problemas de la tabla de contenidos. -- Æo ( discusión ) 16:29 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema; claramente no fue intencionalmente engañoso. Creo que deberías proteger un poco más tu comentario, ya que un comentario negativo sobre la tabla de contenidos no implica que se apoye volver a Vector 2010, pero nuestro intercambio aquí probablemente sea suficiente para señalarlo. Gracias por la edición. Mike Christie ( discusión - contribuciones - biblioteca ) 16:36, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
También hay muchos comentarios sobre la tabla de contenidos en mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements; uno particularmente interesante, en mi opinión, es Bring back the TOC (21:35, 20 de enero). Æo ( discusión ) 19:55, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
SÍ ¡Definitivamente regresamos a la skin vectorial! 2601:644:401:39D0:79D9:58C3:3B6D:651E (discusión) 00:33 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte: Si bien hay algunas cosas que me gustan de la nueva actualización, los aspectos negativos superan a los positivos. Tanto es así que salí de mi pausa de tres meses solo para hablar con ustedes. Mi principal problema con esta actualización tiene que ser el área blanca vacía que ocupa una buena parte de la pantalla. Es fea y desperdicia demasiado espacio. Se veía mucho mejor cuando el área se usaba para las palabras y las imágenes. Ahora tienes que desplazarte más debido a que el texto es muy angosto en lugar de poder ver la imagen completa. Otra cosa que odio es que ahora todo está en un menú desplegable en lugar de estar distribuido como antes. Y no, este no es un caso de odio al cambio, o me acostumbraré a él.
Sin embargo, me encanta que ahora la tabla de contenidos te siga en lugar de tener que desplazarte hacia arriba para cambiar de lugar en un artículo. Además, les pregunté a algunos de mis amigos si habían notado algún cambio (porque tenía curiosidad) y uno de los tres dijo que sí. Así que supongo que es un cambio sutil. Wowzers122 ( discusión ) 01:24 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Dejaré de usar Wikipedia y utilizaré exclusivamente otras fuentes si no puedo ver el formato antiguo. El nuevo formato es ASÍ de malo. 2603:3023:180:4800:38B1:9CEB:5048:5F2C (discusión) 01:31 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo He sido un usuario regular y casual de Wikipedia casi desde que se lanzó el sitio y no tenía ni quería una cuenta hasta que esta implementación de la interfaz de usuario me obligó a crear una para volver a un diseño más utilizable. La Política de privacidad de Wikipedia comienza diciendo "Porque creemos que no debería tener que proporcionar información personal para participar en el movimiento del conocimiento libre" ^[1] , sin embargo, siento que me obligaron a proporcionar un nombre de usuario y una contraseña para continuar participando en el uso del sitio. Esto aumenta mi huella de Internet y sus riesgos asociados y no estoy contento con eso. Además, las discusiones que he leído de WMF parecen bastante despectivas con las críticas sobre la nueva interfaz de usuario y su implementación, y los usuarios de IP no parecen ser considerados parte de la "comunidad" en ninguna de estas discusiones. Además, las métricas declaradas que WMF está analizando para medir el éxito de la nueva apariencia en realidad no miden los KPI relacionados con la satisfacción con la nueva apariencia entre los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión. Mientras un usuario tenga que iniciar sesión para cambiar la interfaz de usuario a un diseño utilizable, esta nueva apariencia debería revertirse. Trynn ( discusión ) 01:45, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Dada la gran cantidad de errores y otros problemas que se están planteando en Village Pump, esto fue muy prematuro, especialmente porque el historial de WMF en cuanto a brindar soporte a las herramientas e interfaces que lanzan sugiere que la mayoría de estos problemas probablemente nunca se solucionarán. Eventualmente, necesitamos hacer una encuesta amplia entre la base de lectores para determinar cuál es realmente mejor, pero por ahora, la falta de una no es una buena razón para oponernos a la reversión (o apoyarla, de hecho), ya que sin saber lo que pensamos los lectores, tenemos que dejar que los editores controlen esta decisión. Dicho esto, la gran cantidad de IP y SPA que comentan aquí sugieren que el cambio es profundamente controvertido en el mejor de los casos, especialmente dado el inmenso obstáculo que los lectores habrían tenido que superar para encontrarlo. — Compassionate727 ^{( T · C )} 01:48, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Parece que la mayoría de los usuarios aquí preferirían que el diseño anterior fuera el predeterminado, y estoy de acuerdo. Personalmente, no estoy contento específicamente con la cantidad de espacios en blanco en el nuevo diseño. ― NK1406 01:50, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte más fuerte posible , demasiado espacio en blanco a la izquierda y muchos enlaces que antes eran fáciles de encontrar ahora están a varios clics de distancia. 1.136.110.165 ( discusión ) 02:13, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC). [ responder ]
Soporte pesado Demasiado espacio en blanco. Irrita los ojos. El hecho de que los usuarios de IP todavía no puedan cambiar las preferencias visuales también es un insulto para quienes tienen discapacidades visuales. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 73.8.230.57 (discusión • contribuciones ) 02:33, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, viola la norma MOS:ACCESIBILIDAD . ~ HAL 333 02:41, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte en nombre de los usuarios y lectores no registrados. La versión anterior de Vector en sí, en mi opinión, es inferior en la mayoría de los aspectos y nunca la he usado (la aparición de símbolos misteriosos y mucho espacio en blanco sirve como una señal útil de que he cerrado la sesión), por lo que no pude responder de manera muy útil a las preguntas "¿qué piensa de estos cambios de apariencia proyectados?" que me hizo la WMF durante el último año o dos. Pero estoy escuchando de personas que sí usan Vector que la nueva versión requiere un importante malabarismo con el ancho de las columnas y otras configuraciones para que sea utilizable, que las cosas saltan de un lado a otro y los íconos cambian de forma en diferentes pantallas y que los ajustes necesarios no se mantienen en el modo de vista previa, y que la lista de enlaces en otros idiomas aparece ordenada según algunas suposiciones prepotentes sobre cuáles uno debería querer ver, lo cual es simplemente insultante. Aquellos que usan Vector han dejado en claro que la nueva versión es un desastre. Los usuarios no registrados no tienen otra opción, aunque alguien ya ha lanzado una aplicación para modificar las URL, lo que debería indicar la recepción por parte de lectores y editores no registrados. Devuélvanles lo que les funcionó relativamente bien. Yngvadottir ( discusión ) 02:59 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Yngvadottir : Para aquellos que tengan curiosidad y no estén al tanto, ¿a qué aplicación te refieres? — Compassionate727 ^{( T · C )} 03:42, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Disculpen mi ignorancia técnica, extensión. Para Chrome. (Enlace a través del sitio innombrable.) Yngvadottir ( discusión ) 07:21 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
FUERTE APOYO (Redactado) . 78.28.44.127 ( discusión ) 03:03 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No se trata de una votación "perfectamente razonable" que haya sido "censurada", sino de una prohibición total de la UAA . Además, con solo mirar el título del video, su "clip inmortal" es de mal gusto . — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 03:30, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Sabes qué es de mal gusto? Ninja implementando un cambio de diseño horrible que arruina la experiencia de millones de usuarios sin consenso. Y el comentario era razonable; podrían haber, y deberían haber, simplemente eliminado el nombre de usuario. 78.28.44.127 ( discusión ) 03:47 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Pythoncoder : Para ser honesto, no sé cuál es el protocolo normal para esos nombres de usuario. Pero en este caso, creo que hubiera sido mejor simplemente redactar el nombre de usuario. (Para ser claro, no creo que la respuesta de Donald Albury fuera irrazonable. Simplemente habría manejado el comentario de manera diferente. La suposición de mala fe del IP es peor, pero probablemente no tenga sentido tratar de sermonearlo al respecto). — Compassionate727 ^{( T · C )} 05:37, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reflexionando sobre el tema, estoy de acuerdo en que habría sido mejor borrar el nombre de usuario sin revertir la publicación, pero me llamaron para que dejara WP inmediatamente después de eso durante un par de horas y no vi ninguna necesidad de intentar solucionarlo más tarde. Donald Albury 15:45, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El problema de los espacios en blanco debe solucionarse antes de implementar Vector 2022. Una de las ventajas que se enumeran en la página de especificaciones es "Menos desplazamiento". Esto no podría estar más lejos de la verdad. Mi pantalla de 1920 x 1080 ahora tiene casi un 50 % de espacios en blanco, lo que significa que hay menos texto, lo que me obliga a desplazarme casi el doble para leer la misma cantidad de texto. Gehyra Australis ( discusión ) 03:12 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con el problema del espacio en blanco o desperdiciado y el aumento del desplazamiento necesario para leer el texto. Es aún peor para quienes usan monitores con una relación de aspecto de 4:3 o tamaños de fuente grandes para facilitar la accesibilidad. Esperemos que la gente no sufra el síndrome del túnel carpiano por el desplazamiento excesivo del mouse. 98.149.164.167 (discusión) 09:30 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Pero, ¿qué importa? Maquinaciones como esta son el pan de cada día de WMF y no parece que les importe lo que piensen los editores voluntarios. Az x 2 04:17, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . A pesar de la afirmación en las preguntas frecuentes de que "no tenemos planes de fusionar las experiencias de escritorio y móvil", alguien de la WMF dijo: "Al crear la apariencia, también consideramos acercarla en diseño visual al sitio móvil, de modo que las personas que lean en dispositivos móviles puedan reconocer Wikipedia también en su forma de escritorio. También apuntamos a reducir el código para las apariencias en general de modo que sea más fácil en el futuro crear funciones y adaptarlas tanto en apariencias de escritorio como móviles". (diff) Por lo tanto, si bien probablemente sería histriónico de mi parte decir que la afirmación en las preguntas frecuentes es una mentira, resulta ser lo opuesto a la verdad. Esta apariencia es parte de la extinción del idioma de escritorio. Sin saberlo, tal vez, es parte de una tendencia cultural, beneficiosa para los intereses comerciales centrados en los teléfonos y la publicidad, la promoción, el seguimiento, la pérdida de poder de los usuarios y su pasividad, y la desincentivación de la lectura. Es una reacción a las demandas de quienes ya están inmersos en esta cultura. Muchas respuestas en la web han sido del tipo "parece el sitio móvil". Tarjeta Cero (discusión) 04:39 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte soporte por ahora Probé usar el nuevo Vector por unos días y es una experiencia irritante. Por ejemplo, hay un problema con el texto que se vuelve aleatoriamente en negrita mientras se hace el desplazamiento. Puede ser un error de Chromium (eso es lo que escuché), pero nunca lo he experimentado con el antiguo Vector. La causa raíz real es algo irrelevante, ya que afecta la experiencia de cualquier manera. El texto también parece más claro y más difícil de leer. En general, parece que se necesita más pulido y tiempo antes de que se generalice. GoPats ( discusión ) 04:49, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nunca se rompió, nunca debió ser reparado. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 05:07, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte La nueva skin es una monstruosidad y muchos usuarios habituales de Wikipedia no tenían idea de que esto estaba sucediendo. Un proceso de consulta deficiente. ~ Darth Stabro ^{Discusión / Contribuciones} 05:12, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si no está roto, no lo arregles, especialmente si la mayoría de los usuarios no están de acuerdo. Toa Nidhiki05 05:29, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Aunque entiendo las motivaciones detrás de la actualización, ninguna de las nuevas características son cosas que pedí ni lo que quiero. El nuevo diseño realmente me irrita los ojos por el exceso de espacio en blanco y el desplazamiento excesivo que ahora me veo obligado a hacer debido al nuevo ancho. Además, el hecho de que las configuraciones ya no estén disponibles de inmediato a la izquierda es una molestia. En general, el nuevo diseño perjudica mi capacidad para navegar por este sitio web. WikEdits5 ( discusión ) 05:39, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Enormes cantidades de espacio en blanco no sirven para nada. Esto es conocido como "diseño de interfaz de usuario de Fisher-Price", que está de moda, pero la utilidad es más importante que la moda. Además, dejen de llamar a la nueva interfaz de usuario una "mejora". No lo es. -- HLachman ( discusión ) 05:41, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me gusta la tabla de contenidos en el lateral, poder cambiar de ancho a ancho completo haciendo clic en el ícono de la parte inferior derecha, poder contraer la barra lateral y una barra superior despejada. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( háblame ) 05:45, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, pero sigo pensando que enormes cantidades de espacios en blanco no sirven para nada. -- HLachman ( discusión ) 06:28 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡De acuerdo! El último nombre de usuario disponible ( discusión ) 04:27 4 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo La sección de contenidos ahora ocupa toda la pantalla hacia abajo, a un lado, y las subsecciones están ocultas, mientras que antes se podían ver de inmediato. Este nuevo formato es regresivo. Como mínimo, los contenidos deben volver al cuerpo de la página, ya sea después del resumen del artículo, como antes, o antes de él.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA ( discusión ) 05:51 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo , tan fuerte como sea posible. Wikipedia se ha vuelto prácticamente imposible de navegar, y al menos a mí me cansa la vista con el nuevo diseño. Tener que ir de un lado a otro cada segundo o dos debido a lo cortas que son las líneas cuando hay toneladas de espacio en blanco que queman los ojos a su alrededor es simplemente incomprensible. Leer páginas de Wikipedia ahora es realmente desagradable y resulta perjudicial para mi ya mala vista, en comparación con la comodidad que me brindaba antes.
Para que quede aún más claro lo malo que es esto, cuando vi el nuevo diseño (en algunas páginas pero no en otras), al principio estaba 100% convencido de que Wikipedia tenía algunos problemas y esperaba que se solucionaran. Quiero decir, este nuevo diseño realmente parece roto en todos los sentidos, al menos desde la perspectiva de un lector (lo cual considero así, ya que apenas edito). Literalmente, me enteré de que no está roto simplemente por una discusión con otros lectores sobre que Wikipedia está rota, decidí buscar en Google para ver si se había escrito algo al respecto y... bueno, ya saben. VHGW ( discusión ) 06:13 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, parece que respondí en la sección equivocada porque ni siquiera editar páginas funciona como antes. Ni siquiera puedo averiguar cómo mover mi comentario al lugar correcto... VHGW ( discusión ) 06:17 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario propuesto por mí. ~ HAL 333 06:47, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Como usuario de IP, esto me está haciendo la vida imposible. Dejando de lado lo inacabada que parece la barra lateral y el hecho de que enlaces útiles como cambios recientes, contenidos, eventos recientes y cosas como contribuciones de usuarios (o "¿a qué ha cambiado mi dirección hoy?") ahora están ocultos detrás de un clic adicional, el problema absoluto es el estúpido desperdicio de espacio en la pantalla. Los monitores de pantalla ancha han sido bastante estándar durante muchos, muchos años y con el nuevo diseño casi la mitad de mi pantalla es espacio en blanco. Es absolutamente ridículo que la única forma de anularlo sea hacer clic en el botón en cada página que visito o crear una cuenta. Esto no es aceptable para mí y preferiría dejar de contribuir al proyecto y navegar a través de un fork/mirror que hacer lo último. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:1081:876B:679F:8E58 (discusión) 07:35, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
La gente está creando cuentas solo para evitar esta skin... ansh . 666 09:23, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Y esto es algo malo? Daniel Case ( discusión ) 02:48 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí. Sí, lo es. Estos usuarios no van a contribuir a Wikipedia de ninguna manera, solo quieren buscar información y los estamos obligando a dedicar tiempo a configurar una cuenta. Solo para que puedan evitar el diseño Vector 2022, que es confuso para muchos (recuerde que mucha gente sin experiencia con computadoras lee Wikipedia a diario). Pretender que no es algo malo o que incluso es algo bueno es bastante absurdo... Walter Klosse ( discusión ) 20:20 25 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Siempre hemos tenido usuarios así, que crearon una cuenta por un motivo que no estaba realmente relacionado con la edición y luego se quedaron. Pero me gustaría que retuvieras este pensamiento y regresaras en ocho años aproximadamente, cuando probablemente verás al menos algunas páginas de usuario con algo como "Creé una cuenta en 2023 para poder cambiar la apariencia de Vector a la antigua, pero luego comencé a editar y...". No se puede predecir qué hace que las personas se queden a partir de lo que las hace volver.
También me gusta este "tiempo dedicado" a crear una cuenta. Me lleva casi el mismo tiempo crear una cuenta que cuando lo hice en 2005, es decir, menos de un minuto como máximo. ¿De cuántos otros sitios web que eran populares en aquel entonces y ahora puedes decir lo mismo?
Aparte de eso, creo que esta es una actitud muy despectiva hacia los nuevos editores y que carece de buena fe . Daniel Case ( discusión ) 05:56 4 feb 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Daniel Case : lo siento, han pasado un par de meses, pero creo que esto aún merece una pequeña respuesta: el hecho de que algo malo haya causado involuntariamente algo más que algunas personas pueden considerar algo bueno no significa que lo original sea bueno. Tampoco creo que el simple hecho de tener una cuenta haga que las personas sean más propensas a editar; no es como si no hubieran podido hacerlo antes. ansh . 666 17:16, 13 de marzo de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El mayor apoyo posible . ¡Este cambio es indignante! Líneas muy cortas y mucho espacio en blanco tanto a la derecha como a la izquierda. Es triste que después de MÁS DE 18 AÑOS DE CONTRIBUIR, me sienta inclinada a abandonar el proyecto en lugar de aguantar esta tontería. Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:41, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte de Vector 2022 es un duro golpe para la comunidad. Es evidente que la mayoría de los usuarios (especialmente las IPs cuyas contribuciones son indispensables) van a dejar de editar de ahora en adelante si no se realiza un rollback lo antes posible; en cualquier caso, Vector 2022 ya ha creado tantos daños que son irreparables. 149.36.19.74 ( discusión ) 09:48, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo porque se trata de un cambio mal gestionado y con una notificación insuficiente. (Para que conste, pensé que mi navegador tenía problemas para cargar la página al principio). Las wikipedias individuales toman sus propias decisiones sobre el contenido y eso incluye la visualización. GraemeLeggett ( discusión )
Soporte . Si bien creo que Vector2022 tiene la oportunidad de ser superior a Vector Legacy sin demasiado trabajo adicional, creo que hay tres desventajas para nuestros lectores que deben resolverse antes. (1) brillo general. Tanto blanco causa fatiga visual. O un ancho fijo predeterminado (estoy en contra), o un diseño como este reduciría eso. (2) colores de los enlaces. Hablé de esto hasta el cansancio. Los enlaces visitados y no visitados se ven iguales para aquellos con daltonismo y una minoría significativa tiene problemas con la claridad de los colores (phab:T213778). Se necesita una iteración adicional, con la ayuda de expertos, para resolver esto. (3) Simetría: incluso una pequeña asimetría puede provocar dolor para aquellos con problemas de cuello.
Como usuario avanzado, hay razones por las que también volví a Legacy, aunque creo que nuestros lectores deberían tener prioridad en la discusión para implementar. Por ejemplo, no quiero que las contribuciones queden ocultas detrás de dos clics. Algunas páginas de fondo son difíciles de navegar sin la capacidad de habilitar una tabla de contenidos numerada (como WP:GAR ). Todavía hay algunas cosas que no funcionan (como {{ TOC limit }} phab:T317818. Si bien no deberían ser obstáculos para la implementación, me gustaría obtener más garantías de que se trabajará en ellas. —Femke 🐦 ( discusión ) 10:18, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : el nuevo estilo es horrible, con demasiado espacio en blanco, no hubo consenso al respecto. Peter Damian ( discusión ) 11:46 21 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Mi primera reacción fue que mi navegador estaba funcionando mal (uso Wikipedia a diario y no estaba al tanto del cambio). A aquellos que dicen "¿Entonces creen que Wikipedia nunca debería cambiar?", esta es mi respuesta: si tengo que ir hacia el norte y me doy cuenta de que he estado conduciendo hacia el sur durante una hora, la única reacción lógica es frenar y dar un giro en U. Si mantengo el rumbo, llegaré a mi destino solo eventualmente, después de dar la vuelta al mundo. Las principales opciones de diseño de la nueva interfaz apuntan todas al sur (carne misteriosa, ancho de línea compatible con dispositivos móviles, cambio menos inmediato a otros idiomas, etc.). Rizzardi ( discusión ) 12:03, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo - por todo lo anterior. Ealdgyth ( discusión ) 13:19 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo , por todo lo anterior. -- Blockhaj ( discusión ) 13:51 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo He escuchado afirmaciones de que estos cambios se estaban discutiendo abiertamente, pero como lector de mucho tiempo, bien podrían haber sido discutidos en un sótano detrás de una puerta cerrada con llave detrás de un cartel que decía "cuidado con el leopardo". Literalmente, la primera vez que me di cuenta de los cambios en la interfaz de usuario fue cuando abrí una página y de repente menos de la mitad de mi pantalla estaba siendo utilizada. ¿Por qué? He escuchado afirmaciones de que es "más legible", pero realmente no lo es. En serio, ¿ por qué? Estoy absolutamente horrorizado y consternado por la tendencia de los sitios web que obligan a sus usuarios a realizar importantes revisiones visuales simplemente por el bien de verse "elegantes, modernos y a la moda", ESPECIALMENTE cuando se ve peor en todos los sentidos. Un sitio de escritorio no debería verse como una aplicación móvil, por el amor de Dios. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 82.10.96.162 (discusión) 14:56, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El mayor apoyo : veamos el caso clásico de Last.fm , que hasta el día de hoy no se ha recuperado del vergonzoso lanzamiento forzado de su nuevo diseño de interfaz de usuario en 2008. Sabían que no era popular, lo hicieron de todos modos, la base de usuarios se fue. Este lanzamiento ha parecido inquietantemente similar hasta ahora. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( trabajo / charla )} 16:21, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) Eh. Last.fm no tenía una opción de reversión, por lo que este comentario está fuera de lugar basándose solo en eso. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( trabajo / charla )} 14:33, 2 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Según Comscore [2], Last.fm ha experimentado un aumento de uso tras el rediseño. the wub "?!" 17:42, 28 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
En un sitio donde la participación pasiva (escuchar audio) no requiere una experiencia de usuario, la cantidad total de minutos no es de ninguna manera una indicación del éxito de la experiencia de usuario. TheMissingMuse ( discusión ) 17:51, 28 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte más fuerte : como usuario intensivo de Wikipedia (varias horas al día), pero que solo es lector y no editor, he descubierto que Vector 2022 es extremadamente molesto de usar. Parece significativamente más delgado, desperdicia una gran cantidad de espacio horizontal en la pantalla, el exceso de espacio en blanco es visualmente desagradable para la experiencia de lectura y tener que alternar manualmente la barra lateral de la tabla de contenido y el botón de ancho de contenido limitado para cada artículo que abro cuando no estoy conectado es extremadamente frustrante . Además, enterarse del rediseño solo después de que se implementó sin aparentemente ningún esfuerzo por consultar o sondear a los lectores/no editores parece extremadamente problemático. Wikipedia probablemente debería estar optimizada para la gran mayoría de quienes la usan y, como lector, Vector 22 es simplemente una versión inferior de Vector Legacy. IanKBania ( discusión ) 16:47, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo a todo lo anterior. Delphin64 ( discusión ) 17:13 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Compatibilidad con el problema del ancho predeterminado y otros cambios extraños en la interfaz de usuario. Tarjetas 84664 17:20, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . En este punto, solo tengo una cosa que decir: RIP Wikipedia . Tuviste una buena racha. 148.252.35.10 (discusión) 19:36 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es solo un cambio de diseño, ¿cómo es que eso acaba con Wikipedia? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 22:00 25 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Desde que se lanzó Vector 2022, los ayudantes de IRC han recibido un montón de quejas al respecto, con distintos niveles de vitriolo, hasta el punto en que tuvimos que incluir un nuevo comando bang que apunta a WT:VECTOR2022 (y, más recientemente, esta Solicitud de comentarios). Las quejas han sido principalmente sobre la gran cantidad de espacios en blanco (al menos uno se preguntaba legítimamente si los anuncios iban a comenzar a aparecer), lo comprimido que está todo y cómo todo está oculto bajo un nuevo menú desplegable. Esto, más el requisito de registrar una cuenta para cambiarlo (lo cual no es una opción en jurisdicciones propensas a abusos de los derechos humanos o que tienen leyes de lesa majestad o equivalentes) es la razón por la que tengo que apoyar la reversión del aspecto en este momento. (Divulgación: uso, y siempre he usado, MonoBook y no me cambié a Vector '22; por lo tanto, no tengo experiencia personal en el uso de la máscara). — Jéské Couriano (No habrá más respuestas disponibles). 21:11, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo. Apoyé la versión 2022 en la RFC original y mi opinión al respecto no ha cambiado, pero no creo que este cambio represente el consenso. Clyde!Franklin! 21:17, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte más sólido Desperdicio de espacio. Se necesitan más clics en los botones para realizar las mismas acciones. Mucha influencia de los dispositivos móviles en el escritorio (es malo y debería estar separado). Por lo tanto, vuelva a la versión anterior. Wikipedia tenía el diseño más eficiente y elegante. No lo arregle si no está roto.
Los enormes márgenes y la enorme cantidad de espacio desperdiciado se ven horribles, especialmente una vez que comienzas a llegar a resoluciones de 2k o 4k, y la tabla de contenido móvil, aunque es una buena idea, está muy mal implementada en su estado actual. Este diseño parece haber sido realizado por un grupo de personas que utilizan exclusivamente monitores de 720p y que nunca pensaron en verificar cómo se veía en cualquier otro tamaño de pantalla. KirbychuHRD2 ( discusión ) 21:45, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Recuerdo cuando Monobook era la apariencia predeterminada y Vector 2010 era una mejora. Esto no lo es. – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 21:57, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo No había visto el cambio hasta que vi a gente en otro sitio web que frecuento quejándose del nuevo aspecto. No entiendo cómo se cerró el RfC sobre su introducción como consenso a favor cuando había más opositores que partidarios... Número 5 7 22:00, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Número 57 , ¿porque los que cerraron el debate no contaron simplemente los votos? — Qwerfjkl talk 22:10, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿O más bien porque simplemente ignoraron a los opositores? T v x 1 22:31, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:VINE establece de forma muy explícita que el voto mayoritario debería ser al menos un requisito para los cambios en la interfaz de usuario; como este y el problema del ancho del texto (en el que este último no se sometió a votación). Los que cerraron el proyecto simplemente deberían haber contado los votos y luego haber comprobado si los argumentos de apoyo tenían algún mérito. Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 18:31, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un ensayo. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:03, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Y entonces? Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 21:04 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los ensayos no son políticas ni pautas, y se escriben como consejos u opiniones de uno o más colaboradores de Wikipedia , como se indica en {{ ensayo }} . Es algo a tener en cuenta, pero de ninguna manera es obligatorio. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, lo sé, es solo que @Qwerfjkl me respondió no solo indicando una lista como política, sino que también se equivocó en los criterios para que algo esté en esa lista y es un gran hipócrita. Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 00:46 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Transcleanupgal , no estaba sugiriendo que WP:200 fuera una política, sino que un gran número de editores rara vez participan en las discusiones. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:08, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No juegues con el sistema. Eso no es lo que hiciste, punto. Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 20:54 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Transcleanupgal , por favor AGF . — Qwerfjkl talk 07:12, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
¡ El soporte Old es mucho mejor! Editorkamran ( discusión ) 22:09 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte. Estoy aquí para la densidad de información. Los usuarios a los que no les gusta la longitud de la línea siempre pueden reducir la ventana. Esto es universal y se logra fácilmente; el método correspondiente no existe a la inversa para el nuevo diseño. Tuve que instalar GreaseMonkey y encontrar un script para modificar la URL; me avergüenza decir que me llevó un par de horas. Además, nunca estaré a favor de los íconos en lugar de los enlaces de texto en los sitios web. Son menos accesibles para la gran mayoría de los usuarios.
Además, dada la torpeza con la que se ha manejado este asunto, yo apoyaría una moción de censura a los responsables de la toma de decisiones que han participado en el lanzamiento. Me ha parecido una sorpresa muy desagradable y es difícil encontrar información al respecto. Han perdido el derecho a recibir futuras donaciones de mi parte hasta que despidan a las personas implicadas. 2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (discusión) 22:14 21 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario movido. ~ HAL 333 00:41, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Apoyar la decisión de cambiar se hizo completamente a espaldas del lector promedio de Wikipedia, la única forma en que podría haber encontrado esa discusión fue si la buscó activamente o fue parte de la implementación, en otras palabras; la discusión original debería ser Moot por WP:POLSILENCE Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 23:34, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Transcleanupgal , WP:200 . Había suficientes editores. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:41, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
wp:200 indica que deben haber 200 votos a favor, nótese que 200 votos en total, no solo ni los que apoyan ni los que se oponen obtuvieron suficientes votos, sino que los que se oponen obtuvieron más votos. Así que sí, sería discutible . Transcleanupgal ( discusión ) 18:02 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Creo que hay razones para defender una nueva interfaz de usuario y un nuevo diseño. Sin embargo, actualmente tenemos una mezcolanza de pantallas. He detallado algunas de mis notas aquí [[3]]. Necesitamos que se arreglen como mínimo antes del lanzamiento. Ktin ( discusión ) 23:41, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Creé una cuenta con el único propósito de volver a cambiar mi skin. No he hablado con nadie que apoye este cambio. He escuchado quejas en la vida real sobre el nuevo skin. La idea de que un pequeño subconjunto de los usuarios más activos, que no llegaron a un consenso claro a favor de este cambio, pueda usarse para justificar este cambio es absurda. Al leer nuevamente las RFC anteriores, el equipo de diseño no tuvo en cuenta de manera significativa los comentarios de la comunidad, particularmente en lo que respecta al contenido de ancho fijo. Este cambio debería revertirse y se deberían realizar cambios en el proceso de RFC para garantizar que esto no vuelva a suceder. Fwint ( discusión ) 23:49, 21 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte más fuerte La nueva interfaz de usuario es molesta y parece asumir que todos usan un teléfono inteligente. De hecho, hay muchas suposiciones; el proceso parece haber sido en gran parte interno, con mucha confusión sobre por qué más usuarios promedio de Wikipedia no se unieron a la RFC. La mayoría de los usuarios ni siquiera crean cuentas y sus pensamientos parecen haber sido totalmente ignorados. Un mal rediseño puede matar un sitio y un deseo obstinado de jugar con las hojas de estilo no es una buena razón para arriesgar toda la empresa. ¿Por qué no implementar simplemente esta nueva interfaz de usuario como un "modo de ancho fijo" o algo así? Veamos si la gente lo adopta de esa manera. Cualquier cosa que no sea un cambio forzado repentino, que los usuarios de todos los sitios odian universalmente. Siempre es una experiencia de usuario negativa y ha sido negativa para todos los usuarios sin cuenta con los que he hablado. En resumen, el cambio debe tener en cuenta a los usuarios ocasionales antes de que se finalice y debe implementarse de una manera más reflexiva y consensuada. WizWorldLIVE ( discusión ) 00:19 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Creé una cuenta y estoy revisando las ediciones de la página solo para expresar mi total desagrado por el nuevo diseño. Es demasiado, demasiado estrecho. La mayoría de los usuarios de escritorio ven el sitio en monitores de pantalla ancha. Hay demasiado espacio sin usar. Mantenga la versión móvil del sitio en dispositivos móviles. Permítanme utilizar mi pantalla ancha en el escritorio. Veo muchos argumentos de personas que dicen que es fácil volver a Vector 2010 desde el menú de apariencia, pero la gran mayoría de los usuarios no han iniciado sesión y no pueden hacerlo sin registrar una cuenta. Ciertamente no me molestaré en iniciar sesión en mi cuenta cada vez que necesite usar Wikipedia en otra computadora. SteveBlanka ( discusión ) 18:47, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte más fuerte La nueva interfaz de usuario es terrible. La he estado usando durante una semana y la odio. Baja densidad de información, diseño estúpido "similar al de un dispositivo móvil" y enormes franjas de espacio vacío inútil, que obligan a los usuarios a desplazarse incluso para leer artículos breves. Arréglenlo. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 68.48.244.10 (discusión) 01:21, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Apoyo , principalmente porque las IP no tienen el lujo de volver al Vector heredado. Le di lo mejor de mí a Vector 2022 durante aproximadamente una semana y me alegré de volver a la apariencia anterior; no puedo evitar preguntarme si la WMF está pensando en cambiar el sitio móvil (que tiene problemas, en particular WP:TCHY ) por Vector 2022. Esto recuerda a WP:VE#Limitations . Mini apolis 02:27, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Por todo lo anterior y con inquietudes sobre la implementación de aspectos por parte de WMF sin un consenso suficiente. No veo un consenso para implementar en la última RFC y, por la tendencia que está tomando esta, no veo un consenso para implementar en esta. Se debería obtener un consenso adecuado para algo tan controvertido. – Novem Linguae ( discusión ) 02:42, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los cambios de hoy en vector-2022 han estropeado el estilo de mis scripts de usuario que arreglé el otro día. También han añadido relleno a cada elemento del menú, lo que no se ve muy bien en mi opinión. También han eliminado el relleno entre los menús, lo que tampoco se ve muy bien en mi opinión. Es un poco frustrante que la Wikipedia en inglés se haya convertido en un sandbox de vector-2022. – Novem Linguae ( discusión ) 03:51, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sugerencias para el cierre: 1) Trate de evitar la hipótesis de cuál será el consenso en el futuro y concéntrese en cuál es el consenso actual. Siento que este error se cometió al cierre de la primera RFC de Vector 2022. 2) Incluso si existe una política que prohíbe a las wikis tomar decisiones técnicas y de codificación, aún es aceptable llegar a un consenso para pedirle a la WMF que revierta Vector 2022. Gracias de antemano por cerrar esto. Buena suerte. – Novem Linguae ( discusión ) 19:36, 15 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : el mayor problema en mi opinión fue la falta de consenso (o incluso de pluralidad) antes de la implementación. Y también la falta de comunicación al respecto. Personalmente, no vi ningún banner que avisara del tiempo de implementación. Cuando se implementó, estaba editando en tiempo real y no había ningún banner que indicara que había cambiado (sí, hubo uno más adelante). La RFC señaló que era necesario realizar ciertas mejoras antes de la implementación. No entiendo por qué la sección "Antecedentes" anterior dice que se implementaron, ya que esa no es la impresión que tuve. Ni en términos de amplitud ni de mejoras en el lenguaje. Lo que se prometió debe hacerse. También creo que aquellos que realmente hicieron el cambio, sin consenso, deberían tener restringidos sus permisos en la Wikipedia en inglés. Nfitz ( discusión ) 03:48, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - La respuesta a esta pregunta es obvia. Y esa respuesta es sí. La nueva skin claramente no está diseñada para lo que se consideraría el caso de uso principal: una computadora de escritorio que usa un monitor horizontal. Tener que iniciar sesión para cambiar de skin a través de las preferencias es molesto. Deadgye ( discusión ) 04:01, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Para empezar, el espacio en blanco es una abominación y hace que la lectura y la navegación por el sitio web sean objetivamente peores en una computadora de escritorio. Leí el RFC y algunas de las diversas páginas de discusión que lo respaldan y me resultó interesante ver que, aunque la gente de WMF en general hizo un gran alarde de que este era un cambio solo para el sitio de escritorio y no tenía nada que ver con el sitio móvil, el voto de Card Zero anterior señaló el comentario de WMF "Al desarrollar la apariencia, también consideramos acercarla en diseño visual al sitio móvil, para que las personas que lean en dispositivos móviles puedan reconocer Wikipedia también en su forma de escritorio. También apuntamos a reducir el código para las apariencias en general para que sea más fácil en el futuro desarrollar funciones y adaptarlas tanto en apariencias de escritorio como móviles". Lo que es bueno para el lector móvil a menudo no es bueno para el lector de escritorio e intentar hacerlos similares es una receta para el desastre. Seguramente la WMF obtiene suficiente dinero cada año a través de su incesante publicidad para poder desarrollar apariencias que se adapten a dispositivos móviles y de escritorio por separado en lugar de tener que homogeneizarlas. Por si sirve de algo, en su momento apoyé el cambio de monobook a vector, así que no creo ser un ludita que simplemente odia el cambio. 2403:5802:19ED:0:21C1:6CBF:2E59:864 (discusión) 05:14 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo El nuevo diseño es realmente pésimo y disfuncional para la interfaz de usuario de un sitio web moderno. No me opongo a las nuevas pantallas predeterminadas, pero deben reflejar la aceptación de la comunidad. Tanto desde el punto de vista sustantivo como del procedimiento, el nuevo diseño debería revertirse. Lord Roem ~ ( discusión ) 05:54, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Espero haberlo hecho bien, ya que hasta ahora solo he sido un usuario desconectado. Cuando se habla de la "comunidad Wikipedia", parece haber un enfoque exclusivo en los editores. Parte de la comunidad Wikipedia también incluye usuarios desconectados, es decir, la mayor parte de Wikipedia. No hubo ningún aviso a los usuarios desconectados que estaban contentos con el diseño anterior ni ningún intento real de comunicarse con los usuarios desconectados sobre la contribución para este próximo cambio (banners, etc.); Wikipedia recibe miles de millones de visitas a la página al mes y, si hubiera problemas reales con el diseño desde el punto de vista de un lector, ya habrían surgido orgánicamente. En cambio, me desperté con un nuevo diseño que se ve simplemente mal; honestamente pensé que estaba en el móvil durante ~10 minutos hasta que busqué el problema en Google y me enteré de que, de hecho, era un rediseño. --Newresdesignisdumb420! (discusión) 06:21, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gran apoyo : la nueva skin no funciona en absoluto en el modo de visualización. No sé cómo sería en el modo de edición, ya que salí lo más rápido que pude, pero en función del modo de visualización sería una pesadilla. Mjroots ( discusión ) 07:03, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte No entiendo la tendencia moderna de agregar espacios en blanco a las páginas web, y este diseño es particularmente escandaloso en ese sentido. Adoptar un nuevo diseño está bien, no estoy casado con el diseño de 2010, pero este parece desagradar tanto a los editores como a los lectores. Deshacer. wxtrackercody ( discusión · contribuciones ) 07:20, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte. Solo soy un usuario, no un editor, pero les diré lo que le dije al voluntario de Wikimedia por correo electrónico: este nuevo rediseño del sitio es terrible . Particularmente indignante es la parte donde asume que mi computadora de escritorio con un monitor de ancho completo es un teléfono móvil, como si estuviéramos retrocediendo en el tiempo a una era anterior y peor del diseño web. Podría acostumbrarme a la tabla de contenidos de la izquierda, pero tener que hacer clic en un botón para decirle a su sitio web que me gustaría que usara más de un tercio de la pantalla en 2023 es francamente vergonzoso. 2601:645:8200:FF50:0:0:0:EC5F (discusión) 08:05, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Este nuevo diseño es una versión inferior. Es desconcertante que se haya establecido como predeterminado y que se haya impuesto de forma inalterable a los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión. Qué asco. — DVRT ed ( Discusión )
Soporte Esto es horrible. Como mínimo, permita que los usuarios que no hayan iniciado sesión se den de baja. 111.220.98.160 ( discusión ) 09:32, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC). [ responder ]
Soporte No me importa mucho todo el espacio desperdiciado a izquierda y derecha cuando se muestra en el monitor de mi computadora. Hay una forma de anularlo cuando se cierra la sesión (es decir, agregarlo ?useskin=vectora la URL), pero esto no se propaga al hacer clic en los enlaces. Debería ser fácil de solucionar en mi opinión, así que hazlo. 90.231.239.98 (discusión) 10:20, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte He leído este sitio casi a diario durante al menos 15 años. He aprendido mucho de él desde entonces, especialmente del enlace del "artículo aleatorio", y todavía lo hacía, hasta el miércoles. Recuerdo la antigua apariencia predeterminada, Monobook, que siempre pensé que tenía una foto peculiar pero de buen gusto de una sábana blanca arrugada como fondo, y su cambio a Vector 2010 con un margen gris claro que pensé que era algo genérico pero aún único y atractivo. No me importó ese cambio porque fue el único cambio real que noté y no afectó mi experiencia. A pesar de lo que muchos han dicho en las muchas conversaciones paralelas en curso en este sitio sobre que se ve anticuado u obsoleto, pensé que era de lejos el sitio principal mejor diseñado en Internet: un ejemplo de función sobre adornos y atemporalidad sobre seguimiento de tendencias, en comparación con sitios web que parecen revisarse cada dos años que reemplazan enlaces evidentes con botones jeroglíficos extraños, requieren cada vez más desplazamiento y hacen cada vez más espacio para anuncios. Yo diría que el diseño se mantuvo actualizado con los tiempos, especialmente en comparación con Craigslist, que parece muy arraigado en 2002. Como usuario de IP, no tenía ni idea de que se había planeado esta nueva apariencia predeterminada y pensé que mi navegador tenía errores cuando la vi por primera vez, en particular porque las páginas se actualizaban con la nueva apariencia una por una y me encontraba con algunas "normales" y otras "con errores" al azar. Luego descubrí que era una característica, no un error. Ya he dicho por qué me gustaban las apariencias predeterminadas anteriores, y este rediseño fue como un puñetazo en el estómago. Tengo que describir la nueva apariencia (Vector 2022) como estéril, como un quirófano: no es cómoda de mirar, el botón de "artículo aleatorio" está oculto detrás de un jeroglífico, se necesita mucho más desplazamiento para leer un artículo y algunos artículos parecen simplemente como si la apariencia hubiera arruinado el diseño. También parece que el texto negro es de alguna manera más brillante y más difícil de leer. Me encontré pasando de estar en Wikipedia durante horas a estar un minuto a la vez hasta que encontré una extensión del navegador que agregaría "?useskin=vector" a cada URL cada vez que hiciera clic en un enlace de WP. Tengo que decir que toda esta discusión, especialmente de todas las personas cuyos argumentos en contra de esta solicitud se reducen a "acéptalo y supéralo", realmente me desanima a volver. ¿Por qué debería patrocinar un sitio web cuyos mantenedores son condescendientes con sus lectores? No es exactamente acogedor, que es lo que creo que querría ser una enciclopedia en línea que alienta a sus lectores a convertirse en sus escritores. -- 67.6.158.84 (discusión) 10:36, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto es completamente irrelevante para la esencia de lo que escribiste, pero la imagen de fondo es un libro, no una sábana, de ahí el nombre "MonoBook". — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 03:32, 26 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Leer artículos en una computadora portátil sin iniciar sesión (es decir , de la manera habitual) es más difícil: mis ojos se distraen con el hecho de que el texto no comienza hasta casi un tercio de la página. Y es extraño que no haya una pestaña visible para iniciar sesión. La nueva apariencia debería ser una opción: se debería preguntar a los lectores y editores de IP si desean participar. Sweet6970 ( discusión ) 12:17, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Lamentablemente, cualquier mejora percibida no importa en lo más mínimo cuando la experiencia básica de lectura y edición se ve comprometida fundamentalmente por lo que parece una metodología de diseño de hace 30 años que se centra exclusivamente en pantallas pequeñas y de baja resolución (y simplemente acepta la masa resultante de espacio muerto en pantallas más grandes y de mayor resolución), que debería haber quedado relegada a la historia hace mucho tiempo. Esta locura no debería haber sido infligida a todos de manera predeterminada con arrogancia y casi total indiferencia por todos y cada uno de los comentarios negativos. _wjemather,^{por favor, deja un mensaje...} 12:36, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : la nueva versión se ve horrible. Si la versión anterior no está rota, ¿por qué cambiarla, y especialmente para esto ? La versión 2022 no es una mejora en absoluto, es una degradación. Sé que los diseños de sitios web malos y pseudo-limpios son una tendencia, pero eso no significa que tenga que aceptarlo. Veverve ( discusión ) 12:48, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo , y no uso la palabra "fuerte" a la ligera. La cantidad de direcciones IP y cuentas nuevas que indican su descontento arriba (y eso es solo de aquellos que lograron encontrar esta RfC) indican cuán mal funciona Vector 2022 para los lectores ocasionales. Texto compacto, grandes franjas de espacio en blanco, navegación más difícil: esto no es una mejora. Muchos de los opositores a continuación parecen caer en la categoría de "es hora de un cambio", pero el cambio por el mero hecho de cambiar rara vez es algo bueno. Este no es un sitio de comercio electrónico o redes sociales; es una enciclopedia. Los lectores vienen aquí por el contenido del artículo, no por lo que algunos podrían llamar diseño web de vanguardia. Para los editores, a veces puede ser fácil perder de vista el hecho de que estos artículos están escritos para los lectores de Wikipedia, no para otros editores. Maximizar la facilidad de uso para los lectores es primordial, por lo que la apariencia predeterminada para alguien que no haya iniciado sesión no debería ser Vector 2022. -- Sable232 ( discusión ) 15:19, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué pasa con aquellos a quienes realmente les gusta Vector 2022? Por lo que sé, si algo no te gusta lo suficiente, eventualmente encontrarás un lugar para expresar tu descontento. Pero para los lectores a quienes no les importa o no les gusta el nuevo diseño, ¿cómo se supone que vamos a saber exactamente cuántos de ellos hay? 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( háblame ) 15:25, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ 0xDeadbeef : Creo que están bien representados en la categoría de "oposición" y por la pequeña minoría de comentarios apreciativos que se dejan en páginas como esta . Permítanme destacar un extracto del comentario de Stable232: "Muchos de los que se oponen a continuación parecen caer en la categoría de "es hora de un cambio", pero el cambio por el mero hecho de cambiar rara vez es algo bueno. Este no es un sitio de comercio electrónico ni de redes sociales; es una enciclopedia. Los lectores vienen aquí por el contenido del artículo, no por lo que algunos podrían llamar un diseño web de vanguardia". ¡ Aplausos! Lo mismo que yo creo: parece haber más atención en la "experiencia del usuario" que en el contenido de la enciclopedia, mientras que una gran cantidad de artículos están en un estado lamentable. Æo ( discusión ) 15:49, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo estaba señalando el hecho de que las personas que odian el nuevo diseño y quieren desesperadamente que vuelva el diseño anterior tendrán la motivación suficiente para encontrar esta página y otras. Los editores de Wikipedia son <0,01% de nuestros lectores, por lo que incluso si a la mayoría de los lectores realmente les gusta el nuevo diseño, no lo sabríamos porque a las personas a las que les gusta el nuevo diseño no les importaría lo suficiente como para encontrar esta página y expresar su apoyo. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( háblame ) 15:56, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por eso ha habido algunas ideas sobre la publicación de esta página entre los lectores ocasionales de IP (#Publicizing this RfC). Muchos de ellos han encontrado esta RfC u otras páginas de discusión y han expresado sus opiniones, y la mayoría de ellas han sido negativas. En cuanto al segmento de lectores a los que "no les importa" si la interfaz es V2010 o V2022, creo que su opinión (que, dado que "no les importa", no es una "opinión", es decir, una elección entre "opciones") es ostensiblemente irrelevante, y probablemente ni siquiera les importe si Wikipedia existe o no. Æo ( discusión ) 16:34 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo. Esta movilización de sitios de escritorio es una plaga en la Web. Ya no soy muy activo aquí (hoy soy más un lector que un colaborador) y, como lector, este cambio es terrible. Ignatz mice • discusión 15:38, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un apoyo extremadamente fuerte. Este es el equivalente de la Nueva Coca-Cola en Wikipedia y es un inconveniente innecesario para los usuarios y lectores que no han iniciado sesión. Dronebogus ( discusión ) 17:12 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte. La skin anterior estaba bien, la nueva es simplemente... rara. — scs ( discusión ) 17:14 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte soporte El objetivo del diseño responsivo es que el usuario determine el ancho de la pantalla, no los desarrolladores. Las demás modificaciones parecen innecesarias e inútiles. John Talbut ( discusión ) 17:28 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo En parte porque el campo de búsqueda no se puede utilizar inmediatamente. -- Bensin ( discusión ) 17:38 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo La nueva skin es más difícil de usar que la anterior. Hace que el texto sea más difícil de leer, por ejemplo, y genera espacio desperdiciado en los laterales de la página. Tal vez podamos hacer una skin mejor algún día, pero la de 2022 es en realidad peor que la que reemplaza y no debería usarse. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 17:52, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Hay demasiado espacio en blanco y es más difícil navegar con Vector 2022. Kay2370 ( discusión ) 19:14 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Hay demasiado espacio en blanco y ahora es más difícil leer. No me gusta cómo la Fundación lo impuso a la comunidad. kulupu ko, many and one ( discusión ) 20:16 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Por todas las razones ya mencionadas, especialmente el espacio en blanco, la falta de menú y la incomodidad de tener que presionar varios botones solo para iniciar sesión. A menos que estemos anticipando un regreso a los monitores cuadrados de 13", no hay absolutamente ninguna necesidad de esto. Wiki-Ed ( discusión ) 20:47 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo La nueva skin es una pesadilla tanto desde el punto de vista estético como de usabilidad: está alejando del proyecto a los contribuyentes serios y a los lectores. Imponerla a todos los usuarios de forma predeterminada es de mala educación y muestra ignorancia e incompetencia. Quien sea responsable de esta decisión en la WMF debería ser removido del poder: el dinero de las donaciones debería gastarse en hacer funcionar los servidores, corregir errores e implementar la funcionalidad básica realmente necesaria que la comunidad ha pedido durante décadas, no en cosas que no son necesarias, como el Editor visual o esta nueva skin. La antigua skin Vector debería volver a ser la predeterminada no solo en la Wikipedia en inglés, sino también en todas las demás Wikipedias, a menos que los usuarios hayan optado explícitamente por la nueva skin (tener una configuración de preferencias para optar por no participar no es suficiente). -- Matthiaspaul ( discusión ) 21:14, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es necesario dar una respuesta ad hominem dirigida a la persona que presentó la skin. (Y para no salirme demasiado del tema, el Editor visual hace que la edición sea menos abrumadora para los nuevos usuarios, y más editores es algo que el proyecto necesita desesperadamente). DecafPotato ( discusión ) 23:08, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte: Este cambio fue completamente innecesario y el nuevo diseño distrae y es más difícil de leer, especialmente debido a la gran cantidad de espacio en blanco. -- 1990'sguy ( discusión ) 21:15, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo: Parece que la mayoría de los que respondieron a la RFC original no estaban a favor de la nueva apariencia tal como está, pero parece que la declaración final suponía que sus preocupaciones serían atendidas. No fue así. Pero ignorando la antigua RFC y viéndola desde cero, todavía hay muchas quejas que, a menos que puedan ser atendidas instantáneamente, deberían ser motivo de una reversión. Las mayores preocupaciones que me gustaría señalar son que los botones gráficos no son tan obvios como podrían ser. (Y realmente no están ahorrando espacio, porque el espacio en blanco donde estarían los enlaces antiguos todavía no se usa). Y las dificultades con el modo de ancho completo. Me doy cuenta de que la investigación ha demostrado que las líneas estrechas pueden ser mejores para la lectura de formato largo, pero tengo entendido que la investigación también ha demostrado que la gente no lee Wikipedia de esa manera. Miran rápidamente a su alrededor en busca del dato que están buscando. (Sé que normalmente lo hago). El interruptor para el ancho completo está un poco escondido en mi opinión, no es muy obvio en cuanto a la iconografía y tiene un comportamiento frustrante y aparentemente defectuoso para los usuarios que no han iniciado sesión. (Me doy cuenta de que arreglar esto último requeriría un esfuerzo adicional que solo pueden hacer los programadores de la Fundación, pero... bueno, ¿y qué?) ApLundell ( discusión ) 21:39 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte: El cambio no es una mejora y, a pesar de lo que se dijo, la investigación no demostró que el ancho limitado sea mejor. He leído los artículos vinculados en https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki//Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features/Limiting_content_width, pero tienen veinte años y no tienen en cuenta los monitores modernos de pantalla ancha de alta definición. 80.43.159.95 (discusión) 22:01 22 ene 2023 (UTC) 22:00 01 2023 UTC [ responder ]
Soporte extremadamente fuerte La Wikipedia antigua era mucho más fácil de usar y editar. No estoy seguro de qué tenía de malo y quiero decir "Si no está roto, no lo arregles". YTKJ ( discusión ) 22:47 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para su información, un "apoyo extremadamente fuerte" tiende a ser funcionalmente igual a simplemente "apoyo". DecafPotato ( discusión ) 23:05 22 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tal vez leas ese artículo de TechCrunch y notarás un poco mejor los cambios. Realmente es mucho más eficiente para los editores. Además, aquí los desarrolladores también tienen voz y voto sobre sus objetivos. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 01:15 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese artículo sería relevante si el sitio realmente se viera como las capturas de pantalla que incluye el artículo. No es así. En mi pantalla, se ve así: https://postimg.cc/3ddyCXDj, que es significativamente diferente al diseño anterior. Estoy empezando a preguntarme si aquellos que afirman que el nuevo diseño no es tan diferente solo están usando pantallas de menor resolución y en realidad no han visto el problema. Medí el espacio en blanco en mi monitor hoy temprano. Hay un espacio en blanco sólido de 9 pulgadas a la izquierda del contenido, otras 8,5 pulgadas de espacio en blanco a la derecha y miserables 6 pulgadas de contenido real en el medio. El contenido literalmente ocupa menos de un tercio de la ventana de mi navegador. Eso es en un monitor de 27" 3840x2160 que usa un escalado a nivel de SO del 100 % y un escalado a nivel de navegador del 100 %. No es mucho mejor con un escalado a nivel de SO del 125 %. La gente también ha hecho comparaciones con otros sitios que usan elementos de diseño similares, pero revisé muchos de los mencionados por otros, e incluso esos otros sitios tienen sus elementos de interfaz de usuario que se extienden para llenar toda la ventana, incluso si el contenido del artículo no lo hace. En ese sentido, Vector 2022 ni siquiera sigue los ejemplos de diseño de los sitios a los que hacen referencia otras personas. Trynn ( discusión ) 01:38, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Bienvenido a Wikipedia, Trynn! Creo que tienes una preferencia personal. Tu nombre de usuario, la campana y las notificaciones están sobre el espacio en blanco, mientras que mi nombre de usuario, la campana y las notificaciones están sobre el texto y el espacio en blanco comienza en la lista de seguimiento. Solo pide ayuda en la página de discusión. Paradise Chronicle ( discusión ) 02:33 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte En un monitor de escritorio ancho, la cantidad de espacio en blanco es desconcertante y exactamente lo opuesto a lo que esperaría que hiciera un sitio web con el "espacio" disponible. Cpl Syx ^{[ discusión ]} 23:05, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : Volví a crear una cuenta específicamente para esto, ya que perdí mi antiguo nombre de usuario en algún momento al cambiar de correo electrónico, porque esta es la peor "mejora" de diseño que he visto en bastantes años. Es desagradable no poder ver dónde termina la barra lateral y dónde comienza la página, y la abrumadora blancura del diseño hizo que las páginas fueran más difíciles de leer. Es un diseño muy centrado en dispositivos móviles en un sitio web que solo uso en computadoras de escritorio, y estoy bastante seguro de que ya hay una versión móvil. Las secciones con sangrías pronunciadas, como esta página, por ejemplo, son una pesadilla para analizar sin un borde claro como el diseño anterior. La falta de persistencia de tener que hacer clic en un botón para abrir el menú en el lateral con cada cambio de página si no se ha iniciado sesión también es frustrante. El hecho de no tener una descripción general fácil de los idiomas a la izquierda (sin tener que hacer clic en él, nuevamente) también es algo negativo. Personalmente, también odio la tabla de contenido móvil, específicamente cómo permanece a la vista mientras te desplazas, aunque puedo entender por qué a algunos les gustaría. SiderealMask ( discusión ) 01:35 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : la única forma que encontré para desactivar esta nueva interfaz de usuario es una extensión de Chrome (para agregar "useskin=vector" a todas las páginas) y eso es francamente ridículo. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por 24.128.26.93 (discusión) 23:04, 22 de enero de 2023 (UTC)
Fuerte apoyo . La comunidad ya lo rechazó antes, y la idea de que nos lo impongan de todos modos es indignante. Andrew Lenahan - Star bli nd 04:05, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo por una multitud de razones. Últimamente edito muy poco y, por lo tanto, rara vez ingreso, pero esta nueva apariencia es tan terrible que tengo que ingresar para poder navegar por el sitio de manera efectiva.
1) Los diseños de apariencia con muchos espacios en blanco funcionan bien para los usuarios de dispositivos móviles porque puede resultar difícil hacer clic en los enlaces correctos cuando hay demasiados cerca. Pero para los usuarios de computadoras de escritorio, el espacio en blanco adicional solo genera un desplazamiento innecesario.
2) El nuevo diseño choca visualmente con las plantillas establecidas, la interfaz de edición estándar y demás: cualquier cambio en la apariencia predeterminada debe tener en cuenta no solo el aspecto que tendrá la nueva apariencia en sí, sino también cómo se integra con el contenido actual del sitio web. Y eso, claramente, no se tuvo en cuenta en absoluto en el diseño de esta apariencia.
3) Al ocultar la tabla de contenidos, parece que no hay forma de recuperarla sin actualizar la página, al menos eso es lo que he podido encontrar. Es una elección de diseño horrible por razones que deberían ser obvias, y el hecho de que la apariencia se haya implementado de esta manera dice mucho sobre que no estaba lista para su implementación.
4) Cuando utilizo el cuadro de búsqueda, muevo el cursor del ratón y escribo algo, obtengo un comportamiento inesperado: en lugar de buscar exactamente lo que escribí, busco la página en los resultados de búsqueda sobre la que se encontraba el cursor del ratón. Esto claramente no es lo que la mayoría de las personas que escriben un término en el cuadro de búsqueda esperarían o intentarían hacer, y nuevamente, el hecho de que la apariencia se haya implementado con esta "función" habla de su falta de idoneidad para su uso.
Podría hablar de otros problemas también, pero la mayoría de lo que diría ya se ha abordado anteriormente. Basta con decir que esta skin claramente necesita más trabajo antes de convertirse en la predeterminada. Eso no quiere decir que no haya aspectos positivos en la nueva skin: la barra de búsqueda más prominente es un cambio bienvenido, al igual que las vistas previas de las páginas que se producen durante una búsqueda. Pero los problemas presentados anteriormente son demasiado grandes para compensar estas pequeñas mejoras. ST11 ( t • c ) 04:14, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Mierda! Tienes razón en lo de ocultar el contenido. ¿Cómo no me di cuenta de esto hasta ahora... y por qué la WMF pensó que era aceptable implementar esto en un sitio web de los 20 principales? — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 04:17, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Espera, ya lo he descubierto... es el!!!botón que aparece junto al título del artículo. Pero una vez más, la apariencia se basa en jeroglíficos para comunicar características importantes, cuando el texto habría tenido mucho más sentido. — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 04:19, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eh, creo que es un icono bastante común con un uso bastante común. Sin embargo, preferiría que apareciera una información sobre herramientas cuando pasas el cursor sobre él. - B RAINULATOR 9 ( DISCUSIÓN ) 04:26 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte debido a los siguientes problemas con Vector 2022 que la WMF no ha mostrado signos de interés en solucionar:
- Demasiados espacios en blanco en la parte superior: el botón "Iniciar sesión" está oculto detrás de un …botón, lo que hace que las cosas sean más incómodas que antes sin una razón clara. Quiero decir, mira la captura de pantalla oficial : hay mucho espacio para que el botón de inicio de sesión esté a un clic de distancia.
- Exceso de espacios en blanco en la barra lateral de contenidos. Por ejemplo, podrían reducir fácilmente los márgenes CSS de los contenidos a la mitad y se reduciría el desplazamiento innecesario.
- El menú de hamburguesas. No se puede decir con seriedad que se trata de un rediseño que prioriza el escritorio y luego proceder a ocultar el contenido detrás de un ≡botón de forma predeterminada. — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 04:52, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, una cosa más: he intentado leer páginas con la nueva apariencia un par de veces y me molestó que no haya forma de expandir todas las opciones del contenido a la vez. Por eso, creo que ahora deberíamos poner la tabla de contenido donde estaba antes.
Si se solucionan eso y las dos primeras cosas de mi comentario original, podría pasar a neutral. El menú de hamburguesas probablemente sea solo un problema mío y estoy dispuesto a llegar a un acuerdo al respecto.
Además, si este RfC se cierra incorrectamente o el WMF desafía el consenso aquí, al menos deberíamos llegar a un consenso comunitario sobre un nuevo nombre para esta máscara, porque como otros han dicho, es un cambio más sustancial de Vector de lo que fue MonoBook->Vector. — python coder ( discusión | contribuciones ) 05:44, 2 de febrero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte de pythoncoder. starship .paint ( exalt ) 06:41, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Como lector ávido y editor y autor ocasional con muchos intereses, no me gusta que muchos enlaces importantes estén ocultos por la nueva apariencia, en particular el campo de inicio de sesión. Lo que antes era un proceso de un solo clic, ahora necesita dos clics y un tirón. Es algo pequeño, pero de todos modos es inconveniente. Tampoco me gusta la extensión del espacio en blanco y, lo que es más importante (ya que a menudo se encuentra información faltante en otras versiones), extraño los enlaces de idioma de un solo clic. Por lo tanto, encuentro que la apariencia predeterminada anterior era mucho mejor, pero Monobook sigue siendo superior a eso ya que todos los controles operativos están en el mismo lado de la pantalla. Pero también veo que la nueva apariencia puede tener algunas ventajas para los usuarios de dispositivos móviles, restringidos como están en el tamaño de la pantalla. Por otra parte, como usuario de escritorio encuentro que estas características son perjudiciales y preferiría tener todos los controles operativos visibles desde el principio. Por lo tanto, propongo un compromiso : dejar que el navegador detecte el sistema operativo. Si es un móvil, decirle que muestre la nueva apariencia (u otra que esté orientada a las minipantallas). Si se trata de una computadora de escritorio, usa algo como Monobook u otra de las máscaras clásicas, con todas las funciones. No te limites a un solo aspecto. -- Schlosser67 ( discusión ) 07:29 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ya existe una skin para móviles y ya se muestra automáticamente en los sistemas operativos móviles. Vector 2022 fue diseñado para computadoras de escritorio. –  Joe ( discusión ) 08:04, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Realmente estaba pensado para ordenadores de sobremesa? No lo parece. Y yo que pensaba que los desarrolladores querían ayudar a los usuarios con pantallas pequeñas, lo cual podría haber entendido. Eso significaría que la nueva skin no sirve para nada. Es una lástima el trabajo que la gente ha desperdiciado en ella, su tiempo se habría empleado mejor en el contenido que en la apariencia. Por lo tanto, actualicen a un soporte fuerte . -- Schlosser67 ( discusión ) 11:25, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : la nueva interfaz Vector tiene algunos puntos positivos, pero la " navegación de carne misteriosa " iconográfica en la parte superior sufre algunas deficiencias de usabilidad graves que dificultan su uso y discriminan a los usuarios con ciertas discapacidades. Estos problemas se pueden solucionar fácilmente, pero el desarrollo de la interfaz no parece estar interesado en tener en cuenta los comentarios de los usuarios. Cnbrb ( discusión ) 10:53 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : No creo que este movimiento se adhiera al cierre de la RfC. El ancho del espacio en blanco sigue siendo un problema con los menús y cualquier página con tablas/imágenes; otros han planteado que las IP no pueden mantener su preferencia [de hecho, acabo de probarlo y no puedo encontrar el interruptor como una IP]; el comportamiento del encabezado fijo y del menú es confuso y tiene errores [en una ventana de escritorio que no sea 16:9, la barra lateral sacude todo el artículo hacia abajo en lugar de hacia los lados, en mi tableta las páginas de discusión son ilegibles gracias a los menús de tabla de contenido con errores]). Estos y otros problemas similares se plantearon en la RfC que se cerró con un gran "si" con respecto a la resolución de estos problemas, y aunque veo algunas mejoras en el ancho del cuerpo del artículo, es una gran exageración decir que las preocupaciones de la comunidad se manejaron satisfactoriamente, como debería explicar toda esta página. Si bien no creo que el legado de Vector sea perfecto y agradecería una actualización sólida, esta actualización en particular, por consenso de la última RfC, no lo es. Blue Edits ( discusión ) 11:02 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : esta skin es basura, tiene más espacio en blanco que una resma de papel de fotocopias recién hecho. Es una porquería. Deshazte de ella, de la gente que la introdujo y de la gente que diseñó esta monstruosidad. Para mí está muy claro que el impacto total de este cambio se ocultó a la comunidad en general para forzarlo a pesar de muchas de las preocupaciones mencionadas anteriormente que se advirtieron antes. El cambio ni siquiera estuvo cerca de un consenso claro, pero se impuso a la comunidad, la reacción es masiva. Está bastante claro que debería revertirse de inmediato. Macktheknifeau ( discusión ) 12:15, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo todo lo anterior. Para aquellos que dicen que es una resistencia al cambio, no lo es, sino una resistencia a la idiotez . Clntkee ( discusión ) 12:18 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : Hace unos días, fui a buscar algo en Wikipedia, solo para encontrar que su diseño se había, digamos, afeado. No sé quién se quejó del diseño anterior, que no tenía nada de malo, pero definitivamente son una minoría muy pequeña. Me alegra ver que muchos están de acuerdo conmigo, y pido que Wikipedia vuelva al diseño anterior. 98.20.129.84 ( discusión ) 12:25, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como señalaron algunas personas anteriormente, este diseño tiene un aspecto estéticamente desagradable: demasiado espacio en blanco, lo que puede percibirse como un intento de unificar los diseños para dispositivos móviles y computadoras de escritorio. En segundo lugar, como se mencionó anteriormente, WMF ignoró por completo el consenso de la comunidad e implementó el cambio de inmediato (lo que se siente como un retroceso a WP:FRAM ). Por lo tanto, apoyo la reversión al diseño anterior. ^Charla de verano 12:30, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Rara vez veo un caso en el que un sitio web importante cambie un diseño clásico y la comunidad lo acepte. Por lo general, parece que se está intentando arreglar algo que no está roto y que nadie pidió. Cambiar la interfaz de usuario de todos (en lugar de simplemente darles una opción adicional) es bastante presuntuoso. Por favor, que esto sirva de lección para futuros rediseños y que se consulte primero a la comunidad o que simplemente se agregue a la lista existente de aspectos sin cambiar el valor predeterminado. — Czello 15:21, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . El Vector heredado se ve más simple y elegante, el Vector 2022 se ve más tosco. Me gusta que la tabla de contenidos "siga" la lectura, pero el Vector heredado más simple y amplio es mejor para mí. El hecho de que los editores de IP no puedan cambiar eso es otro problema. Una solución rápida a este asunto es permitir cambios a todos los usuarios, con cuenta o sin cuenta. Otro punto importante es que este cambio se nos impone, y nunca apoyaría tales cambios, sin importar cuán "benevolentes" puedan ser. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contacto) 15:26, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo y en términos fuertes, además. El rediseño intenta arreglar lo que no está roto. El espacio en blanco y la compresión del texto son solo dos de las muchas razones. Por ejemplo, formateé mi página de usuario para la skin de 2010 y, como el texto se ha desplazado hacia el medio, el diseño se ha visto afectado como resultado. Para mí, eso es motivo suficiente. También creo que eliminar la numeración de las secciones es un gran error, y desplazarla hacia un lado y hacer que no se pueda ver toda a la vez lo empeora considerablemente. Lo único positivo que podría decir al respecto es ampliar la barra de búsqueda en la parte superior. Tim O'Doherty ( discusión ) 17:15, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo El peor cambio en todo el sitio que he visto durante mis 17 años aquí. La cantidad de espacio en blanco que esto crea es más que ridícula. Y la mayoría de los otros cambios son claramente retrógrados también. mgiganteus1 ( discusión ) 18:02, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . No estoy seguro de si lo estoy haciendo correctamente, ya que creé una cuenta para recuperar mi capacidad de usar el antiguo estilo de Wikipedia, por lo que soy nuevo en todo esto. SanJacintoPeak ( discusión ) 18:12 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , como se indicó anteriormente. BeanieFan11 ( discusión ) 18:47 23 enero 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte para volver a 2010, mientras las IP no puedan cambiar de apariencia sin registrarse y debido a la insistencia como Fram ha señalado. Reducir el ancho de la página para que los ojos que pasan rápidamente por encima de los monitores de pantalla ancha no tengan que desplazarse demasiado es la única mejora notable con respecto a la apariencia anterior, pero eso se puede adaptar fácilmente para v2010. Todo lo demás, incluida la interfaz de usuario del infierno de hamburguesas , es tedioso para la navegación de escritorio y no es bien compatible con los navegadores web más antiguos (uno de los principales beneficios de Wikipedia sobre otros sitios con mucho JS/CSS complejo: todavía se pueden leer cómodamente artículos sobre hardware "obsoleto" sin mucho retraso o renderizado defectuoso). DigitalIceAge ( discusión ) 19:15, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo Inmediatamente volví a Vector 2010 porque odiaba mucho la nueva apariencia. No me gusta adivinar qué significa un símbolo y me gusta poder hacer clic en el texto sin formato que dice Contribuciones y lista de seguimiento. Abzeronow ( discusión ) 19:37 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Como lector, no editor, me sorprendió bastante (no en el buen sentido) el nuevo aspecto. Estaba investigando si había un error de CSS de mi parte, pero me di cuenta de que era deliberado. Incluso después de un período de intentar que el nuevo aspecto me gustara, simplemente no entiendo el motivo del cambio. Un simple botón de expandir y contraer para Vector 2010 hubiera sido mucho mejor. Sin una forma sencilla para que los usuarios que hayan cerrado sesión puedan optar por no participar, me gustaría que este cambio se desvirtúe en todas las wikis. O dejar la decisión a los administradores de cada idioma. Real Joe Cool ( discusión ) 21:20, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte más fuerte posible El nuevo diseño es torpe, incómodo, esconde herramientas y opciones, hace que lidiar con la tabla de contenidos sea una tarea ardua, cambiar de idioma es más complicado... (la lista completa de idiomas original, a la izquierda, era la mejor) Se necesita más tiempo y esfuerzo para hacer cualquier cosa u obtener información. La capacidad de obtener una visión general de las cosas o de navegar se ve claramente disminuida. La funcionalidad, la practicidad y la eficiencia se ven gravemente obstaculizadas. No porque sea una configuración desconocida, sino porque es un diseño inherentemente, objetivo y significativamente menos funcional/práctico/eficiente. (y esto es cierto para la mayoría de los diseños de sitios web "actualizados"/"mejorados"/"modernos", desde aproximadamente la década de 2010 en adelante... que están lejos de ser desconocidos, por ahora) El nuevo diseño hace que los diseños de escritorio y móviles sean más cercanos... pero aún tengo que ver algún argumento razonable (o cualquier argumento en absoluto) de por qué eso sería algo bueno. ¿Por qué se debería hacer la versión de escritorio, para acercarse más a un diseño que tiene que estar severamente limitado, por las capacidades severamente limitadas de los móviles. (sobre todo, sus pantallas táctiles mínimas y extremadamente torpes e imprecisas)-- 155.4.221.27 ( discusión ) 21:34, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo. Navego por Wikipedia tanto en la versión de escritorio como en la versión móvil, pero solo utilizo la versión de escritorio para contribuir, porque es imposible hacer una edición seria en la versión móvil; utilizo la versión móvil solo para lecturas superficiales y rápidas y para buscar información. Æo ( discusión ) 21:50 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
...y el móvil es claramente peor, para la lectura superficial y rápida y también para la búsqueda de información, salvo específicamente en un teléfono inteligente. (debido a las muchas y severas limitaciones de los teléfonos inteligentes) 155.4.221.27 ( discusión ) 14:35 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte ( conflicto de edición ) Como alguien que prefiere Vector 2022, la reacción es muy clara y las características que preocupan a muchos editores y lectores deberían abordarse y corregirse según sea necesario (por ejemplo, los espacios en blanco aleatorios) antes de implementar nuevamente la versión 22. Hacer que la apariencia sea opcional también es otra opción. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (él/él) 21:38, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo todas las razones expuestas anteriormente. La cantidad de espacio en blanco me parece ridícula. Tintero21 ( discusión ) 22:54 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo a muchos de los mencionados anteriormente. Si bien la actualización del aspecto de muchos sitios web es ahora popular y WMF actuó de buena fe, es probable que establecer Vector 2022 como apariencia predeterminada sea un error. La apariencia predeterminada debería ser la más familiar y habitual, y Vector 2022 es opcional. Brandmeister ^talk 23:36, 23 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : este cambio existencial no se ha comunicado globalmente , y el en-WP afecta a todas y cada una de las versiones de idioma y proyectos (commons, etc.). ¿Había siquiera un banner para notificar a las personas que esto iba a suceder? Solo puedo imaginar que el problema se fijó en la página de discusión del baño de administración del sótano, solo al estilo Guide-to-the-Galaxy. Bueno, he estado evitando activamente el fr-WP y el pt-WP durante años ya, porque tenían esta apariencia activada para todos y no tenía idea de cómo cambiarla de nuevo. Hacer clic en un enlace fr-interwiki significaba que tenía que dedicar tiempo extra para encontrar mi camino de regreso a los otros idiomas. No me importan en absoluto todas las otras opciones de diseño horribles del nuevo diseño (como dejar la mitad de mi pantalla totalmente vacía y usar fuentes gigantes, haciendo que los artículos destacados o las listas sean ilegibles) ... no, puedo modificar eso. Pero lo que necesito desesperadamente : enlaces interwiki , y tenerlos fácilmente accesibles a primera vista. ¡Estos diseñadores *#ß%É* LOS OCULTARON! ¡Detrás de un botón! Tienes que navegar sin fin porque ya ni siquiera están ordenados por código de idioma, sino por popularidad o lo que sea.
En serio, los enlaces interwiki de la barra lateral son la característica más importante de una enciclopedia global multilingüe y, nos guste o no, la enciclopedia en línea es el centro que conecta todos los idiomas. O... lo era. Ahora, los usuarios se ven activamente desanimados a buscar información en otros idiomas, gracias a menús mal diseñados. Sé de lo que hablo: las wikis en francés y portugués han movido el botón interwiki varias veces y, básicamente, dejé de buscar información allí. Esto se ha convertido en un JUEGO DE TRUCOS. Si no se vuelven a introducir los enlaces interwiki accesibles, entonces adiós a las enciclopedias multilingües. -- Enyavar ( discusión ) 23:40 23 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Después de los anuncios de diciembre de 2022, otra desconexión más entre los editores y WMF, con los lectores atrapados en el fuego cruzado. Si bien a mí personalmente me gusta el diseño, WMF siguió adelante incluso con mejoras significativas aún por llegar. Sungodtemple ( discusión • contribuciones ) 03:05, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Este es un error de cálculo al nivel de Windows 8. Si bien esta máscara hace que las versiones de escritorio y móvil sean más similares, 155.4 plantea buenos puntos sobre si eso es algo que deberíamos querer en primer lugar. Lo que funciona en la pantalla de un teléfono inteligente o tableta no es necesariamente lo que funcionará mejor en una PC. El nuevo diseño no solo es desagradable a la vista, sino que obstaculiza la funcionalidad del escritorio. LM2000 ( discusión ) 04:29, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un apoyo muy apasionado . No quiero decir que alguien me tuviera que informar de esto, pero siento que realmente me perdí la oportunidad de oponerme a que este formato se implemente. Es una pesadilla navegar por él y parece algo de los años 90. Sin embargo, creo que el mayor problema aquí es el hecho de que los lectores no miembros (que imagino que constituyen la gran mayoría de los lectores de este sitio) fueron lamentablemente subestimados, especialmente considerando que más o menos no tienen otra opción que usar este nuevo formato (e incluso si crean cuentas, es posible que no sepan cómo configurar la apariencia o qué significa). Aprecio a quienes están trabajando para mejorar este sitio, pero necesitamos que todo el formato vuelva a la mesa de diseño. DarkSide830 ( discusión ) 07:38, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte débil He estado usando Vector 2022 desde el año pasado. Lo primero que noté de inmediato fue que comprimía una gran cantidad de texto, especialmente para usuarios con monitores y resoluciones más pequeñas. Esta compresión innecesaria deja problemas para la edición, especialmente en tablas y listas debido a que estas tablas se presentan de manera diferente. Con esta implementación, muchas tablas ahora se muestran de una manera extraña, donde el texto se comprime y se alarga. La intención de este diseño no es la culpable, pero la falta de consideración de cómo afecta a los diferentes usuarios (desde el punto de vista técnico) es lo que hace que este cambio sea controvertido. gavre (al. PenangLion) ( discusión ) 07:55, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Otro rediseño de escritorio más que intenta que parezca una versión móvil a pesar de que ya existe una versión móvil. Vector 2022 es confuso, tiene errores y tiene demasiado espacio desperdiciado. Greyhound 84 ( discusión ) 08:06 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte para la reversión. Este vector parece no estar listo . Creo que fue un error establecerlo como predeterminado mientras estaba en la fase experimental. Más ideas sobre cómo mejorar primero, antes de la implementación. Sarri.greek ( discusión ) 08:09, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyamos la reversión porque el rediseño no logra hacer que Wikipedia sea más fácil de usar que la versión anterior. Además, esta RfC debe compartirse más ampliamente porque apuesto a que la mayoría de los editores aún no han visto que pueden comentar sobre esto. Tal vez WMF debería hacer una encuesta o votación entre los editores en lugar de una RfC que la mayoría de la gente no verá. -- SouthernNights ( discusión ) 13:05, 24 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
El soporte de la nueva versión es completamente hostil y dificulta la usabilidad. Vector 2010 era un sucesor natural y simple de Monobook. Este no lo fue. Bedivere ( discusión ) 14:30 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Creo que la fundación tiene un enfoque completamente al revés. Hicieron el cambio y están esperando a ver cuántas personas lo odian lo suficiente como para volver a la apariencia anterior; este es un estándar increíblemente bajo para clasificar el cambio como una "buena idea". Propongo que reviertan el diseño predeterminado al anterior, anuncien la nueva apariencia y midan qué proporción de personas les gusta lo suficiente como para cambiar a la "nueva" apariencia voluntariamente. Jeff UK 13:46, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ JeffUK : Ten en cuenta que esta pregunta n.° 2 trata específicamente sobre el problema del ancho. ¿Tu voto o comentario estaba destinado a la solicitud de comentarios general (arriba) sobre la restauración de Vector 2010 como interfaz predeterminada? Æo ( discusión ) 14:38, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vaya, lo fue. ¡La culpa es del nuevo diseño! Gracias. Jeff UK 15:08, 20 de enero de 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario movido a la subsección correcta.-- Æo ( discusión ) 15:04 24 ene 2023 (UTC)[ responder ]
Hey @JeffUK, thanks for taking the time to join this discussion. I hope it isn't inappropriate of me, as a staff member, to try and clarify one point here. We've been developing the skin with the help of many volunteers over the past 3 years, and have had several large Wikipedias (French, Hebrew, Persian, and others) as pilot partners. The opt-out rates we've seen on those pilot wikis have been extremely low. So, in many ways, we did exactly what you're recommending. Only once we were confident in the skin (due to acceptance among pilot wikis, and data) did we bring it to English. However, of course, the gradual developments on the pilot wikis was a big difference to the switchover we did on English. I wonder if we had introduced parts of the skin gradually, if that would have been easier on editors (as it seems to have been on the other wikis). Cheers, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new skin is a bug. It's a mobile layout moved mindlessly to the desktop. Vector 2022 does not use the space offered by large screens, hides interface elements and extends the time to access them by requiring additional clicks and mouse movements. The functional blocks of the page are not distinguished in any way, merging with each other. The new table of contents is collapsed by default, making it difficult to keep track of the content, and its width does not allow for comfortable placement of long titles. If someone wants to use the mobile view, they can always do so. If someone does not want to, he should not be forced to do so by authoritative decisions.The new skin is an example of all the evils of current design fashion. It puts a "modern", "clean" mobile-like look above usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freja Draco (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ weak support with an asterisk: I appreciate some of the changes, ~~but overall I feel it is worse~~. Especially please bring back the original Table of Contents (TOC) design (placed below the lead section). Having an additional copy of the TOC that is constantly visible on the left side of the page is fine as an extra feature, but not replacement of the long-standing design. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al83tito: I agree that the ToC is one of the foremost problems (see #Bring back the TOC), together with the limited width and the hidden toolbar, and I also agree that some other changes are good, especially the the new colour palette and the new horizontal Wikipedia/other WMF project logo. Æo (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely. But also improve the old and the new skin. Steue (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If any skin should be picked as a new default, it should be Timeless. V22 doesn't feel very thought out or even production-ready. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If any other skin is picked, it should be Timeless. Unfortunately, we'll probably never get any consensus for that. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been happily using Vector 2022 for several months and assumed that a finished version had been developed and rolled out. Apparently I was wrong: as of today a number of new, ugly and/or broken features have been introduced. Clearly an approach of "roll out first, finish the design later" has been chosen, rather than one that would indicate a modicum of professionalism or respect for readers or editors. This isn't sustainable and it harms the work we're trying to do. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Arms & Hearts, thanks for giving Vector 2022 a chance, and I'm sorry to hear that we've let you down recently. We're working hard to fix bugs, and make improvements to the skin. If you could elaborate on which features broke for you, and how they affected your workflows, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, AHollender, for the belated reply. The issues I recall experiencing on 24 January included extraneous whitespace at the tops of articles and icons appearing behind text in the right sidebar (the RSS icon, now apparently gone, and possibly also the "add interlanguage links" pencil). These seem to have been rectified but the two-sidebar version still looks to me like a work in progress and, for editing purposes, is much clunkier than both Vector 2010 and the earlier Vector 2022. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't have been changed, to begin with it. PS - Why are editors putting 'Support/Oppose' etc, in their posts? The survey already has 'support/oppose' sub-sections. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to make their thoughts clearer, or because it's common practice, or because the posts here were not initially split between supports and opposes. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excessive amounts of blank space, bad readability, and other features pointed out above. Avilich (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The new design is just plain bad. I have seen many bad designs of websites but this is the first one that made me think there was something wrong with my browser. I don't oppose all change as a kneejerk thing and would be happy to see other options explored, but Vector 2020 is bad. Stratpod (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that’s vector 2022 Dronebogus (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I get formatting errors on most pages (text lower down is bolded) and the new font colors are more difficult to see. I'm surprised actually that they meet the minimum contrast ratio specified by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. DrKay (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually been getting similar glitches even after I switched back to Vector 2010. Something global must have changed that is incompatible with the old skin, and it makes me concerned that 2010 may become difficult to technically support in the future. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling back to Vector 2010 is actually a bad idea, because obviously the only reasonable thing to do is roll back to Monobook, but since that isn't going to happen, back to Vector 2010 is the lesser evil. JBW (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought. I see that many comments object to imposing a mobile-like interface on desktop users, but seem to take it for granted that the mobile interface is fine for mobile users. Not so. For reading on a mobile device, the best thing to do by a long way is to select "Desktop", and avoid the well-intentioned but misconceived "mobile" interface. If you do that, Vector2010 is perfectly usable, and Mononbook absolutely fine. For editing on a mobile device, the same applies, except for "the best thing to do" substitute "the only reasonable thing to do". The mobile interface is appallingly badly designed for mobile devices, quite apart from the fact that it's even worse on a computer screen. JBW (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW, perhaps V10 works well on your mobile device, but it was even worse than the mobile interface (MobileFrontend) for me. The sidebar covered half the screen. That's the main reason I've been using V22 for around a year. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Well, actually I do almost all my editing on Monobook, and use Vector only occasionally, when I am editing from an alternative account for which I haven't bothered to change the settings, so perhaps the best I can say is that it's usable for occasional use like that. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I had more experience of it. JBW (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support So, I'm not an editor. I'm a reader. And I don't read Wikipedia for the articles. I read it for the discussions and I have been reading it for the discussions since the 2007.
- The method by which Vector 22 was shoved down the throat of the community makes it evident that WMF does not understand how to work with a grassroots, volunteer-driven project such as Wikipedia. The way to have gone about it was to run a contest for a new design created by members of the community, submitting Vector 2022 as one viable option out of say, five. This would have made the community at least feel enfranchised and shown that WMF is willing to trust the volunteers who create and maintain enwp to understand how the project should be presented visually to the public. Instead, WMF bestowed it upon the community as an edict from on high, granting to the community only small adjustments rather than the ability to say "no, thanks, we're fine without this inaccurate depiction of our work."
- The new design makes what should be a reliable and trustworthy archive of knowledge look like an inflated bimbo with too much makeup. It's unnecessary and undermines the respectability of the entire enterprise. Wikipedia's look should be a little stodgy. It should be dense. Vector 22 would belong just fine on Fandom but it does not belong on enwp.
- A site does not add a ton of whitespace to their UI if they are not intending to fill that whitespace with ads. I am 100% expecting that WMF will cram their cash cow full of banner ads within the next 12 months. That is how low the level of trust has sunk, and I fully expect WMF is unaware of the extreme level of resentment and mistrust since they're all a bunch of corporate MBAs with no understanding of why an editor or reader buys into the Wikipedia mission and concept.
- On my phone in desktop mode (the only viable mode) my options are either a) let a page take 30 seconds to load before the JS loads so I can hide the sidebar and get more than 4 columns of text on the screen, or b) disable JS entirely, which means I cannot hide the sidebar at all. There has to be a CSS-only method of hiding the sidebar, and until that is implemented at the very least the design should be rolled back. I use Firefox for Android. I can't install addons that let me force-redirect. I'm never going to register since I'm just a reader. Let me set my skin of choice so I can actually read. 108.250.219.137 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 108.250.219.137, thanks for taking the time to join the discussion and share your thoughts. I think you bring up some interesting questions, which I'd like to respond to.
- Vector 2022 is largely inspired by community-developed features (such as the collapsible sidebar on Korean Wikipedia, the sticky header on Hebrew Wikipedia, Wikipedia.rehash, etc.), as well as Timeless, and Winter (the skin-that-almost-was). We aimed to take the best ideas that have been developed on local Wikis, work in some additional feature development (such as the new table of contents), and bring it all together into a cohesive interface. We've been actively working with over volunteers for the past 3 years. We've been grateful to have collaborated with over 2,000 volunteers so far on the development of Vector 2022. Seeing how caught off guard so many people are, I obviously feel like we let a huge number of people down on the communications front. I know it's probably hard to believe, but we tried pretty hard — multiple posts in the Village Pump, running banners, outreach on Discord, etc. — to include everyone in the process. I am sorry we didn't do better in this regard.
- I understand where you're coming from regarding wanting the interface to be "stodgy" and "dense". I grew up with Vector and am very accustomed to it. To a certain degree it probably even defined my sense of what a reliable source of information should look like. However with Vector 2022 we're thinking about people all over the world, of all ages, who have a wide variety of different aesthetic associations. Things that look credible to us, look dated and untrustworthy to others.
- As the lead designer on the project I can definitively say the only reason there is so much whitespace is because we limited the line-length of the text to comply with WCAG standards, and existing research. There is no plan to put ads of any kind on Wikipedia. Also to note, we don't see white/empty space as a problem in and of itself.
- Since our team also works on the mobile website, I'm curious to better understand why as a reader you find desktop mode on mobile preferable? If you're willing to elaborate that would be awesome.
I hope that information is helpful, and look forward to continuing the conversation. Cheers, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AHollender (WMF): IP 108's comment about using the phone in desktop mode resonated with me, because that is what I do too. On the phone, one of the first things I do is to scroll to the bottom-most line (which is hard when pages are long) and seek out the "Desktop" link. I browse by Categories and I find them only when the UI is switched to desktop mode. I then scroll again to the bottom of the page and zoom in the Categories box, to continue. I don't know if there is a simpler way of getting to the categories in mobile mode, and maybe I have been using it the wrong way all the time. I'm never logged-in on the mobile though. Jay 💬 12:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just chime in as well that I regularly use mobile in desktop mode. I wonder if there are usage statistics on how often that happens vs. people using desktop in mobile mode. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay, you can see categories in mobile, but it requires an account. It's under advanced mibile options (I think). — Qwerfjkltalk 00:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. What has categories got to do with being logged in? I certainly don't want to log in for browsing some content on the mobile. On the desktop, I'm logged in 100% of the time though. Jay 💬 09:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another good example of a breaking change that should have not gotten out of review. The notion that site features are only for logged in users is community hostile. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay, sorry, I got confused. Disregard that last comment.
@TheMissingMuse, again, what is the breaking change you're referring to? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My support is primarily based on the accessibility issues being unresolved. This should have been a point of focus when implementing a new redesign. Hey man im josh (talk)
Support: There was insufficient discussion; a coupon of hundred divisively split editors is not a sufficient community discussion for something that affects thousands of editors, especially when it invalidates their editorial choices made over the past decade. Because the placement of the TOC and having all its levels visible has effects on image placement, infobox placement, and decisions about the outline of the article's headers and subheaders. Not having all subheaders available by default makes the TOC far less useful, no matter what anyone claims, because one cannot see at a glance what topics are covered. oknazevad (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 for accessibility!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8202:fbc0:312e:f28:84b5:626 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doesn't seem to be ready. Nigej (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I find myself clicking twice to go to many pages where I only had to click once previously. That alone makes navigating on the skin less productive, and more annoying. Not to mention the weird look and spacing. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support The pet projects of some insider clique shouldn't override general consensus. If Vector2020 is so great, make it an option people can enable, and let us retain the older version that actually used the screen space of a desktop monitor. Forcing readers to make an extra click to access the menu? Just why? LeperColony (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Been around for years, mostly edit Gnomishly, but occasionally create an article when I see the opportunity/have the time. Tend to stay out of RFCs and voting etc because I don't consider myself experienced enough to get involved. Had no idea this change was forthcoming, tried it, thought it looked hideous. Now I see there was no consensus?! Nah, change it back. Muchclag (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new skin is not an improvement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I heard of the previous RFC. The first thing I did when it changed was to discovered where the skins were in preferences and roll back the change. I am glad I am not an IP user. BeckyAnne (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The new theme is mobile styling for desktop, and as such is a bad UX by definition. I've been editing on wikipedia for 15 years, much of it logged out. Now I need to be logged in to even *use* the site. I do think improvements could be made to the previous style, but it is a practical style that serves the public well. There was no need to create such a radical redesign. I thought that the ToC had been *eliminated* until I finally changed the theme for my logged in usage. I saw that the redesign broke the sw.wikipedia as well. Has anyone done a broader survey of which other locales have been broken? TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT this is a hard fail. Accept defeat and revert. Thanks. LeperColony (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support new skin is not ready, and as many have pointed out, there are a lot of issues that make it less usable than the previous one. Also, the rollout was clearly done without support from the community --Ita140188 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT Rollback to Vector 2010 skin, immediately. It is clean, text-based, no web gimmicks, and fully functional. This is key to the excellent cross-platform compatibilty of Wikipedia. The new skin's pop-ups, its vague, ambiguous, subjective icons (in place of explicit words), and other gimmickry, strip Wikipedia of its essential clarity, simplicity, reliability and convenience. For those infatuated with "new" for the sake of "new", offer an additional menu item (or, if need be, an icon), which allows selection of the newer (or an older) skin. But the new skin should NOT be forced on all users by default. The arrogance of such a contemptuous attitude is indefensible, and a blatant repudiation of WP:Consensus. ~ Penlite (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the ability to select Vector 2010 as my default display preference rendered the implementation of the new Vector 2022 to merely a one-time annoyance to me, I was not prepared for the number of (non-editor) Wikipedia users who have approached me at school to ask me how they too could restore their display layout as well. This led to many questions as to why the change was made on English Wikipedia (despite an RfC with no consensus to support), the difference between the WMF and en:wp, and why IP users needed to make an account just to "fix the display problem". It is not just editors, but general readers that are not happy with this change. Loopy30 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I need more time to evaluate Vector 2022, for now, I will edit on it to see how it works vs the legacy version. My general suggestion is to have all the tools except for the tools actually needed for editing to the left, while the tools for editing text should stay where they were, on the top, and the users should have freedom to adjust the width (from default LaTeX style to full-screen) and the skin they way they want. It would also make some sense to have at least some shades of gray and possibly colours to highlight the editing/ToC/tools/special links areas (where did these disappear?) from the text itself. So, there is much room for improvement but it's not awful and I don't think the changes should be hard to implement
My main issue is with the forcing it on unlogged users, not advertising the discussion itself, deciding the discussion against the established rules for assessing consensus and not actually implementing feedback before unrolling the design. This shoving down the throat is unacceptable. There is a reason Wikipedia, for most things, relies on consensus to implement changes. This may lead to objectively suboptimal results but at least we know what we choose and bear full responsibility for it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with many of the above that the new skin is not ready for implementation. I don't think that the layout and many of the design choices (menus hidden behind buttons, poor use of whitespace, etc) are conducive to reading and editing, despite perhaps being more elegant design. Function should be more important than style. I also don't appreciate the rollout without more consultation. I'm also unhappy with the lack of options made available for logged out editors, besides tech-y hacks there are no real options. Ultimately, this needs a lot more work and a lot more community guidance before it's ready to be forced upon us. Bestagon ⬡ 15:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I felt that the over emphasis of the table of contents, as a sticky menu of the page, is a waste of space and a visual annoyance, especially on tablets – where screen sizes may not be that big, but often uses a desktop sized viewport, making it exceptionally crowded. In my opinion, a more "welcoming" default interface, should be the one that fits small screens on desktop viewport sizes better, not the other way round. Another thing is, the all-round reduction in colour contrasts in the overall interface, makes it harder to focus. All in all, I am not against rethinking of how the default Wiki experience should be, but Vector 2022 feels like a regression, unfortunately. Vincentneo (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do not like Vector 2022 for a myriad of reasons. There is too much unused space, and it looks bland as a result. I personally find it more difficult to read Wikipedia in Vector 2022 than Vector 2010. L'Mainerque (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The new design is difficult to read. I have had to log into my Wikipedia on every possible device I have, so that I can actually read articles. I have also had to tell friends and family how to make an account and revert the changes, just because they complained that they had difficulty reading with the new design. NorseNorman (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, not that I expect it to change anything. The development has been a mess and it has created a lot of mess for everyone and anyone who's written and/or maintains a MediaWiki skin, like myself. The development process and rollout was flawed from the get-go and it was obvious to anyone who's been around a bit longer than a year or two that this thing would be deployed, no matter what; yet at the same time the WMF adamantly opposes to certain requests of the similar style that originate from within the community, because they didn't think of it.
Additionally, the fixed ToC is distracting, as is the excessive whitespace and the narrowing of the content area is just one of the most bizarre design decisions I've come across in a while.
In its defense, one can say that at least Vector 2022 tries to be responsive...but this was also already partially implemented by community members long before the so-called "Desktop Improvements"; the WMF had no interest in it at the time so the feature was hidden behind an off-by-default configuration variable, which they could later on axe saying that "nobody was using it".
The "vote" that took place on the English Wikipedia...I think there might be a more descriptive word to describe a process where the outcome is already known prior to the voting taking place. But what would I know, it's not like I've been around and contributing to the MediaWiki software since 2008 with a strong focus on skins and skinning. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. New skin sucks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support rollback to Vector 2010. Structure – such as the table of contents – makes sense at the top, where there is space to show sections and subsections. Unstructured knowledge is not knowledge. IP Editors need to have the convenience in easy finding of tools and should not have to guess, for example, that the three-horizontal-lines ("hamburger") icon needs to be clicked on to get extra tools. Non-logged editors should not be given the impression that Wikipedia is Tik-tok. The review of knowledge should be transparent and the structure and tools should be displayed, not hidden by default. Moreover, WMF should not have imposed this decision against community consensus. Boud (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The fact that so many single issue accounts (including myself) are being made specifically to avoid this "feature" should say more than anything I can put here. SingleIssueMotor 21:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Full disclosure: I'm a long-gone user who dusted the cobwebs off the old account to vote on this.) The mobile version of Wikipedia should, in terms of functionality, be as close to a 1:1 match of the desktop version as possible. It can be that close but it's been years and it's still miles away. It's clear that this redesign is an effort to solve that problem not by doing what needs to be done on the mobile version but by making the desktop version more mobile-friendly. Predictably, and hilariously, the result is a skin that makes the desktop version less functional. If all the work put into creating Vector 2022 had instead been done improving the mobile experience, none of this would have been necessary. The mobile version remains far from its potential and all (or almost all) redesign resources on Wikipedia ought to be directed there. CityOfSilver 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For all I know the mobile version is still mineurva. v22 has also been designed specifically for desktop with feedback conducted for all desktop users so I've always struggled to see the opinion that the skin was designed for mobile. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Vector 2022 does have some of the hallmarks of mobile web design. Squishing everything in the middle, using icons only instead of text sometimes, and hiding frequently used links that have been mentioned here ad nauseum in menus so that it looks "cleaner" instead of being easily accessible. Two of my friends that are tech-savvy instantly identified this as mobile first web design, and they're not the only ones in my friend circles that have said this. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed-width has been across the desktop web (at least news sites) for years and hiding stuff in dropdowns with icons are just simple decluttering. I agree that the logged out hiding is too much but how is this all mobile oriented? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What complaint did this sort of "decluttering" address and if it was really a problem, why did it take 12 years to solve? And for that matter, why does V22 work (arguably/slightly) better in a mobile browser than the actual mobile version of this site? CityOfSilver 02:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why did it take 12 years to solve Winter, I guess. work...better in mobile than actual mobile On a phone, I don't think that's true. On table, well, ignoring the obvious editor improvements (since this is separate from the skin and people had been using the desktop skin on mobile to edit for years), the only improvements I see that can be seen as designed for mobile is just the iconifying, which I don't have much of a gripe with on desktop either. In fact with the pagetools rollout there are content flashes and crashes on way too small screens including tablets which might actually make v10 or mineurva more desirable on mobile. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding elements in dropdown menus makes sense on a mobile devices with a small screen. Doing the same on a PC with a large screen doesn't make sense, it only wastes available space, makes accessing interface elements more difficult ant increases the time it takes. That's why Vector2022 is a typical example of mobile design. Freja Draco (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The new design really sucks and I was forced to create an account just to revert back to Vector 2010. Scourge of Arceus (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vector 2010 isn't perfect, but it's better than the new skin. Sooo much white space, ugh. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vector 2022 causes styles in Vector 2010 to not be portayed correctly squishing content in tables creating an uneven not clean look. The TOC on the side is unnessecery and distracting, plus when hidden you have to hunt for the button to find it again. Articles with an infobox now look out of proportion to the text in the article. Overall it is not a helpful look for users to use especially new people unfamiliar with the icons. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support There are quite some problems with Vector22, tho I believe they are fixable (with a lot of effort). What isn't fixable is the way this discussion is handled, specifically the way opposing voices are brushed off, criticism is ignored, or dismissed, or even declared invalid, or worse (I have seen suggestions that this change is beyond criticism, that WMF has decided, and we have to take it). I think it is very important for the Wikipedia community for this change to be rolled back, and a thorough review into how this failed so badly (not as a design, that is a different thing to be discussed, but as an exercise in interacting with the community) is started. This is not primarily an issue about design, this is an issue about WP:CON and WP:COMMUNITY and WP:RETENTION. --Lommes (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this has been an enormous waste of community resource. See WP:OWB#19. The Web team could have heeded the advice of the closers of the previous RfC and not fed the perception that WMF stands in the way of the community, yet it chose to shoot itself in the foot. This is a loss for both. Nardog (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As an IP address user of Wikipedia, when this change was rolled out I honestly thought it was a bug. It seemed like I was being accidentally served a mobile version of the site, and I only found out that it was intentional when I Googled how to fix it. I think that many IP address users will have poor impressions of Wikipedia, thinking that this new design is a bug rather than a feature. 173.219.167.170 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’ve given it the week I was asked to give. While the new skin may be better for people who want to read an article right through its far worse for looking for things within an article simply due to there being less on screen. The new table of contents also manages to be worse for this. Being crushed along the left side it doesn’t cope well with longer section headings and has to put them on multiple lines. It also tends to trail off the end of the page if there are large numbers of section headings. It also sacrifices the white-space which allowed the article lead to be obviously split off from the rest of the article. It also tend to be actively misleading since it will highlight the second to last or even third from last section when scrolled down to the end. Collapsing the sub sections is also a mistake because again it makes things hard to find (consider the collapse of types and usage on Traction_engine). The tools section is also bad since at 1080p you are left with the choice of crushing text even narrower or hiding things behind a drop-down (so much for the fixed width arguments). Also being inconsistent being logged in and logged out creates communication issues. Requiring an extra click to find contributions is also a poor design choice as is replacing the word “watchlist” with a symbol people have to guess at. Wikipedia is a word based project. We can use them. Creating a design with massive amounts of unused space and then not using it seems an odd design choice. Making the logo smaller is going to create further problems with are visual identity with people mistaking non Wikimedia mediawiki installs for wikipedia.©Geni (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Strongest Support This layout is one of the most atrocious layouts I have ever seen in my life. It makes the encyclopedia look amateurish, and I would sooner gouge out my eyes than try to stumble my way around this for another second. Whoever made this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law Anon0098 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I go to someone's userpage, the links on the left (such as to their contributions, their block log, etc) are gone. I have to be logged in for them to be there. I don't want to have to jump through these hoops to see if someone has edited recently. Speaking of logging in, the top right corner has "Create Account", but I have to click to open a menu before I can click "Log In". Why is that hidden behind an extra click? It's like the redesign was done exclusively for the people who happen to show up to read. Trying to get stuff done is more difficult. It's just like Microsoft turning Windows into some kind of Fisher-Price design at the expense of the power users. Also, while I'm listing things, stop wasting my screen real estate with all that whitespace. Useight (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would classify this as a breaking change. I'm not even sure how this made it into the skin. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Useight, the create account button is (apparently) used more frequently than the login button.
@TheMissingMuse, what is the breaking change? — Qwerfjkltalk 00:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
breaking change: "the links on the left (such as to their contributions, their block log, etc) are gone" TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. V22 actively makes Wikipedia more annoying to use. Even with the width fixed, hiding everything useful from the top menu behind incomprehensible buttons, requiring additional clicks, is such an annoyance that I can't ever see myself using this skin voluntarily. The skin obviously sacrifices utility for aesthetics and it's extremely frustrating for anyone trying to actually edit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are some useful ideas in the new skin, like the floating ToC (though I'd tweak the design). But overall I dislike, and it's less comfortable. As was mentioned in various comments, there should at least be a persistent (cookie) way to choose skin when not logged in. The FAQ mentions this being a problem for cache-generation reasons, but I don't get the logic. Shouldn't a skin be the same HTML, just different linked CSS and maybe JS? ¤ ehudshapira 14:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but modern web designers don't understand what was CSS developed for. Freja Draco (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to different CSS or Javascript files requires a change to the HTML source returned by the server. For non-logged in users, HTML versions of Wikipedia pages are cached so they can be rapidly sent with very little logic processing required. It is of course possible to cache different versions of Wikipedia pages and add some logic to decide which version to return; it just will have a resulting cost for Wikipedia's infrastructure in order to maintain its current performance, handling thousands of views per second. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of static JS code could check a cookie, then dynamically replace the pointed-to CSS.
By the way, I do wonder if the caching they mention is of the complete final HTML, or only almost-final segments that are then joined together. For example, maybe logged-in users viewing articles have different top-of-pages, at least because of the username. (Or maybe that's not cached because it's just a small percentage of page views.) ¤ ehudshapira 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's a second approach that has been discussed and I mentioned elsewhere on this page. This avoids requiring more cache, with the drawback that the page will be rendered one way at first, and then shift to a different appearance (or it will pause during loading, but that's generally not done anymore as this has a significant effect on both actual and perceived responsiveness). Judging by the discussion in the open Phabricator ticket, a Javascript approach is indeed what is being explored at present.
It is not true. JS can be executed before HTML DOM is loaded, it can read url parameter trigger and create dynamic link to css sheet in document head section before document body is loaded and rendered. This is simply the laziness of the "masters" of Wikipedia. 83.30.229.13 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, another possibility is for the page to pause during loading. This causes the downloading of all associated resources (images, other Javascript files, stylesheets, and so forth) to pause as well, and thus it affects actual and perceived responsiveness. As a result, this isn't a preferred approach. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do you find opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Cat?useskin=vector longer than: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Cat ? Now it is enough to put the "useskin" parameter in the domain name so that it is propagated to all internal links and the problem is over.
Well, that's a different approach than executing Javascript before the HTML DOM has completed loading. (I'm guessing the request is not cached but sent to a MediaWiki server for rendering, thus taking more resources to serve, but I'm not sure.) Using a new subdomain or adding a parameter to every link changes the HTML throughout, and thus would require more caching infrastructure in order to maintain performance. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the caching for non-logged in users is the final HTML, so serving the page is essentially as simple as serving a static HTML page. That way it is extremely fast for the vast majority of Wikipedia server requests to read pages. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For logged-in users, there is no caching at the HTML level and the request has to be passed to a server running the MediaWiki software to be resolved. There are other levels of caching from a MediaWiki standpoint, as you may have noticed if you've edited a page that was transcluded by another, but the other page didn't update until it was refreshed (either by a manual purge or after the cached version expired). isaacl (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: The new Vector 2022 default skin is a huge degradation in terms of readability, usability and perceptibility of content. Why do we have widescreen displays today when the content is centered and squeezed in the middle? Texts get longer, you have to scroll more, fewer images can be displayed in articles, which becomes a problem especially in galleries, and with multiple columns like on the main page, the line length becomes too short for good readability. Navigation on the left side is now cluttered with far too much line spacing, the icons on the top right are unintuitive, and the dropdown menus make for more complicated, poorer usability. When changing languages, you now not only have to open a dropdown menu, but also scroll using a scroll bar, and then search for the correct language in two columns. Overall, a massive degradation of the skin that contradicts basic findings of web usability and readability. Rio65trio (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I will finally create an account (despite reading wikipedia since it started) to set preferences, but you can be damn sure I'm going to cancel my monthly donation unless there's an option to address the width issue for people who are not logged in. I can adapt to a new aesthetic over time but I'm on a desktop computer with a 24" monitor at 1920x1080, not some phone with a 6" screen. Why can't each platform gets what looks best for that platform? I absolutely hate the two or three inch white margins on the sides of most websites. If I wanted to look at blank white space I'd open a new word document and just sit there. It also just doesn't make sense to have a drop down menu when there's empty space to put it in instead. A drop-down menu is really best suited for when you want to cover something up temporarily. Otherwise, just have the menu sitting there. It's not cleaner, it's just less functional. The ToC is simply not necessary for me; I don't ever use it. At the very least, give users the damn CHOICE instead of forcing things down our throats like you're Apple or Tesla.75.60.111.177 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The new skin is confusing and hard to use. The moved ToC is especially bad, but it's far from the only thing. This isn't me being a stick-in-the-mud; I'm a former web publisher. This was a poorly-trailed change, with clear negative outcomes for the regular user base. We already have too high a floor for entry, and this will make it worse. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not about 'nothing should change' as the opposers would have it. It';s that this change is garbage. Don't understand why the opposers think it's a step forward. The numerous defects have already been highlighted: whitespace, text width etc. It's all been said before. The "you can switch to old look" argument is irrelevant. In what way is it a defence to a sub-optimal product that you can revert to the previous better version if you want to????? Sheesh. Ultimate techie-with-head-up-their-ass answer. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As I wrote on MediaWiki, the problem with the "over-optimization for mobile" seen in Vector 2022 is that it sacrifices content for design. Wikipedia's core focus, unlike so many other websites, is on the content. It's the reason that it has become the go to on the web for information. The new skin undermines that reputation. Narrow screen width is associated with the type of endless scrolling seen on social media and social media is associated with artificiality, unreliability and disinformation. In summarizing press coverage of Wikipedia over the past 20 years, an article from MIT noted that Wikipedia "is now lauded as the 'last bastion of shared reality' online". As one user above put it well: "Wikipedia's look should be a little stodgy."
If you're looking for a more specific criticism, one thing I did not notice until recently is that internal and external links are the same color in Vector 2022. This is a mistake. One of the most common problems in recent years is the inclusion of external links in the body of the article. There's good reason that policy prohibits them. External links are too promotional. However, if both are the same color, then combating this is significantly more difficult. It also again undermines Wikipedia's legitimacy because by making the two visually equivalent it confers a sense of reputability on the external website. If that is unwarranted then Wikipedia is hurt as well. —Noha307 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noha307, I'm fairly sure the links have always looked the same. How do you expect them to look? — Qwerfjkltalk 10:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they definitely lightened internal link colors in V22. The WMF cited something about accessibility, but the original comment makes it clear that whatever minimal gain we get there is offset by the increased difficulty in distinguishing from external links. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can see that things were changed on Help:Link color. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there is definitely a difference. While I don't agree with sacrificing everything on the altar of accessibility, if it is a concern and the existing situation is unacceptable, why couldn't there there be different colors for each that are both accessible?
According to phab:T213778, there might actually be a very slight difference in color, but if there is it is almost imperceptible. I see @AHollender (WMF): was involved in implementing this change. Could you explain a bit more about the decision? –Noha307 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phab job is about visited links and non visited links, there is no difference between Wikipedia links’ and external links’ colors Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, thanks for the correction. –Noha307 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This redesign is bad more reasons listed eloquently above. Veilure (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't doubt that individual aspects of the new skin do what they are intended to do in relation to improvement (though on a subjective note, I don't think that means the overall redesign has to be this ugly). People have mentioned the white space and the floating ToC as negatives, and I agree. The most important change for me, however, as a multilingual user is that the new language menu is nigh-on unusable; it overcomplicates switching, de-emphasises international versions of pages, and from its placement almost suggests they are translations of the content rather than pages on separate wikis (compare it to websites based in multilingual countries).
It is good to see that the WMF are making changes (though even those are dubious - I don't think the answer to excessive white space on the right of the screen is to clutter it with the Tools menu!), but I think the entire design is incompetent, a clear retrograde step from legacy Vector, and needs a complete overhaul before being used as a default. Thank goodness for the ability to switch back, even though I've had to create an account to do so. Nimbue (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
248. Strong Support Why is it every time we get a winning hand the WMF insists on shuffling it? Can't we all just let it alone? Or do I need to to permently log in for all time to stop seeing the artrocious crimes against the project made manfiest by people who clearly have no Fucking idea what they are doing? (posting this anonomously, I can not figure out how to log in, sorry.) 173.172.215.80 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, I finally got help to log in, and everyone gets only 1 !vote on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The mystery meat icons (how is this a UI improvement? why do users have to search through menus to find anything?).
The apparent lack of testing or even planning, wiki representatives telling us that "oh we're working on that" or "that feature is coming soon".
Why was this released when it wasn't even finished?
Roll it back, wait until it's actually *done* before pushing it out, and give non-logged users a way to use the old skin without pithy workarounds or a dismissive "just create an account" much like m.wikipedia feeds us the mobile version give us a "good.wikipedia" or something to give users a simple way to use the better skin.159.196.149.163 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support using the wasted space in the right column. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been trying it out for a week. The creators of this skin must have not thought of people viewing browser screens in windows these days. Trying to read Wikipedia in a window is now quite a bad experience.
There are also weird bugs to be ironed out – (which are apparently not bugs at all?) – like the ToC being narrower than the main menu (as it currently stands, it seems to be changed all the time) plus empty space underneath the ToC.
It just seems this wasn't tested sufficiently, despite apparently having been in the works for years. My issue is not with the thought of a redesign for Wikipedia, but that this redesign is a poor subsitution for what we had. —Jetro (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I'm just another reader that has found their way through the somewhat baroque "community" portion of Wikipedia. Why? Because for days now I've been thinking "something must be seriously broken, wikipedia pages only load half-way and display all out of whack". It's hard to believe this is *intentional*... The fact that it seems the WMF acted unilaterally is just icing on the cake, but it's not like I haven't seen "consensus" decide similar BS elsewhere before, too. OK, enough ranting, I just hope it's clear that unregistered readers like me digging their way through all the red tape (did I mention baroque?) means the new design is *seriously* broken...92.76.198.146 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope that no smarty-pants decides to discard IP contributions to this RFC. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support.

In addition to all of the other reasons listed above, the coders are now breaking the URLs.

Instead of pages appearing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Page_name#Section_name,
they're appearing as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/cruft.php?title=Page_name&morecruft_oldversion#Section_name, separating the page and section names that actual users need to have together to create direct links to article sections.

Kindly raze these changes to the ground, salt the earth, and then rehire a team of developers who have actually edited pages before instead of only knowing how to handle generic code borrowed from github. — LlywelynII 15:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII, please don't insult the developers.
How does this URL appear? I haven't got it. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really call those insults...Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would call only knowing how to handle generic code borrowed from github an insult. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it any way you like. Here, it's not a pejorative, though. It's simply an accurate description of what has occurred. Anyone with further skill wouldn't've made this mistake. — LlywelynII 00:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody can make any mistake. There's a reason the stonks exist. Generic code from github doesn't cruft php requests. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is actually an issue with the wikiwand extension that would appear regardless of which skin you use. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwandisn't involved and regardless wouldn't need to misplace the info if this change hadn't occured. I have a good guess why you might've the description above so inaccurately and personally. xD — LlywelynII 00:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII, it was mentioned in the WT:V22 thread that this is not related to V22 at all. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is the discussion you're referencing, it does seem fully resolved if people act on Certres's discovery. At the same time, of course it's related to this change. If it hadn't happened, that cruft wouldn't be in the URL at all, regardless of other users' extensions. — LlywelynII 12:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would other users adding links from a completely separate browser extension be related to v22? If it hadn't happened, yes change your default skin to v10 and click on that link, you still see all that cruft in the link. It's not related to v22, it just happened that you stumbled on one of these cruft links near the end of January. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Aaron; I haven't had the misfortune of running across this phenomenon, and I've been using this skin for over half a year now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a rollback. I am sad to say I don't think this will change anything, but I voice my concerns anyway. The new layout has language links and content lists hidden in places where it is in no way intuitive to look for them, it has too much white space on the sides making the text cramped in the middle, which makes information tables harder to read. It has been said that the change would make it easier to read the encyclopedia on mobile devices, but I cannot see that it is when I try it. The change was made without any clear consensus for it. People who are not logged in are forced to use it, because for some reason, you are not able to opt-out of it unless you log in, and many people have no wish to log in just for the sake of a 2-minute-checking of some facts in the encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia will lose users, both voluntary editors and occational fact seekers, because of this new 'skin'. Ove Raul (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to previously mentioned whitespace/icon/menu issues. Lack of non-editor input into this skin's deployment is also a problem. --NuclearOverhauserEffect (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been using Vector 2022 for some time, with the hope that its issues would get ironed out far before it was deployed. Unfortunately, this was not the case; in fact, the recent change that moved most of the left sidebar to either a right sidebar or a menu has forced me back to old Vector. I find two main problems with Vector 2022: there's too much whitespace, and things are often buried behind dropdowns. (I find these annoyances to be all too common in 'modern' UIs. Maybe it's just me.) While I appreciate Vector 2022's usability improvements (side TOC, sticky header), I find that the fondness for empty space and dropdowns makes Vector 2022 overall harder to use. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support My biggest problems with the Vector 22 include: having to click a menu to login, unintuitive icons without description replacing descriptive standalone text, insufficient consensus and notice gained by English WP, and that IP users who live in countries where creating an account is not possible must simply live with the change. I have read the previous RFP, read the reasoning and details the WMF provided, am aware that there was a Watchlist notice for the previous RFC, and I've read many of the comments in each section of this RFC, but I don't understand why the English WP decided to make this a default without much wider and longer consensus. I am rarely logged-in when browsing WP because I frequently browse WP in Incognito Chrome sessions (for a variety of reasons, namely history management), so I don't frequently check my watchlist (and even when I'm logged in to make edits, I simply don't visit it often), but with every new WP browsing session I have, I am smacked in the face with the large "Please donate" banner and have to click the "I've already donated button" (because I have and continue to do every month). Why wasn't the original RFC broadcasted wider when I received such large banners on every other page even after I donate monthly? Like @DB1729 stated, I understand that RFCs are not votes, but having read that RFC, I didn't see consensus, and certainly not strong consensus in favor of making it the new default skin.

Lastly, I noticed some comments implying that most younger people (Zoomers, the generation of which I am a member, and the like) want simple UIs akin to TikTok and that changing the UI this direction would attract younger users, and I want to note that this is false. I am by no means a typical member of my generation-- I've been reading Wikipedia since I was 10 years old and editing it since I was 15, and at no point in my life has being an editor been seen as cool to those around me (with possibly two or three people being exceptions) despite knowing many people (I was a member of my student government and ran a couple clubs in high school and I'm now the president of two of my rather large university clubs (one of which has over 250 people in our Discord server and 50ish active members). A UI change will not make my TikTok-using peers (actually, fewer than half the people I know use TikTok; whenever we view content made there, it's either on YouTube or Reddit) more interested in participating in Wikipedia. The new skin has some benefits, may increase readership, and I appreciate that its creation was driven by three years of research, but it was a mistake to make it the default with such ambiguous consensus, especially before fixing the problems that were a condition of the original RFC's result. Thank you, KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Strong support from me, don't think I really need to go into detail when Hal's first comment above pretty much described my thoughts. Tweedle (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - some of us still use desktops & laptops because cellular phones were not designed for editing an encyclopedia - they work best for making phone calls & taking pictures. Atsme 💬 📧 10:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rollback Although Vector 2022 may be seen as "more clean" I absolutely do not enjoy the general increase in clicks required to access the links I use on a regular basis. The old Vector looks good, and offers most important links at a single click's access without being intrusive. It's an effective use of the screen margins. I really can't see the appeal of this obsession with oversimplifying UI. I like the thought of the ability to collapse the sidebar (though not by default and I would personally never use it) but I am certainly not impressed by Vector 2022. I could get used to the new locations of tools/links (at least the ones that were still accessible, If I recall I seemed to have trouble using Twinkle) but the extra clicks needed to access just went over the line for me. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The way this should've been done was: RfC, go back and fix problems, new RfC, repeat as necessary until you actually have consensus, implement. Instead it was just:RfC, fix problems, implement. This is going to make for an interesting media release, and some interesting outside commentary. Suggest that Slate should start to work on new headline, might I recommend something like: "Actually, people did notice" [Rollback 1 edit] Reverted edits by WMF to last version by Community. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interface needs to be treated more like content in its own right. Changes should get consensus before being made. It is not just a matter of "a few people didnt like it", it is a case of "the WMF should've actually got consensus for this controversial change". The WMF should not be exempt from the requirement to get consensus for controversial changes. To quote a common edit summary when reverting controversial edits with no prior consensus: "Please get consensus before making this change". Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It took me three days to figure out how to log in to the site. The white space is an eyesore. The layout is not user-friendly in any way, shape or form. Who thought this was a good idea? Oh wait, no one - thats why there was no consensus for the change in the first place. Take a lesson from MILHIST's first Coordinator Emeritus: "The status quo is generally a stable position, if nothing else; maintaining it for a while longer is unlikely to be as controversial as changing it." TomStar81 (Talk) 15:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can respect the arguments to making it look better on mobile, and if the change was only applied to the mobile site I wouldn't have an issue. Vector 2022 actively makes the UX worse on PC by adding all that whitespace, it is such an eyesore. I wasn't thrilled about Vector 2010 when that was introduced, but I could live with that and it did look nice. Vector 2022 made me actually log in for the first time in a year and return to active editing, just so that I could restore my beloved Monobook. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've gone back and taken a look at the original RFC. I've conducted, moderated and closed plenty of discussions and RFCs during my time here as an admin, including a number of particularly controversial ones such as WP:BLPRFC2 with nearly 2000 edits made to it. I consider myself a pretty good judge of consensus. For the RFC that approved Vector 2022, I don't see it based on the strength of the arguments. This isn't purely a numbers game, although the !votes are something to be considered. It seems like a pretty clear no consensus in its current form. The opposers raised serious concerns about readability and a number of key features, which the closers either ignore entirely or fail to adequately address. The closing statement also openly acknowledges that they don't know whether the other concerns raised would be blockers, but decided that once the fixed-width issue was resolved (it wasn't) then a second RFC to follow up on those concerns wouldn't be necessary. This doesn't seem like the right way to close an RFC, especially one with as far-reaching consequences as this. If closers can't be sure if the other issues are important enough to need discussion, that's a clear sign that they do need discussion in the form of a no consensus close and another RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns in the previous RFC were not addressed, and are still getting hand-waved away below. Remove the fixed-width monstrosity and move the TOC back into the content of the articles so readers can actually use Wikipedia. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 18:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely not user-friendly in any way, and I don't appreciate the increase in clicks to access important links. The entire design is clunky and puts both readers and editors at a disadvantage. The text has also been enlarged, and that combined with the new colour choices makes the whole website an eyesore. I feel like I'm accessing Wikipedia Mobile from a PC. --Roundish ⋆tc) 23:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support rolling back to Vector 2010. The response to critiques seems to be either "you'll get used to it," gaslighting anyone who says that it looks like it was designed for mobile, or ignoring the critique entirely. I fail to see how a consensus was formed after reading through the last RFC. I think even making the old mobile design forced on desktop would be an improvement over this mobile-esque design. While most news sites seem to regurgitate the press release that the change was minor, if you read the comments on those stories they are overwhelming both disagreeing that it was a minor visual change and negative towards the change itself. As other sites have made similar redesigns I have stopped reading them except for when they are linked on an aggregator site. In order to fix this redesign I think that you have to remove the floating ToC and put it back in the article, remove the excess white space, return the borders, remove the fixed with aspects, and change the language selection process. After completing all of those changes the design is so different as to need its own review process. 71.194.60.172 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fixed vote to make sure it was numbered correctly and counted. Yoshi24517 Chat _Online 01:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My main peeve is that the pages do not sort out well on 3:4 ratio monitors such as mine, looking too lopsided. I constantly feel like I'm in the feature-deprived mobile version (gasp). I thought Wikipedia was simplistic enough, but now it looks like the page is broken and the CSS isn't loading in. The Wikipedia sitemap is treated like an "accessory" off to the side on the Main Page, behind a settings-icon-looking three lines (what is that even supposed to represent?) I agree with others that this update may be good for readers, but it sets editors at a disadvantage. In addition, this new skin is becoming a big headache for me after many buttons were shuffled around. I like to read articles in foreign languages for practice and for fun, so I have account presences on dozens of other Wikipedias. Now I have to go through every single one, find a button which was moved somewhere else (in a different language no less), search through the settings, and change the skin back. I say this is an aesthetic and functional blunder on all points. Signbear999 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Signbear999 The CSS should be able to load, what CSS are you trying to load exactly?
The three lines icon is the notorious Hamburger button.
You can set your global preferences across all foundation wikis. There is a giant button in the settings menu that looks like this:
Global preferences: Set your global preferences Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for telling me about that Global Preferences button. Exactly what I needed.
Also, when I referred to the CSS, I meant that the Vector skin seemed incomplete, as if the site wasn't loaded correctly. Sorry that was a bit confusing. Signbear999 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found this RFC while looking for help to write a CSS override related to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#c-PrimeHunter-20230131054800-Stuartyeates-20230131035800 where I raised an issue which sure looked like a bug to me, but was told it was a considered design decision. Just seems insane and deeply non-obvious design decision. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – I don't believe I have anything unique to add. I have been critical of the Vector 2022 skin throughout its development and my concerns have never been addressed. This is a desktop interface, not a mobile one, and it should have been designed with desktop users in mind. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support First thing I did when this amateurish-looking change wet in was set myself back to the older, professional-looking one. Some designer or designers at the WMF need to rethink their career choices. ValarianB (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was unwise to push this out when the community was very much clearly against it in its present form. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support You received so much feedback but didn't listen to it, instead we were told that we don't understand what is good for us. Plumbum208 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia should remain simple and easy to use. Vector 2010 has that pragmatic, minimalistic essence of the Internet era before the mass wave of useless updates and redesigns seen in the recent years. The new Vector is over-engineered mess, detached from the real necessities and interests of the common users. I see it as indication of decline in rationality, creativity and even common sense. 212.5.158.213 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Following its official, full-scale deployment, I gave it a fair shake and came away unimpressed. As a very longtime editor and user of Wikipedia, I firmly believe that the new skin is worse than the 2010 one for desktop users. While I can't speak for how good it is on mobile, if something is a downgrade in ANY way, it shouldn't be used, period. I don't believe the 2010 skin should be used forever, but the WMF designers should continue to work until such time as a superior skin in all aspects can be created, or not change it at all. -- ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I haven't edited Wikipedia in over 10 years and made an account so that I wouldn't have to use the new skin. I am glad that I can set the skin back with an account but I don't see why it was changed in the first place. Being willing to change is good but only if the change is good. Vector2022isbad (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Please please revert to the wonderful perfect old classic design which respects the readers using their full screen! It is absolute nonsense, arrogant and annoying, if the web-designers now decide over all Wikipedia users heads, that they must waste almost half width of their monitors (that I personally have bought to use its full extent!), and that as standard without logging in, they may not use the size of their screen. The original concept of HTML is great, because it allows to automatically adapt to fit the users' individual viewports and font size settings - as was and did the perfect old design! As for data sparsity and my data protection, I generally do not want to log in, if I do not necessarily have to transmit my personal data to a page or server for a good reason. This should absolutely not be neccessary just to be able to use my screen width for reading some Wikipedia page. It is absolutely no option to manually add some "?useskin=vector" to each URL and then reload the page. Please dispose of this horrible arrogant hardware- and energy-wasting "new" design! Thank you! 77.185.18.32 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Please allow me to use my 21:9 screen. I fret to even think of how this looks on 32:9. If you want "modern", you have to follow or create some fluid design which adapts to the user device. Don't make it look like I wrongly landed on a cell phone page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixonomicon (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least, until the majority of community complaints are resolved, Vector 2010 should stay the default skin for IPs and newly registered users (already registered users have an option to switch to Vector 2010). Vector 2022 rollout should involve one or more beta tests where users (including registered and IPs) are invited to try out the new skin on opt-in basis via a discardable banner that is displayed on top of the Wikipedia pages. The users should have an easy way to opt-out if they didn't like the new interface, and a prominent way to report their feedback. After the beta tests the skin may be enabled by default, but a way to persistently opt-out to stay on Vector 2010 must still be available for all users, including IPs. No, I do not consider bookmarklets and hacking the URLs as an adequate implementation of such an opt-out mechanism. My personal main problem with the new skin is the narrow content mode that is enabled by default and not persistently disabled for IPs. The content on some pages is unreadable in this mode and simply inconvenient to read on all pages, as it doesn't fit as much content on the same screen and requires more scrolling. Narrow content mode must be disabled by default, and the option to enable/disable should be persistent for all users, including IPs. 2A02:2168:84D9:2200:CF72:6FE7:ABBA:3DC6 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:2168:84D9:2200:CF72:6FE7:ABBA:3DC6, see #Persistence for fixed width for all users coming this week. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support until they fix the Table of Contents. I saw the "new look" banner announcing the new skin in mid-January. I tried it out, read some discussions about it, and my impression was that it needed some work. But I kept using it to form a more informed opinion. It took me by surprise when enwiki made it the default so soon afterward. After using it for this long, I feel confident saying one thing about the design: The new Table of Contents is a regression. It makes navigating articles a chore. For one thing, its absence from the article body makes it less useful. It's out of the way and no longer helps the lead section flow into the meat of the article. Its usability is inferior as well. Having to click on the little arrow next to each top-level section to expand its subsections remains an annoyance, and so does needing to scroll down on it to see all of the sections in a long TOC. It doesn't belong in the sidebar, and the need for it to limit its vertical space as a result of being there results in poor usability. --Frogging101 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading more comments here, maybe the sidebar TOC is a good complement to the inline TOC, so that article navigation can be accessed while reading without scrolling up. It could coexist with the inline TOC, it just can't replace it. Frogging101 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support:
Table of Contents
- I love the new TOC. However, the floating table of contents takes up way too much width. In addition, when hiding it, it sinks into a vague-looking hamburger button. When testing this a while back, I didn't know where to find the TOC after pressing the [hide] button, and I'm reasonably sure the same can be said for anyone not briefed in the new interface.
Right Toolbar
- One of the worst additions. It doesn't even display unless you are near the top of the article, leaving a sea of white across the entire right side. Hiding it is an option, but I regularly use it and would rather have it displayed.
Floating Top Bar? (idk what to call it)
- Interesting addition. ~~I wish the search bar was included.~~ I'm an idiot it's right there, please shame me. Overall, it's fine, though I prefer text instead of the icons (but that's really not an issue).
White Space
- GET RID OF IT NOW. There is no reason to have white space everywhere. It is a waste of perfectly viable display. If you are using a big screen, I sob, as the issue becomes even worse. Take a look at this:
  Vector legacy (current default), logged-out
  Vector 2022, logged-out
Do you see how much underutilized space there is in V2022 when compared to V2010? Like, just look at how much space the floating TOC takes up. About double the size of the old sidebar, keeping in mind that the old sidebar included *a lot* more than the current toolbar does. Y'all don't even wanna see it on a bigger screen.
Vector 2022, logged-in, 4K display
(I legitimately thought having a bigger screen would make the white space less noticeable. It gets worse, not better.)
What it lacks in comparison to V2010
- Lines - clear lines that break up sections evenly.
- Static TOC - again, I like the new TOC, but the static TOC is a classic feature of Wikipedia. At least a toggle in Preferences.
What it adds in comparison to V2010
Floating TOC/Header - could be a massively useful improvement if they optimized them more.
It's sleek - hate the layout or love it, the design itself gets rid of most of that 2010's-esque skeuomorphism and unnecessary gradientage; accordingly, arguments against the new design are few.
The main issue is not one of layout, though, but of the processes that WMF employs.
In the earlier phases of development, I responded to a survey about Vector 2022, largely saying the same things I said above. I'm pretty sure this [4] was that survey. I'm a fairly new editor, and have not been here for any major design changes such as this one. Reading the above link made me realize something:
WMF doesn't care about Wikipedia editors.
~~I don't understand why.~~ Scratch that. I know why. They're a multimillion dollar company. They can do whatever they want:
They claim that, due to unfinished responses and vandalism in the form of foul language, that around 75% of the responses were invalid (keep in mind we don't know which responses).
Let me repeat this again, for y'all who weren't listening:
WMF disregarded 75% of the responses on their own survey, then declined to show us which ones were disregarded.
RED FLAG.
This is the shadiness that ruins relationships, WMF. Full transparency isn't that hard. Come on.
To summarize:
I have lived through quite a few nasty UI/UX changes that I disliked (Logic 9 --> Logic Pro X really irked me, so did UE3 --> UE4) and they hampered my creativity. Overall, however, those design changes were for the best, and it could not be argued that the old one was in any way better once you got to know the new interface.
I cannot argue for or against this change as it pertains to the average Wikipedia user. It's... fine, with pros and cons that balance themselves out, generally speaking. I can only speak for myself, an editor here, and I really dislike this change.
However, WMF has made it clear that they don't want my vote as an editor; at the very least, they value it less.
I appreciate this influx of editors and readers, new and old, that have responded to this RfC. Normally, something like this would be described as canvassing (and personally I think WMF tried to engage in canvassing with this email --> [5]) but this seems to be a unique case. Please stay and become editors. We need y'all.
And with that, all the best, Cessaune [talk] 00:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice write-up. While I don't really agree with how the points were weighed and the conclusion, your points were really good and I agree with most of them. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to point out that search does exist in the sticky header; it just requires a click on the on the left side. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Cessaune [talk] 03:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
great summary of the support argument WikEdits5 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current form of Vector2022 is significantly less user-friendly than Vector2010, and has many issues as detailed above. I also support arguments that the status quo is Vector2010; the requirements of deployment from the previous RfC have not been met, with the page width toggle not being fit for purpose - I am unable to find it when logged out, on top of the other issues raised with it - and the other issues listed have not been addressed either. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific reasons include hiding the login button behind a mystery meat button, hiding buttons in general behind mystery meat buttons, the removal of the TOC causing MOS:SANDWICH issues, the sidebar TOC being unsuited for pages with significant nesting, particularly discussion pages - this last aspect is very concerning, as we don't want to make it harder for new editors to join in discussions and contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An upcoming update is going to move Log in out of . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see some improvements are being made, although far more are needed before Vector 2022 is a viable option. To add to the issues with the list above, the sidebar TOC is generally unsuitable for longer articles. With Vector 2010 if I want to get an idea of the contents of the page it was easy to browse the TOC. With Vector 2022, in addition to nested elements being collapsed, items in the page of contents are often hidden in the scroll down, both becuase it is narrower than the former TOC and because it cuts off halfway down the page. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me the TOC scrolls automatically, I heard there’s some sort of scrolling bug on chrome, this might be it Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does scroll down automatically, but when I want to review the topics on the page I want to be able to see the entire TOC, not just a small portion of it.
Having reviewed the WMF's most recent comment, I still support rolling back to Vector2010; while the WMF may be able to bring Vector2022 up to a point where it is superior to Vector2010 we are a long way from that point and Vector2022 should only be deployed when there is an immediate and explicit consensus to do so. I note that I also don't believe that the requirements for deployment made in the previous discussion for deployment were met, and so believe the status quo is Vector2010. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering WP:CONEXCEPT; I don't believe that it is relevant to this discussion. It doesn't say we can't form a consensus, it only says that such a consensus would not bind the WMF. This has precedent; other discussions (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Approval of Enforcement Guidelines without first approving a Code of Conduct, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign are two recent ones) have come to a consensus on questions that are subject to CONEXCEPT. It would also set a dangerous precedent if this proposal is rejected on the grounds of CONEXCEPT; it would suggest that we cannot challenge decisions that are subject to CONEXCEPT through the consensus process, because the result will always be a consensus against regardless of how strong the support is. BilledMammal (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for numerous reason. Among others: Too much whitespace, confusing TOC, functionality distributed all over the place, tools below the title, even more mystery meat navigation than before. This redesign is a massive step back in usability and readability, it should be rolled back. --Millbart (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not just the too much white space (which I hate and which I now have from all places where I can't be loged in), its also that on average it is no improvement. And a change that big should be an improvement. Its not a fashion show.--Fano (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benjamin (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin, remember this is not a vote but a WP:!vote, which means you have to give reasoning and not just an affirmation of support. Cessaune [talk] 21:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my reasons have already been said by others. Benjamin (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pick someone who says something you agree with and say 'Support per [user]'. Cessaune [talk] 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cessaune 🙄 Benjamin (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha :) that works Cessaune [talk] 01:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I see almost none of the issues I raised in the last RfC I took part in have been addressed -- in fact, it seems the new skin has barely been changed at all -- so I'm not going to repeat myself. I can see one change in that the background is now fully white, which looks more consistent/professional than the old new Vector and also harder on the eyes than either prior version. Another is the full width toggle which I've had to point out to several people at my workplace, as they couldn't find it on their own. It doesn't help that it's among the the last items to load, and the pages don't load very fast to start with. I could suggest that they create an account and set the skin they like, and even hope that they'll start contributing, but I'm a little uncomfortable with that logic. Besides, one of my main attractions when starting to edit Wikipedia was going down the rabbit hole of Special:WhatLinksHere and Special:Random. Why/how do we expect to attract new editors if we're hiding more and more of the editing process from them. P.S. I hope that the permanently checked checkbox saying "Enable limited width mode for improved reading experience" under the original Vector's preferences is not a sign of things to come. I also don't understand why my intentionally set preference for Vector Legacy was cleared. Daß Wölf 23:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this a month later, we have a little more data now. For example, we can see that 22% of editors that have made 5 or more edits since deployment have opted out -- less than 40%, but how often do you edit your cookie settings when visiting some random new website? We now know that one of the chief arguments in favour of the switch is a survey that attracted a couple times fewer respondents than this support subheading here. The WMF noticed a spike in account creation to revert to Vector 2010, but decided (in retrospect? February 1) that the readers could've only shown their appreciation for Vector 2010 by creating fewer accounts than usual.
OK, I'm being needlessly snarky here. The devs have now clearly started addressing some the several long-standing issues that had been raised for the past three years at the mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements archives, as well as at the previous RfC. WMF employees are commenting, and even responding to criticism, some of which has been incredibly rude and unWP:CIVIL. They're dealing with a community and process that's surely as unfamiliar to them as theirs is to us. They need to be commended for all this. Nevertheless, it's clear that at this pace it will take a while until the new Vector is as usable as the old one, and I'm worried that things will stall again if we keep Vector 2022 as is and move the discussion about it out of the spotlight, hence I'm reaffirming my strong support. Daß Wölf 12:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Full disclosure - I'm a former long-time-retired editor who scrambled his password, and I made this username only to continue viewing Wikipedia in Vector Legacy with no intentions of ever editing with it. However, per the ANI disclosure that WMF has had its' thumb on the scale, so to speak, I have decided to cast a !vote. I never edited with mobile and I don't read with mobile, and the excessive whitespace and floting TOC are an annoyance. Fgsfds mah boi (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2010. Wow, just saw this. Maybe I was right in calling 2022 Wikipedia's New Coke. Maybe 2022 can go back to the drawing board for just a few nudges and then come back with everything solved, improved, and playable by a ten-year old (I use Monobook, a quality nice-looking easy to navigate skin which was Wikipedia's default when the non-avian dinosaurs roamed). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when the non-avian dinosaurs roamed Good one! Aaron Liu (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support from an avid reader's perspective
Readability: I understand there's a study (something like in 2007 for tablets, but still) and I agree there is some improvement in reading/comprehension for shorter-length lines. By those standards, the new line length, even with an infobox on the side, is too long and it does feel long if I'm focusing on readability. However, as others have said, Wikipedia is not a book to read start-to-finish, but rather a source of information, where one likes to benefit from the sheer amount of it. I regularly skim through articles to find the parts/paragraphs I'm interested in, and full width is much more conducing to that. If there were a proposal/layout that in some way does both (more readable line length, and full width to not scroll needlessly), I'd try that. Until then, the new skin is a downgrade for me.
Whitespace: As stated by others before, the new all-white approach doesn't do a good job of separating the contexts, like the article from the sidebars. If we're taking examples from elsewhere and best-practices, the main content should have a different background and/or border. Even if the ToC relates to the article, it needs visual separation because it's not part of the content per-se, the headings within the content are.
Alignment: In itself, the idea of centering the contents within the viewport is no issue. But the sideways shift of the contents that happens when hiding/showing the ToC or the main menu, that is distracting and makes me lose track of what line I was reading. Also, the white gap between the main menu and the contents is disproportionately large, especially when comparing to the white gap between the (expanded) main menu and the light gray page background. So while this gap should bring a bit of context separation, it is too wide, and with everything being white, has the exact opposite result. Additionally, there is a visual eyesore in the main menu being misaligned with the Wikipedia logo; yes, that's a small thing but surely it should have been brought up in 3 years of development...
Mystery icons: If this redesign is supposed to be for desktops, then there should be text links for additional/hidden (as in not visible by default because it is rarely used) functionality, first and foremost. If the default and only option is a button, that's mobile-first. You can have icon+text on wide screens (seriously, who hovers over an icon on a huge screen to hopefully find out what it does?), which degrades gracefully on low-res into just a button icon - with the additional advantage that seeing the icon next to the text (rather than just text degrading into icon) clarifies what the icon will do. Assumptions on what an icon (like hamburger or three dots, which are arguably interchangeable) will do are counter-productive, because every single website will use them differently. On top of that, "paired" icons should make sense when taken together - this is where the hamburger and << are just mismatched. Some (rather important, I would say) functionality is just needlessly hidden off: ToC button, other languages, log in. Finally (and again making my point on the assumptions), the width control is (1) waaay outside of any page context, hidden in an unused corner, (2) masquerading as a fullscreen icon (sorry, I have F11 and browser controls for that) and (3) confusing in its (ugh) hover-text - which says "toggle limited content width". Sorry, do you mean *more* limited?
ToC: First of all, this is like one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia to me. I wouldn't mind having a pinned "Show/Hide table of contents" on the sidebar, at all times. The current state, however, makes it difficult to get the ToC back. I have mixed feelings about the ToC being left out of the actual contents; it was very helpful between the introduction and the actual contents/headings. On one hand, I find it strange to go straight from the introduction to the contents, without any pause. On the other hand I also like not having to scroll that much to get to the contents (when there's a large ToC). A potential compromise that I can think of would be to have some sort of demarcation - whether by a higher whitespace (ref. whitespace as useful separation), or a high-level ToC (e.g. first-level headings only), or something like "Show table of contents" which adds an old-style ToC back inside the main page (of course, paired up with an adjustment on the sidebar to prevent two ToCs showing side- by-side).
The biggest drawback of the new sidebar ToC, in my book, is the focus/bolding of what section it *thinks* I am on. If I'm scrolling through, 95% of the time it's going to tell me I'm on the previous section, because I probably still have even 2 pixels of its spacing in the viewport. A lot of times, I have two full sections visible in the viewport; I either get the *previous* one highlighted, or at best the first one, even if I could/might be fully reading the second section, with a third section title at the bottom of my screen. I completely understand there's no catch-all fix for this, but the sidebar ToC could highlight those sections which are partially/fully visible - for example, the partially-visible sections could use semibold weight and a light gray background color; the fully-visible sections could be bold and medium gray background color; the *first* section for which the *heading* is visible on-page could have a dark gray background color.
Finally, with the addition of ToC on the left side, it is easier to browse articles side-by-side, in a different browser window, and jump to this section of this article and that section of that article. What feels missing though, is a page title at the top of the ToC - whether when browsing through multiple articles, or a single article in full-screen. As it is, the sidebar ToC headings are a bigger font than the title of the browser page, and if the actual browser tab is not the first/second, it's not that easy to figure out precisely which article's ToC I'm looking at.
Floating/fixed top bar: I've seen that mentioned, but I'm not seeing that in Chrome or Edge. Sounds like an interesting and possibly useful feature, but I've yet to see it on any page.
My conclusions: The communication on this whole endeavour could have been better, to say the least. I've seen the changes some time ago on French Wikipedia, I was very disappointed but I thought it was a local thing; I have not seen any sort of banner/information on English Wikipedia with almost daily browsing. The whole skin/theme feels like a beta version, unfinished, almost lacking feature-parity (due to the amount of mystery buttons and extra clicks), and detrimental on the ease-of-use. To the promoters and people directly involved: I get it you're invested, but this has stirred everyone up not because of just one thing, like the width or the ToC... it's all of it! "Fixing" (or rather, as has happened, promising to fix) one thing won't magically make it better and achieve consensus (ahem). Nothing is perfect (!), but this is *so far removed* from perfect that the insistence is baffling. 89.136.170.51 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> there's no catch-all fix for this, but the sidebar ToC could highlight those sections which are partially/fully visible
Now that's an interesting idea! Analogous to scroll bars where the drag-handle sizes to show the extent, or a thumbnails bar that outlines the current viewport. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Many of the other people in this talk page have undoubtedly said what I am going to say, but the new skin just looks visually unappealing. Wikipedia as a website is known for its 2010 skin, there are no issues I am aware of with the readability of the old skin. Just let sleeping dogs lie for once. Rabawar (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even with a Wikipedia account, I still need to log in to Wikipedia every time I use it on a different device/browser now if I don't want the new Vector. The responses here, from the survey, and from the previous RFC in 2022 suggest that there is anything but consensus for changing the default skin, so why is it being forced upon visitors to the site by the WMF as default? The opinion of alleged UI experts should not take priority over people who use the site, all the time. It is unreasonable to expect that visitors will need to create an account an log in, on each new device or each time they are logged out, to avoid a skin that the community had no consensus was better. As for my personal opinion on Vector 2022, I do not like clicking through layers of menus to get to features that were readily available around the main page before including to simply log in. I do not like that half of my monitor is unused - why would someone use a wide monitor if they wanted half of it to be blank? All of the white and the lack of grays is a strain on my eyes. Overall it seems like a mobile site that is curiously intended only for desktop users. It is a fallacy to oppose the principle of taking a step back because it has already been done, as it is to assume that all changes are progress. Trolley8 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have hated the redesign for a while and I have been wondering there was a vote to remove it. Finally found it. If it were up to me, I think we should rollback to the standard skin too. The last available username (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The last available username, remember, this is not a vote, but a !vote, which means you have to give reasoning stronger than simply hating the redesign (what specifically about it you hate, for example). The RfC will be judged on the merits of the !votes, and you don't want your !vote to go to waste. Cessaune [talk] 04:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just how are people supposed to justify their tastes and opinions? This is an inherently subjective matter. Again, I feel like this whole process is rigged from the start to protect WMF from having their egos bruised by having to make a reversal.
People don't like the new look. They don't have to justify why they don't like it. If they WMF was actually interested in fixing things we could have a constructive talk about what exactly to fix, but as long as they aren't seriously listening that's not really possible, is it? What are people supposed to say? 2600:1700:1471:2550:21B6:FBB3:C22B:B099 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1700:1471:2550:21B6:FBB3:C22B:B099, they're not. If you just don't like it, then you can change back. If there's a reason that others should not (be forced to) use V22, then that's a valid justification. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic why should V10 users be forced to change to V22? If we are judging by what will make the most people happy that pretty clearly seems to be reverting to V10. And yet we see nothing happening in that regards. This whole RfC process is garbage. It's just an excuse for the WMF to continue to do whatever they want via dictatorial fiat while they pretend to care what the users think. There is no consensus here, but there is a majority and they say to change in back to V10. That is as objective an analysis as we can get here, I think. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4C5D:1710:CE18:6176 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC process is definitely very useful, but no conclusion an RfC comes to has any binding effect on WMF (see WP:CONEXEMPT). Secondly, yes, you have to justify why you don't like V22. Being adverse to change is normal, especially when it comes to UI/UX changes, and WMF isn't going to change something this big because a few editors, or even a lot of editors, simply didn't like it. A potential closer might disregard your opinion because you voted and didn't !vote. If you care so strongly, !vote.
Also, I argee with your analysis. This is precisely why we have to !vote and not simply vote, because it makes it harder for WMF to come up with a faulty conclusion. Cessaune [talk] 23:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF don't seem very interested in listening to what sure looks like the majority. They keep doing everything possible to protect their egos of having to backtrack on this redesign they foolishly made a big deal about like it was some great good. It's absolutely exasperating, but that's where things seem to stand. They are making a few token changes, but mostly are in full "this is fine" mode.
This just shows again why if you don't have something locally you don't actually have it at all. Anything remote can be taken away at any time. We really need to work on local machine Wikipedia, I guess. 2600:1700:1471:2550:21B6:FBB3:C22B:B099 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this appears to be the case. Internally this has to have become a mess. For a professional organization with a global scope, this roll-out has been quite unprofessional. It's important to understand that this isn't the fault of the engineers or designers at this point. Someone in middle management has likely staked their reputation on this skin, over-investing in something that should have gone through much more usability testing and validation before being rolled out globally. The documents we have seen so far, including the survey report and the canvassing, indicate that we are well into the CYA phase of the project. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 2600:1700:1471:2550:21B6:FBB3:C22B:B099. The last available username (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all of the reasons mentioned in previous supporting statements but especially the excessive whitespace. I have been a reader of Wikipedia for many years and I created an account just to post my support for the rollback and set my skin preference for my home computer. I frequently use other computers not belonging to me where I will not log into this account and I feel it isn't right to force a specific content size as the default for non-logged in users. As many previous comments have stated, if readers believe the presented theories on the relationship between line length and reading comprehension, they can simply resize their browser windows to their preferred line length as I'm sure they do with any other dynamic content. Forcing content to a specific size seems to be contrary to the whole concept of windowed applications running on a desktop computer and it isn't fair to place the burden of escaping the size limit on those who choose not to log into an account. Also, there's just too much white. I don't mean whitespace but lack of shades or coloring in the interface. I know this is venturing into the territory of personal preference but it feels like the articles just melt into the navigation/table of contents and background. The gray backgrounds of the navigation and ToC in the Vector2010 and MonoBook themes differentiate these sections from the article content and provide a visual cue for the portions of the page used to operate the site versus the portions that present the content. The gray border also creates a kind of "flow" as you travel down the page and is reminiscent of viewing the left page in an encyclopedia against the lining of its hard cover. Vector 2022 makes the text feel like its just floating in mid-air. Wikipedia has always been minimalist which I can appreciate but there is a point when minimalism goes too far. VectoringForInfinteSpace (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support For people with hand/arm disabilities, the inefficient use of screen real estate creates the need for a lot more clicks, a lot more scrolling just to read an article. As a contributor with such disabilities, it makes it harder and slower for me to contribute. I did comment on this issue during its development, but it seemed nobody listened. I have no objection to its being an option, but not the default. Kerry (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support For people with hand/arm disabilities, the inefficient use of screen real estate creates the need for a lot more clicks, a lot more scrolling just to read an article. As a contributor with such disabilities, it makes it harder and slower for me to contribute. I did comment on this issue during its development, but it seemed nobody listened. I have no objection to its being an option, but not the default. Kerry (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Striking through as this is a duplicate answer Cessaune [talk] 04:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A design that makes it hard for people with disabilities to navigate is objectively worse - - მარია ზაქარიაძე (Leave me a message!) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As the Vector 2010 skin has been the default for the majority of Wikipedia's existence, plus it's the style that most Wikipedia editors have gotten used to (myself included), completely revamping the look just doesn't make sense. If this new skin stays in place, all of Wikipedia's community, both editors and readers, must change the way they interact with the site. Reading is harder for both groups with excessive whitespace not fully using the whole page to its advantage, as excessive margins naturally attract more attention than blocks of text (as everyone has complained about). Navigating is harder with reorganised and reshuffled side links. While the new article ToC remains one of only a few good changes, I cannot support keeping it as the default in its current state, especially if IP editors have no convenient way to permanently switch back to the old look that we've all been used to for a decade. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Strong Strong Support:The new design is harder to navigate, especially for people with disabilities since you have to click multiple times to get to where you want. With the 2010 Vector, it’s all right there. No confusing drop down menus. The new design just looks low quality overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by მარია ზაქარიაძე (talk • contribs) 09:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
harder to navigate, especially for people with disabilities I disagree. Besides tab navigation which got better, the buttons are a lot larger than text and are easier to click on. That outweighs needing to click multiple times. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the buttons are a lot larger than text" - Text placed directly on the page can be easly accessed by text search, text in drop down menu doesn't. You can see all text placed directly on the page, text hidden in drop down men (for example language list) requires scrolling inside the menu. Two click instead one click. To sum up, lengthening and hindering access. Freja Draco (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I get the point that it needs more scrolling. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not just more scrolling, but more clicks/muose movements to get anywhere. Someone with motor disabilities likely has their screen magnified, rendering the 'clicking multiple times' argument dead. Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on motor disabilities and apologies for moving the goalposts, but if a person can click once can't they click twice for less common functions? Something tells me there's something more but please tell me what that something is. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are accessibility options like automatic clicks and the like. If I had, for the sake of example, MS (multiple sclerosis), clicking more might be easier than finessing that mouse if the buttons are bigger. Other diseases might make the reverse easier. If I was trying to make something as accessible as possible, I would simply make the words bigger. Same amount of clicks, same amout of mouse movements, less chance for misclicking. Hiding it in a easy-to-click button both introduces and solves problems. And if your hands are super bad, you may use the keyboard to navigate. Or you might have a neurological disease (maybe a rare form of visual agnosia, maybe? Autism? ADD?) that makes pattern recognition hard, but you can read and understand words fine (or the reverse, though I don't think you would be on Wikipedia if that were the case). Or maybe you have lots of pain in your fingers, rendering it harder to click more. Or maybe you have Cotard's syndrome, and you think that your hands are fully gangrenous, which might introduce phantom pains and make your fingers hurt the more you click, or maybe you have... There are so many potential accessiblity issues to take into account that I'm now wavering on my previous answer. I guess it would make the most sense to keep what is familiar, given that the icons aren't really better or worse, but may create confusion? I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 01:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
- White space on the right side. Why is it there? "Create account" and the three dots hiding the login move to the edge of the white space on a wide screen, why not the rest of the page?
- Table of contents, part 1. Used to give an overview of the contents of the article, and it had a "hide" button for the people who complained that it created too much white space. The contents section in the side bar is useless. Cuts off after 41 lines, i.e., forces readers to scroll in longer articles with several levels of subsections after clicking to make them visible. Why can’t you make it wider (why is there all that white space on the right side) and as long as necessary to eliminate the need for clicking and scrolling? About the only positive thing about it is that the lines now wrap, but if that’s possible now why couldn’t you make that work in the original ToC?
- Table of contents, part 2. Used to separate the lead from the body of the article. Now there’s just some text above the first section heading. (Welcome to Wikitannica?). If Vector22 stays, the text should be shortened to a couple of sentences establishing the subject, and the summary eliminated altogether.
- Table of contents, part 3. "Hide" buttons should hide only the content of the section, not the heading. There should also be a "show" button to make the contents visible again.
- Log in. There’s plenty of space at the top. Don’t make me do an extra click to get to the log in. Also, it would be logical to show the info for logged out editors (pages, talk, and contributions) to people creating an account, not to those who already have one.
- Languages. Seems like busywork to put them top right when you could have left them where they were and added a hide/show button or a drop-down menu.
- Menu. We’re not the New York Times. A "Menu" section heading with a hide/show button or a drop-down menu would be easier to understand. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the goal of making paragraphs of text less obscenely wide is an admirable one, but the solution of cramming all of the content including figures into a narrow column is not the right design. The web designers should go back to the drawing board on this one. My recommendation would be to add CSS rules to limit the width of text paragraphs, while letting floating images go into the right-side margin on larger displays, and letting larger elements such as tables, image galleries, columns of footnotes, etc. be wider than paragraphs. This approach has been working very well for me in my personal stylesheet for years. –jacobolus (t) 23:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I wasn’t a fan of the previous redesign either, and stuck with Monobook. I add the following CSS to limit the width of text lines:
```
p { max-width: 45em; }li, dd { max-width: 43em; }blockquote p { max-width: 37em; }form p, form li { max-width: none; }
```
This isn’t perfect and with hours / days of effort I am sure it could be improved. But it works well for me. YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 00:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vector 2022 adds a bunch of difficulty to navigation. The width issues make articles with a lot of tables (ex: episode tables) display text in an awkward fashion (much more compressed). Also, there are random accessibility issues popping up (ex: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Awards and accessibility under Vector 2022 which flags how Vector 2022 is impacting link colors) so Vector 2022 shouldn't be the default until these accessibility issues are addressed. Ideally, there should be an option for not signed in users to be able to switch skins. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: although I use MonoBook when I'm logged in (out of personal preference of its look, rather than anything wrong with Vector 2010), Vector 2022 is unpleasant to use when I'm logged-out or not on my own machine. The main issues are: 1) the border are massive wastes of screen real-estate and lead to more frequent scrolling when reading articles, 2) the lack of enclosure between the different parts of the interface (article text area, background, etc) is bad design and me second-guess where the edge of the article text is, 3) the design is just bland: white, white, white. It makes my eyes glaze over after a while, in a way Vector 2010 or MonoBook don't. I've heard a lot of similar laments from account-less readers in person. --Inops (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Since this new format came out I have had trouble reading up on articles here. I dislike this layout. It is not intuitive for reading, as others above have noted. Please change it back. 71.41.15.218 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and fire the people who pushed it through. (OK, that's a bit harsh) –Fredddie™ 01:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Please consider that this is a WP:!VOTE; the merit of the comment is what really matters. You are invited to point out specifically what you don't like of the new interface, so that those who will close the RfC will consider it. Æo (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like any of it. –Fredddie™ 01:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically do you hate the most? Cessaune [talk] 01:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The new Vector has poor layout and does not make the most use of space. The Vector 2010 skin has worked well for years and I didn’t see any good reason why it needed to be changed. Dough4872 02:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I honestly tried to give Vector2022 a chance. It sucks. It wastes a lot of screen space and the frequently used commands are burried. As for the opposing argument, I can't beleve the argument we should give priority to the people who have high end high resolution displays. Someone with a high end monitor can always shrink the window size. Someone who has a low resolution monitor cannot scale up. IMHO it's more important to be friendly with low end hardware, not the high end. Is wikipedia for the poor or the rich? Dave (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: roll back, unless the unlimited width is made a default and the link colors are returned to the 2010 scheme. I'm not going into further details on the latter issue because colleagues User:Femke and User:Noha307 already described that problem very well above. I hope it's possible to find a compromise when external links (both visited and unvisited) are discernible from (visited and unvisited) wikilinks, and the color scheme meets the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the same time (but if not, sorry W3C, the external link issue is more important). I also don't like the new top menu, but it's not relevant for non-registered users, so not a big deal. ToC leaves something to be desired, but it's at least usable unlike the limited-width regime. Ain92 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like conditional support, not weak support, unless you're doing a conditional weak support. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu, you have made more than 200 edits to this page by now, and a lot of them are rather unnecessary. This page is already very long, please consider not posting unless there really is something new or important to say (i.e. not like the above comment). Fram (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fram, there's not much point in arguing over which adjectives users put before "support" when there are 300+ support votes here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I tried to keep in mind that brains don't normally like UI changes in general so I waited a bit before weighing in, however, even after waiting I think that Vector 2022 was a step backwards. I think it's harder to navigate and negatively impacts readability. Flalf^Talk 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The old view is much better for desktop. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get why they need a new skin all of a sudden. The new skin has a lot more blank space and requires a lot more scrolling, and is harder to use imo. No offense to whoever designed the skin, but I think most people are still used to the old vector. Weeklyd3 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I think asking readers (who do not have an account and thus cannot change their skin) what they think of vector 2022 would be nice, since the vast majority of site visitors come not to edit but to read articles. Weeklyd3 (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I already reverted this for myself, but it's quite jarring to see the new narrow style when I am not logged in. Change is not always good, and I have long been opposed to this stylistic choice that most website seem to be adapting. Quite frankly if I lose the ability to keep the 2010 version, I'll stop contributing completely. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 2010 skin is so much better than the 2022 vector skin. The issues I have are that it messes up templates and view due to the very narrow width. Noah^Talk 05:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried the new look for a couple weeks, and I dusted this account off solely to share my thoughts. I think it is admirable for the WMF to try to modernize the look of Wikipedia, but the design and execution feels slipshod.
- The design feels flat and too suited for mobile rather than desktop viewing, as many have already complained about. The ToC sidebar is an interesting addition, but as some pages lack a ToC, the margins of body text thus differ and create a jarring viewing experience. I prefer a persistent sidebar, either as it was or perhaps with the ToC existing as a tab in that space that can be toggled on or off by default.
- I use a high-resolution display and must keep my web-browser zoomed-in to a small degree (usually 110%) to make pages comfortable to view. Zooming to this degree in Wikipedia hides the toggle-width button, filling the page with white and stretching text from end to end, unless the ToC is otherwise present. Incidentally, being logged-in unrolls the editor tools menu to the right, counter to the ToC or menu sidebar. Though this still creates whitespace, the body of the article is restricted to a more comfortable reading space. Considering I am primarily a reader and use Wikipedia on many devices, any option that requires logging in to enforce a design, whether to make Vector 2022's layout more palatable or to revert wholly to Vector 2010, is not optimal.
- Some have noted the rollout of Vector 2022 on other language Wikipedias, so this update creates (some) inter-Wikipedia design consistency, though no other English-language WMF projects besides MediaWiki use the new skin. As I prefer Vector 2010, I think the skin should be rolled back to maintain consistency with the other English-language WMF projects. If inter-Wikipedia consistency is the goal, then should not all sites be held to a common design standard, including their infoboxes and templates?
- I could get used to a new design but this isn't it. Maybe Vector 2010 with a sticky header? Personally, I'm a fan of the "2010s-esque skeuomorphism and unnecessary gradientage," as nicely described by Cessaune; even returning those elements to Vector 2022 would be a small win for me. Additionally, I feel like those design elements are endearingly kitschy, driving home the fact that you are indeed browsing an encyclopedia. Byzarru (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the skeuomorphism is bad, it's just dated. WMF isn't going to budge on trivials like those. Cessaune [talk] 00:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That grey gradientage is the only thing of V10 that I don't care if they remove. Æo (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply you said it was bad! I just thought what you said was poetic :) Byzarru (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new skin is ugly. Don't fix what ain't broken. Wikipedia has always had a minimalist design and loads quickly, I don't see the point in changing for the point of change. There appears to be lots of wasted space with the new skin, see the screenshots above. I don't see the new skin as an improvement. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - I don't like the new skin, no wikipedians like it, no non-wikipedians like it, and quite frankly it should never have been changed. The original design was iconic, instantly recognizable and widely understood by everyone. We need to change it back ASAP. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 19:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There was never, as far as I can tell, a consensus to change to the new skin in the first place. Nor have there ever been convincing arguments to do so; aesthetically the new skin is hideous (and while this is subjective, visuals are a main part of the purpose of a skin, so it is part of what we are being asked to evaluate.) In terms of functionality, the foundations own survey showed that new editors had an easier time with the older skin. It is true that a great deal of work was wasted on the new skin, but that sort of sunk cost thinking is a terrible way to make major decisions like this (and is part of the reason why it's better to put them before the community; clearly the people who decided to waste resources developing the new skin had massive incentives to make it so their work was not "wasted." Hence why they eg. misreprented their own polling and generally did everything they could to force it through.) But from the perspective of anyone without a vested interest in the new skin's success, it is clear that the previous one was superior in every measurable way. EDIT: Just to clarify, in case the WMF makes some attempt to massage the votes to try and salveage this: I want Vector 2022 entirely gone as the default skin and for no version of it, or any skin in any way derived from or inspired by it, to ever be the default skin, ever again, under any circumstances. I do not want any further money, time, or effort to be spent on improving it or refining it; it is unsalveageable and its core problems fundimentially poison it at the root. The underlying problem here is not just Vector 2022 but the "double down" mindset that leads the WMF to continuously pour good time and money after bad because nobody wants to be responsible for a failure. But it is precisely because of that mindset that it's important to accept community feedback, recognize that Vector 2022 was a mistake, and drop it so resources can be reallocated to more promising areas. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the statement that it is unsalveageable and its core problems fundimentially poison it at the root, but you never actually listed what you thought were its core problems. Can you elaborate on this? I'm intrigued. Also, there is literally zero chance that a refined version of V2022 isn't deployed within eighteen months if they revert back to V2010. It'll probably be deployed by 2024. Cessaune [talk] 13:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every non-Wikipedian I've talked to about it greatly dislikes the new design, and I agree - while I don't see it myself in daily use (I use Monobook) it does unpleasantly resemble a mobile website and feels like change for no other reason than change. I'm all for change, but not this one - there's really nothing gained, and there was no clear consensus from the community for it, unmet conditional supports aside. -- a lad insane (channel two) 09:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support if this had been the version back in 2005, I would probably never have become a Wikipedia editor. When I am logged in it is ok (I changed my preferences so that I have the "old" version), when I am logged out it is horrible. What I miss most in the new version: no link to an article's common- or wikidata pages, no "What links here" link; those are links which I use all the time. Instead you have lots of white space(!), Huldra (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra All the links you stated are still there, they're just on the right side of the article content, or under the "tools" dropdown if you hid the thing. I do agree that the implementation of pagetools was bad. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, User:Aaron Liu; I cannot see it, (not when I'm logged out); there is nothing on the right side of the article content. I cannot even see a "tools" dropdown, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, @Huldra, pagetools isn't deployed for logged out users yet. However in that case the full sidebar will show up when you click on the controversial hamburger button (three horizontal lines, ) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A new skin may be needed, or a nice option, but 2022 breaks articles and is much less user intuitive, even if it looks slightly more modern. Glman99 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per some arguments above by User:Cessaune. I, personally, don't like the new TOC at all. Also see my previous comment about statistics as they were presented. --Stux (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest EVER possible Support Vector 2010 is the best skin. Vector 2022 makes Wikipedia unrecognizable. -SonicIn2022 (talk, sandbox)
I'm really sorry, but this thing is just broken. Not only are all relevant features and links hidden behind obscure icons. I can't make anything stay open no matter what I do. Certain interactions like repeatedly clicking the "random article" link are just painful now. What's the point? Why hide everything? Is the plan to make Wikipedia read-only for people without an account? That's seriously the impression I get from this downgrade. 62.27.194.209 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been editing on my phone for 3 years and 2022 feels like a slap in the face to someone who is used to the mobile interface for so long
this had a consistency issue and I like the old desktop interface as it makes sense for editing on a computer and browsing articles
I WOULD NOT EVEN WANT TO USE IT ON MY PHONE Pondekuda46 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’ve been using the redesign a good bit since I tend to use Wikipedia logged out. There is two things about the redesign. The first is the search, which seems to just be the same as the mobile app’s, but with a search results page which should fix the problems I have with that, though I haven’t used it enough to be sure. The 2nd is the ToC on the side, which I have gotten the occasional use out of. But that’s where the good will ends. Even the ToC is very flawed, subsections aren’t shown at first as they were before, which takes away from usability, and if you dare hide it you’ll be sent back to the top of the page, without an inline ToC to help you get back. And the new ToC comes at a cost, Current Events, Community Portal, Random Article, Wikidata Item, etc are all hidden in a menu at the top of the page, as are languages. The languages being moved is particularly egregious, as I have no way to know if an article is featured in another language, which is a loss of information (if a minor one) from vector 2010, which should be avoided. And as many who are better at articulating their thoughts than I have noted, the circumstances of the previous RfC seem kinda sketchy, which is really the most important part to me. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kerry. I prefer to minimize clicking and scrolling, and like to see the menus as before. White space on both sides seems wasteful on other sites and I would prefer that users who aren't logged in don't have that experience. No hostility intended to anyone; I wish we could avoid conflict. -- econterms (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Tarkalak The new skin is hideous. It looks like a mobile app. The menus are hidden, it is harder to change language and it wastes half of my screen with white space. It is harder to read and navigate. The fact that you cannot get rid of it without creating ana account is the worst part. I literally had to create an account to use wikipedia. Why is this forced as a default at all? Tarkalak (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the wikimedia foundation believes that this is what people want, and the foundation cares very little about how it impacts the rest of us. If you look throughout the history of the Wikipedia foundation you’ll discover that virtually every major decision they’ve made concerning Wikipedia has been met with massive pushback - and on one occasion, a civil cyberwar over the deployment. The foundation doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and doesn’t take it back. Ever. Ultimately, this rfa is more about prosecuting User:ProcrastinatingReader and User:ScottishFinnishRadish for there piss poor closure of the original rfa which in no way shape or form condoned the rollout of this monstrosity whatsoever than is it about putting the original skin back in circulation. 2600:1011:B14C:3627:708D:5000:8B2:7071 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Tarkalak you don't need to say "per myself" if the opinion is from you lol
2. IP, please read User talk:ProcrastinatingReader § Review of your closure. It is considered by the closers that the conditions outlined in the close for an RfC-free deployment have not been met. And please, Wikipedia is not about "prosecuting", CIVILITY is one of the five pillars and no-HARASSMENT is one of the WP:POLICIES. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an RfA is a Wikipedia:Request for Adminship. The abbreviation you were looking for is RfC (Wikipedia:Request for Comment). Aaron Liu (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
foundation doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and doesn’t take it back Ever heard of Wikipedia:Superprotect? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in the previous RFC, I raised concerns about WP:ACCESSIBILITY [6], principles of universal design [7], research presented by developers in support of the new skin [8], the impact of the removal of the TOC from the top of articles and what was described in the discussion as "major community worktime issues that come from needing to redesign very large numbers of articles to match this layout better" [9], the lack of information about WCAG compliance for each feature of the new skin [10], more concerns about the TOC, WCAG, and the limited information from developers about research relied upon [11], and "the issue of whether sufficient credible, valid, and transparent research (both in studies, which we have been asked to review and have since extensively questioned, as well as user-testing, which has also been questioned) exists to support the new skin as well as making it the default does not seem to have been addressed", WCAG and the TOC, with an overall suggestion to make the new skin an option but not the default [12]. The discussion here does not appear to have addressed these concerns, and it appears that further substantial concerns have been raised about having this new skin as a default that unregistered users cannot change. I think it seems easy to say 'if you don't like it, don't use it', but given the substantial change in the appearance of articles, anyone who creates content cannot necessarily ignore the impact - the basic structure of articles no longer function as they have to present information (e.g. the lead, the TOC, images, tables), and the overall appearance of the new skin is glaringly bright (which may account for some of the repellant effect), and ultimately, the challenge presented by these new features (how does encyclopedic information get presented in a format that is designed to not be encyclopedic?) seems unacceptable to impose as a default. Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to unregistered editors not having the ability to go back to the old skin. We should have a different url for the old skin like old.wikipedia.org similar to old reddit that allows us to use the site in the old skin. 2409:408C:8E8B:F446:0:0:43C8:1313 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Thelaftwardbard (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thelaftwardbard please note that this is an RfC discussion and WP:not a vote. You have to give a reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Just the way other language versions of an entry are now hidden behind a drop-down menu is enough to undo this change. It is a bad user experience. However, I also support the return to Vector 2010 on procedural grounds. Ds77 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - I understand the impulse to change the skin. I see the value in some of the ideas here - a scroll-along table of contents is a good idea, for instance, even if this one requires more clicks to accomplish anything and hides most of the sections by default. Unfortunately, Vector 2022 simply isn't close to production-ready, and as it is, it makes reading Wikipedia less pleasant and less practical. Some of the problems can be fixed; I note the work going into fixing the accessibility nightmare that is disorganized and dividerless stark high-contrast design, for instance (please, please learn from all the accessibility crises Discord has caused every time it tried to 'fix' light mode in the name of accessibility; these things are hard, and common accessibility standards and best practices interact with common design trends to create accessibility-damaging results). Link colours can be changed back to differentiate in-wiki and out-of-wiki links, supporting readers again. The change of content width between page-reading and technical pages, the disappearing right sidebar when viewing history/editing/checking contributions/etc., can be dealt with. Other problems are deeper - hiding the former left sidebar material (including the very useful 'what links here' button) away under an awkward and out-of-the-way sandwich menu button actively makes the wiki harder to navigate for 'advanced', but is hard to solve when using the left sidebar space for the table of contents. This system needs rethinking, not just to help editors, but to help Wikipedia readers. 2607:F2C0:EAC2:1940:240C:A969:9EBA:9833 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, discord tried to fix light mode? Tell me more! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The big move was in 2019 - after jokingly getting rid of light mode for April Fools Day and being hit with a backlash from people who needed it, they decided to take the mode seriously at last, recognizing its necessity for accessibility. They decided to look into why so few people were using light mode, and learned that non-users wanted light mode to have a light sidebar and higher text-background contrast. The result was a light mode that was brighter and starker, with harsher text against an overwhelming white background, and that did less to differentiate between sections of the interface - better for some of the people who had been avoiding light mode, and an accessibility disaster for many who had been using it. After extensive angry feedback, a dark sidebar option was eventually added again. 24.246.2.244 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes oh yes - it would be great if the community finally told the WMF devs to stop trying to make Wikipedia into something it is not. Please note; I was only just now made aware this RfC even exists, by coincidence. This needs to be broadcast to every registered editor on Wikipedia, otherwise it will likely just be dismissed as a minority opinion. CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support is the only option for me. The WMF shouldn't have fixed a few issues and then assume the could proceed with the rollout. That might be acceptable for MINOR changes where the raised issues are very clearly defined and demonstrably fixed, but this was far too complicated for that. After fixing issues, another RFC/vote was in order to establish consensus to roll out Vector-2022. If the original RFC would have had overwhelming support that may not have been needed, but it was roughly 50/50. Whenever I visit Wikipedia on a device/browser on which I'm not logged in it bugs me now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The vector interface seems less visually appealing (new logo), less useful (new table of contents), and overly modern (total removal of useful lines). User1042💬✒️ 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User1042: I have moved your !vote to the bottom of the support section as it should be according to chronological order. Note that both the old skin and the new skin are called vector, the former "Vector legacy (2010)" and the latter "Vector (2022)". Cheers! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very unfortunate choice of name. It's almost as if the WMF wanted to present us with a fait accompli, with the new skin usurping the incumbent's name, and the existing skin condemned as "legacy". Certes (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the change didn't move as much things as other skins (Standard->Monobook, Monobook->Vector), it preserves the layout while changing buttons into icons and a collapsible menu, changing the link color, applying a width, sticky header, and changing the background colors. These changes aren't nearly as large as other skins and is more of a visual refresh. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that the differences between Vector 2010 and Vector 2022 are more extensive and impacting than those between Monobook and Vector 2010. Æo (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've tried. I've been using it and it's just clunky. The old interface just gets things done better. It uses space better. It's most efficient. It feels more understandable. As a group we need to learn that change for the sake of change often isn't a good thing. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The previous version is better, specially in the use of the space and readability. Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new default skin makes navigation more difficult and it harder to read on various screens. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rollback - I've already commented on this page several times, but to "officially" add to the poll - the changes to navigation in particular really need to be reverted. Like moving the TOC, hiding the side banner, moving the tools menus, hiding links in drop downs, etc. See also my comments here. - jc37 19:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless IP users can change the skin back. It's the IP users who are being the most affected by this, since the rest of us can just log into our accounts and change the preferences. Also, there was no consensus to deploy the skin (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022)) and all of the white space is really bugging me. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Not only does this new skin embody Flat design (which is not only aesthetically unpleasing to many but has also been psychologically proven to be less usable than other obviously skeumorphic designs), it also attempts to be mobile-friendly, despite there already being a mobile skin for Wikipedia which works perfectly well. Tux9001 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Hideous. Nearly impossible to navigate! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. First, the last RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022) should clearly have been closed as "no consensus to deploy." Second, the new skin is overreliant on cryptic abstract symbols. This style is particularly unfriendly for the IPs and new users. The 2010 vector was much better. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Wikipedia is hard enough to learn without needing to figure out all of the weird little symbols and remember them. Accessing fundamental pages such as the watchlist should be as easy and intuitive as possible, and the lines with a star is only recognizable to those who are already familiar with it. Roundish ⋆tc) 14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support While I have an account I frequently use Wikipedia at work where I don't want to/can't sign in so I've resorted to a bookmarklet/manually typing ?useskin=vector on every page because it's worth my time to do so. My main complaints are the sheer amount of whitespace, languages being harder to access, and the sidebar being hidden away. I think the ToC in the sidebar is maybe a good thing, but I'd prefer the regular sidebar. Until IP users have an option to save useskin (even just reading it from a cookie in addition to the GET variable) or a major redesign I do not think it should be the default. 170.112.1.251 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you can move the sidebar to the sidebar by clicking on the upper left Hamburger button Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sticky for IP users, have fun clicking it every time you load a new page. (The above IP user is me) Pk11 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I only found out about this change when my browsers logged me out today, but I've been living with Vector 2022 for a while as I also read and edit w:fr where it has been default for some time now. I've never acclimated to it there, and somehow w:en's implementation feels even more half-baked. marsdeat^Talk 01:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support roll back the default for everyone, including logged-out users. Vector 2022 makes navigation much harder, and Vector 2010 was better. Vector 2022 should remain a non-default user-selectable option. GretLomborg (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support The new set-up made Wikipedia almost unusable, and I switched back as soon as I could. Multiple other people who don't edit here find the set-up difficult/annoying to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kew Gardens 613 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer a properly sized and visible TOC below the article lede. Fischer47392 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVector 22 makes Wikipedia a living hell with its excessive whitespace, sticky header, and consensus-less implementation. The Emaciator (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was absolutely appalled to see that the largest concern of all was completely disregarded in the implementation. It was quite clear in the consensus that a clear and accessible fixed-width toggle should be made available for all. That a fix was not implemented should be more than reason enough to roll this change back.
I also have some accessibility concerns that help to support the idea that the change was wholly unnecessary. For example, the FAQ states that they moved the translation links to the top of the page because from the readers' perspective, the sidebar is not a place for useful links. Most readers focus on the content area. This explanation makes perfect sense when you consider that editors can see translation links in the header. But only them. For the average reader, the tippy-top of the page is also not a home for useful links. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the new layout is not an improvement. Mixing in-page navigation with site navigation is confusing; they should be separate. The "hamburger" menu icon is effectively mystery meat navigation to anyone other than a web developer. The "hamburger" is hidden when images are turned off. I'm not opposed the change but this could have been so much better if the devs had actually listened to the community. But at least they've now un-hid the log-in link. Baffle☿gab 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Hello, I was wondering if you could expand on the hamburger menu interaction with images? Is that documented somewhere? Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean if you have a WP:NOSEE option that hides all images enabled, the icons will disappear. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I find Vector 2022 to be substantially more difficult to navigate. I have finally decided to comment following statements from SDeckelmann-WMF that a rollback should only be done (if at all) for logged in editors. To me, this communicates a distressing disregard for IP editors / readers who can't opt out of the WMF-dictated change. As an occasional IP editor who gave up using an account in frustration at the WMF and WP "leadership", I am outraged by (but not surprised about) the disdain directed at the WP community in general and its most disrespected members (the IP community). I accept that may not be the WMFs intention, or SDeckelmann's intention, but it is the effect from my perspective. The success of Wikipedia arises from its mission and the countless hours of work from its volunteers. The WMF is meant to serve the needs of the community, not to act as if the success and achievements of Wikipedia are the results of its own work. I seriously doubt that the message here will be respected, sadly... but you have annoyed me enough to formally register my view. Undo the change, return to Vector 2010 as default for everyone, and make sure future developments are opt-in. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not against change, but I do expect changes that go live to be improvements. I suppose this option is a compromise most can live with, but in truth I'd prefer that we rollback to Monobook by default - for those newer editors who haven't yet tried it, your preferences still let you upgrade to Monobook. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what rational basis is there any reason to believe that Monobook, a skin that's almost 20 years old, is demonstrably better as the default for the majority of readers and editors? Your comment is verging on being a parody of the inability of Wikipedia editors to accept any change, no matter how carefully implemented. Vector 2022 underwent years of rigorous, iterative testing where piece by piece, they've proven that it improves the efficiency of navigating the site for most people. It continues to constantly be updated including in response to comments in this very RFC. Steven Walling • talk 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vector 2010 > Monobook > Vector 2022 --- 212.5.158.191 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of offhand comment just proves the point that most of the Support comments here are based on I just don't like it, which is not even remotely a representation of how we should make a decision about the default interface for >41,000 active editors and 800 million monthly visitors. Steven Walling • talk 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Support arguments boil down to I hate it, while Oppose arguments generally boil down to I like it or it's fine. That's the nature of such a large-scale RfC, especially one dealing with visual stuff. Cessaune [talk] 18:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I left the English Wikipedia in 2015, but I am still active at the Dutch and German Wikipedias. I can't say I'm looking forward to the introduction of Vector 2022 there. Vector 2022 leaves a large portion of my wide screen unused. The languages menu is messy and common buttons like "Contributions", "What links here" and "User Contributions" are in places that are hard to find. I haven't even been able to find out where the "User Contributions" have gone. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both User Contribs and What links here are under the tools menu. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - absolutely atrocious interface and frustrating to use, who wants to see a scroll bar in the center-left part of the screen, cutting into the article space??. At the very least, give us all (including IPs) an easy way to go back. When will people learn, don't fix what ain't broken.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Google’s been making waves for not changing anything for over 30 years and they hold the #1 spot on most visited web pages. Take a page from their playbook and ‘’’leave it alone’’’. Seriously. Stop changing shit when it don’t need changing. 2600:1011:B14C:3627:F17A:E283:1AFF:2596 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but Google changed a lot in the past 25 years (since its inception). Have a look at this snapshot from 2010. While the background for Google never changed (Wikipedia changed from pure white -> monobook -> gray with gradient transition from white -> pure white), the rest of the changes to Google since 2010 are about the same as the changes between v10 and v22. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I see the word google, a search box, and two buttons for getting results, just like it is today. Anything beyond that is irrelevant, because the background changes I don’t see are none of my business. The interface hasn’t changed, that’s why I love it: I don’t need a doctorate from MIT to navigate the site, it’s intuitive, something Wikipedia’s front page is not. 2600:1011:B14C:3627:F17A:E283:1AFF:2596 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The interface pretty much changed as much as Google. “Everything else” is pretty relevant, and even if they aren’t, the core part of Wikipedia, searching for articles, didn’t change either, it’s still a search box at the top. (Also note that [13] exists)
  Google changes
  Flat design
  Flattened logo
  Material design buttons and other elements
  Removal of links
  Even more top links put into a drop-down, including settings
  Moved some to a separate panel at the bottom of the page
  I’m feeling lucky functionality changed from “jump to first result” to “Random Google hijinks”
  Wikipedia changes
  Flat design
  Wikimedia design buttons and other elements
  Plain icons (only relevant to editors) replaced major text buttons
  More focus on articles
  Removal of links
  Even more top links put into a drop-down, including settings
  Moved some to a separate panel to the right of the page (only for logged in users)
  Collapsible sidebar
  Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not a fair description. I'm counting 19 links and buttons (1 to a promotional feature) on google.com in 2010 and 17 in 2023. It might seem that there are a lot fewer links because three of them were replaced by icons, and many were moved to a new panel. Vector 2022 placed more than two thirds of the links behind an icon that's easily overlooked by unfamiliar readers who don't expect mobile icons on a PC. P.S. It doesn't help that most of the drop-down icons on Wikipedia now appear to be lazy loaded; this is something that absolutely needs to be changed. Daß Wölf 12:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a rollback; the design of Vector 2022 emphasizes the wrong things. In addition to the unused space, V22 seems to further "wast" space by emphasizing translation a lot more; from personal experience, I never really use the translation features on a regular basis. If anything, though, we should update all designs to more prominently feature the ability to change the look. With two quick clicks, we can get Vector 22, Vector '10, Monobook, even Minerva. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader, I believe this is to show the readers the existence of the article in other languages, rather than to emphasise translation. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main innovation of this skin seems to be hiding things. It hides the sidebar menu behind a dumb hamburger icon to make space for the table of contents, even on pages that don’t have a table of contents, and then it hides parts of the table of contents behind disclosure triangles, because the sidebar doesn’t actually have enough space for a Wikipedia-style table of contents. It should be self-evident that hiding features doesn’t make them easier to use. Microsoft learned this lesson with Office’s interface—they moved features that used to be in drop-down menus, where they were hard to find, into a ribbon, where they were easily visible. Vector 2022 is a step in the wrong direction. 98.97.8.244 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing against you here, just curious: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ribbon hidden by default? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I’m aware, the ribbon interface has always been open by default. 98.97.8.244 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The other option is cumbersome and unwelcoming. Ann Teak (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The new skin is known to be unreadable and technically sub-par. The UI/UX experts know that responsive design is best, which means the new skin is unworkable. Let's leave the design to the experts, please, and not burden the website with what fashionistas think is trendy.—chbarts (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, too many issues, too little compatibility with other skins (ToCs are too different), doesn't seem to be designed for anything but mainspace. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is clearly not an en.wp consensus to default to Vector 2022 on en.wp. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rolling back to Vector 2010

Oppose as too soon but also as I find the new skin a substantial improvement over the legacy skin. I don't think the ivory tower comment above is representative of the rollout process. I endorse 331dot's comment as well. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although there are some tweaks I would like to see (better line/color use for separation of the UI sections and less whitespace between the TOC and the article) reverting the whole thing is not a solution. If that is our first instinct, there will never be progress. Besides, the proven benefits of shorter lines and the convenience of the sticky TOC are categorically better for most readers out there. Toadspike (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Any decision about this, now or in the future, should be based on a rigorous reader survey, not an insider straw poll. The pool of people who will fathomably even see this page is a tiny fraction of the number of people who this would affect. Contrary to some claims here and elsewhere, this wasn't some bombshell dropped out of nowhere with no community input; it seems like I've seen several attempts to draw my attention to various feedback processes. Those of us who will actually see this are also the ones who can most easily just change it in our preferences. PS: WP:ONUS, part of our policy on verifying claims in our encyclopedia articles, has nothing to do with this. Live with it a while, provide feedback about any issues or areas that can be improved, and lobby for a good reader survey about it in, say, 6 months (if one isn't planned already). PS: Monobook4everzzz — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying out Monobook just to see what all the fuss was about, but I really don't think I can live without the sidebar ToC anymore. V22 4 lyfe!! Shells-shells (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried Monobook for a few weeks, years before this whole mess, and the thing I couldn't get past was each Twinkle feature (CSD, PROD, Tag...) having its own tab. It got messy very fast, especially on mobile. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the issue is that this should have been done before the rollout - not after. WalnutBun (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with every word of this. (except the post scriptum). Also, an RFC on a somewhat obscure page like this one, can't possibly override consensus formed on a highly-prominent page, which was advertised in a prominent watchlist notice. DFlhb (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF held a user survey. Users preferred Vector 2010. BilledMammal (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with several of your points, I end up using multiple computers on a daily basis, which means that even if I have changed it in my preferences, I will still be presented with the vector 2022 skin. As a reader, I was caught very unaware, and did not understand why wikipedia rendered differently on different devices (some were logged in, some were not).
A reader poll would have been a much better idea, and would have caused less pushback Pbeagan1 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I supported the original RfC to add V22, I clearly don't want legacy back as the default. But beyond that, this is a waste of everyones time because the switch has been flipped, the press release has been sent and no RfC anywhere with less than 100% support will get this switch unflipped. A dark mode is more likley to be released tomorrow than this becoming a reality... Terasail[✉️] 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) - And here I thought Fait accompli was frowned upon on Wikipedia. - jc37 22:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically this change was coming if the original RfC had 0% support. It just happens I like the change, but some people just need to accept some changes sometimes. I was watching clips from BBC Archive and people had similar "outrage" over indoor smoking bans and seatbelt enforcement (People don't like change even if it is good for them). This change isn't a deep issue at the end of the day but you would think that the world is ending if you were reading VPT and some other threads.. Terasail[✉️] 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Realistically this change was coming if the original RfC had 0% support." - and therein lies a major problem. You tell me, anytime the WMF has pushed something through without actual community consensus and buy-in - how has that turned out?
That aside, I agree with you - I expect this to be fait accompli, and we're all just going to be like Kermit the frog waving our arms helplessly in the air. But sitting quiet and saying nothing would be wrong. - jc37 22:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the pushback to the theme change to resistance to seat belts and indoor smoking strikes me as an example of bad faith. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMissingMuse, how exactly? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, you cannot compare design aesthetics with public health laws. One is a matter of preference, and the other is a matter of life and death. This is more akin to Coke vs. New Coke. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMissingMuse, Yes, it's not a perfect compariosn, but it's good enough. The point is that it's for the readers' good. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, painting those who disagree with you as being in the same court as those who disapprove of public safety laws is a bald faced, bad faith caricature. Your assertion that the new skin "is for the readers' good" is not supported by any objective facts. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMissingMuse, the whitespace follows WCAG guidelines, which is intended to help readers. Similarly for the rest of the new features. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A plain html file without any CSS follows accessibility guidelines by default, and a static site with very little styling struggles to break them. As far as I can see, v2022 takes us further away from that ideal. The more styling you force upon the user, the less possible client-side customisation for access or comfort becomes. Web accessibility would hardly be a problem without web designers. small jars tc 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, but there are many readers that don't now how to use client-side accesibilty. The content should be accessible straight away and not require additional styling by the reader. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows how to resize their browser window, though, right? small jars tc 20:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and, of course, everyone should be more familiar with their own OS's client-side accessibility options than, for example, the very broken width control from the v22 devs. small jars tc 20:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what world you're living in when you think everyone knows how to resize windows. Neither my uncle or mum significantly use/d Wikipedia but I am certain neither of them really know/knew how to, or would consider, resizing their browser window. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resizing windows has been a part of the desktop paradigm for nearly 40 years. Just because inexperienced users aren't aware of that capability doesn't mean design should cater to that lack of knowledge. Furthermore, inexperienced users are unlikely to be using high-end enthusiast/prosumer/professional displays that exacerbate the whitespace problem. Vector 2022 is definitely more usable at 1080p (or lower) resolutions and on tablet devices, which is what the majority of inexperienced users are going to be using. Trynn (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should be building Wikipedia for everyone, not the majority, considering a small minority of users do the majority of work on Wikipedia, and use Wikipedia significantly more than the majority of users. Cessaune [talk] 21:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, this situation is starting to look like a man, a boy, and a donkey. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the people who use Wikipedia and would be bothered to change the width, those who don't know how to resize a freaking window are a very small minority. They can be treated like air friction. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been provided for that claim. From my experience working with people who's knowledge of computers is limited, I find it unlikely. I fully expect there are a very large number of people who use Wikipedia but either don't know how to, or would never think of, resizing windows. As I said below the whole point of this thread is that we should indeed cater for the large majority of inexperienced readers who are indeed not using "high-end enthusiast/prosumer/professional displays" first. Frankly I would encourage the WMF to ignore the views of anyone who thinks we should cater to people using "high-end enthusiast/prosumer/professional displays" first as something incredibly harmful to Wikipedia. As I said below, I fully support giving readers (and editors) the option to turn off the fixed width the only question here is whether we should keep the default because it's better for the average reader. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want evidence, look up some of the research and stats that have been done on computer literacy and standard UX design practices. From a quick Google search I found several references to an OECD study in the last decade that indicated about 2/3rds of adults know how to use computers at least at a basic level. And out of the 1/3rd who don't, most of those don't know how to use a computer at all. I don't think WMF should really be designing the UI for people who don't even know how to get to Wikipedia. The majority of desktop users absolutely know how to resize a window.
As for the rest of your hyperbole, nobody is suggesting catering only to people with high-end displays. However, the excessive whitespace problem is really only a problem for people with high-end displays. Note: when I say 'whitespace' here, I'm specifically referring to the 'dead' space outside of the styled content frame, which is actually rendered in grey. At 1080p (which is the most commonly used desktop display resolution right now), there really isn't a difference between Vector2010 and Vector2022 in terms of that dead-space. It's only at higher resolutions that Vector2022 shows dead space where Vector2010 does not. Furthermore, using proper responsive design techniques, it's relatively straightforward to make a web page display with the expected maximum line-length in a 1080p window and also fill up a wider window for those who use one. This is not an either/or thing here, and it boggles the mind as to why WMF didn't do that here. Inexperienced users already get a decent experience with either skin, but high-end users get a drastically reduced experience using Vector2022. It's possible to accommodate both sets of users with minimal effort. Trynn (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Proper responsive design techniques" require an excessive amount of javascript, something which greatly increases the cost of accessibility. To service it's mission Wikipedia should render cleanly for everyone without any javascript. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, responsive web design can be done with pure CSS, as the ability to have different style rules based on the size of the viewport has been supported for many years now by all major browsers. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As @Isaacl mentioned, using CSS media queries to do responsive design based on viewport width has been standard practice for many years now. Trynn (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, it doesn't matter if a guideline is intended to help readers. What matters is whether or not you have actually helped readers. Based on the poor design decisions I've seen in Vector 2022, my guess is that it is a net negative with respect to helping readers on desktop platforms. Now, that's only a guess so I would love to see any data that suggests that the changes in the overall experiences has improved things for readers overall. TheMissingMuse (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, if we can't expect people to know one of the most basic and consistent features in OS GUIs since they were invented, how can we expect them to know how to use a site-specific text width toggle or a bunch of different mystery meat hieroglyphic menus? If anything, this assertion that users take decades to learn basic controls is an argument to avoid inventing web interfaces which are not self-explanatory. Nemo 07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo bis: Precisely, that's why we should focus on getting the interface right for the average reader without needing to do jack shit. That was the point being made by the editor who started this subthread when another editor claimed, with zero evidence, that most readers knew how to and would adjust the window width if the text width was too long which ignores the reality of how the vast majority of people use computers along with their knowledge of and consideration to what is better for them. We should provide options for advanced readers, as well as editors but recognise that the vast majority by far of readers are not going to use them nor are they going to use OS accessibility features or whatever people want to talk about even if they would find them better. Note that in my opposition, I have supported making the ability for full width pages to be a selectable default option for all readers without needing an account while keeping the default of limited fixed width for the average reader based on the evidence it's better. Notably while I have no evidence, I suspect based on my experience that the number of readers who would know how to and would think of adjusting their window size but could not figure out how to use a button to remove the fixed width when it's something they find a lot better, is actually relatively small in the grand scheme of things given the nature of tech experience and knowledge. (Note also that adjusting window size also means you either have to re-adjust or use multiple windows when browsing different pages which may use limited width text but use the additional space for other useful things.) Note I've largely ignored editors here. The reality is, even with the visual editor, editing Wikipedia is still way too complicated and for various reasons is always likely to remain that way such that the vast majority of readers have zero chance of being able to do it in any way successfuly. This doesn't mean we should try to make it easier for them, we should, but we should do so based on actual research etc, not based on what random people say not even people with experience. Not you, not me, not anyone. And of course it also means we should also recognise that the focus of Wikipedia's (and nearly all WMF wikis) UIs should always be on these large number of readers who are never going to consider editing first, not on anything else. We shouldn't make Wikipedia hard for editors because of it, but if something significantly improves the experience for these large number of readers it probably should be implemented even if it comes at a small cost to those small number of readers who will edit. (If it comes at a larger cost it gets more complicated.) Way to often I've seen editors seem to forget this e.g. those who suggest we should get rid of the very popular Wikipedia app or the mobile site based on the fact they as editors find it useless. Nil Einne (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further make the point at a very basic level, here's the thinking that likely needs to go in to adjusting the window size. The reader needs to realise, hey I'm actually finding this page more difficult to read then the large number of other websites including news websites which have limited the text width OR (far less likely someone will know this) I prefer short text width. If we're lucky they will now think so what can I do? In rare cases the person would automatically know how to adjust window size and think of adjusting the window size. More likely the person would first need to think a great deal before they even realise maybe I can adjust the window so it isn't so long. They may have seen people do it before, doesn't mean it's something they'll remember or think about since it's simply not something they ever do. I mean realistically, we probably have a reasonable number of readers who aren't reading maximised not because it's what they prefer but simply because their window somehow ended up like that and they either don't know how or never considered maximising it again. Then then need to figure out they can drag the window to reduce the width which includes being able to click in the right place, hold the mouse button etc. If you think I'm being too harsh let's consider this. How many times have you seen a viral photo or video from a smart phone in portrait mode when it would clearly be a lot better in landscape and there was clearly enough time to simply turn the phone to landscape? Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are valid points and in fact the fixed width is the least of my concerns, even though I think it should be handled by the browser (for example by avoiding to open in a window at extremely high widths by default, or reminding people about the option to resize the window). A much worse problem are the unknown unknowns: there are some features which users will not even imagine might exist, let alone hunt down in the interface or the settings. The most important are the interlanguage and interproject links, but also navigational features like "What links here", not to mention the links to community pages to learn how to contribute. For these, the user will never have any sorts of internal hints, not even "I have a headache and I have no idea why". Yet we don't have any data on what the impact was, except perhaps some stale information about interlanguage links. Nemo 06:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMissingMuse, so it's subjectibe either way. "Your assertation ... is not backed up by any objective facts." — Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, if there is data provided a few months from now that the new skin is worse (Unlikley considering these results would have probably appeared from other wikis with it as the default for ~2 years) then I think the change should be made back to legacy vector but the day after the change just isn't the time. Terasail[✉️] 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which wikis was this the default for the last two years? TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMissingMuse you can get a timeline of its deployment in other wikis here - mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements#Deployment plan and timeline. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! As a fluent speaker of French, I tried to find where they were discussing the theme, but the main discussion link points to: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki//Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements which is in en wiki. Will let you know if I can find where the feedback lives in fr wiki. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to some feedback in fr: w:fr:Discussion Projet:Amélioration de l'interface par la WMF#Vector 2022 : des changements majeurs de mise en page avec le Sommaire fixe. Specific quotes include: "Un tel changement brutal me semble, à mon humble avis, très maladroit" and "Je suis d'accord pour dire que cette smartphonisation du web imposée aux utilisateurs PC est insupportable", which roughly translates to: "this brutal change seems to me IMHO, very poorly done" and "I am good with saying that this smartphone-ization of the web imposes an unsupportable UX". That's not to say that there wasn't other feedback, but stark feedback was coming in through. Was anyone monitoring Vector 2022 discussion in other language wikis? TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the page existed. I always thought the talk were only done in English. Only finding that after 2 years kinda hurt. DerpFox (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new design is fine, you'll get used to it. People complain about every website redesign no matter how well thought out it is. – Anne drew 22:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that make me think of lie back and think of England? - jc37 22:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37 That's because 50% of the oppose arguments are this verbatim! Tweedle (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sticky TOC is very useful and my eyes have started adjusting in a good way. Nirzardp (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not based on the merits of this discussion but for the fact that there is nothing to suggest this discussion will be more representative than any other. People should express their concerns and suggestions on the Vector 2022 talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But buried on some page away from the VP at this point is unlikely to get response from the WMF, in my opinion. YMMV, of course. - jc37 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that WMF accounts have been posting at the talk page of WP:VECTOR2022; I haven't seen one here. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No change because we've already talked about it once before? So nothing should be changed on Wikipedia ever, for all time? AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No change should be unnecessarily forced upon all WIkipedia users without:
A trial demonstration period notifying all editors of the proposed changes, and allowing them to sample the new skin without it being the default.
A period for editors to comment -- since they'll be affected the most by the range of changes.
A trial demonstration period notifying all users of the proposed changes, and allowing them to sample the new skin without it being the default.
A period for community comment -- not only of Wikipedia insiders, but the general public, as well (Editors generally have much higher tech skills with Wikipedia than the general user (reader) base, and therefore are not a fully representative sample of users. What may be easy for editors may be challenging and alienating for ordinary visitors.
A sober period of reflection by the decision-makers at Wikipedia. And, no, WP:Consensus on a matter such as this appears to be a semantic illusion. Somebody (or somebodies) in the hierarchy does the actual deciding -- prevailing sentiment, or actual consensus, notwithstanding. Ideally, the decision-makers should be people not personally attached to the proposed change(s).
Decision on specific changes, or retention of all status quo, or push to implement all proposed changes, per the decision-makers, who should be transparently identified as such.
It's the Age of Transparency, people.
~ Penlite (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I oppose undoing the improvements that the new skin brought. On behalf of users sans accounts, a reversion shouldn't take place without seeing analysis of all anonymous users versus those who've edited to voice objection to the change. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: WMF has been responsive and painstakingly taking feedback on the designs and using data-driven arguments/research for what would benefit our readers. Thoughtful feedback by editors have been incorporated, for example the option to include/exclude margin space. Ultimately experienced editors always have the option to opt out/switch vector skins, but it is our main users, the readers who are not actively in these discussions whom we must have in sight. For what the vector skin does, it is barely a change and I would encourage WMF to be even more aggressive and bold in future. The fact mobile editing/navigation/talk page headers is still broken for so many users bothers me far more than this petty quibble about CSS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from people involved in the process is going to be massively skewed in favour of the technocrats who wanted to shovel this down our throats. It is clear that the wider community that never even knew this was happening do not want it.Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really don't think this is something editors should decide; leave it to developers and more importantly ask the readers. And it is truly, IMO, too late now. Besides: I'll keep using old Vector, but is this change so horrible? J947 † ^edits 01:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they have the power to roll it out, then they have the power to un-roll it out, at least technically. The only reason they couldn't is because it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. But imagine the shitstorm which would arise if the change was reverted. If it's truly a massive problem, then wait a month or two and then – fill the dreaded whitespace with a reader poll on whether to keep the change or not. J947 † ^edits 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would that cause a shitstorm? If anything, waiting a few months to roll it back would cause a shitstorm - reverting the change now is the right move, not waiting and giving people the time to get somewhat used to the change before ripping it out from under them. WalnutBun (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have seen many comments similar to what Donald Trump said, "I know more than the generals do"- people who think they know better than the developers. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem here is developpers who think they know better than their community members what these members want and just refuse to listen to their complaints! Tvx1 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is demonstratably false. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The developers may know more about the technical details of the implementation, but they certainly don't know more about the summation of individual preferences and aims than the collective whole. This is analogous to the classic problem of centrally planned economies. Pure appeals to authority can only go so far. Sure, perhaps the dev team has a whole bunch of data about how decreased information density has xyz benefit and abc tradeoffs, and they also believe the benefits outweigh the costs (one-sided tradeoffs are extremely rare). But, if we disagree on the respective importance of those benefits and costs, then all the statistics in the world have no authority. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: The new skin IS better, even though there is excess whitespace. Polls from both editors and readers have shown that less prefer the old one. I also fail to see the argument against limiting the text width and the new ToC. Additionally, though this did not contribute to my !vote, this RfC was way too preemptive. It was started less than a day after deployment, which means that a lot of people could simply need to be accustomed. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had some issues with the new skin, and they have been fixed. I like being able to know what the readers are seeing. Tired of the wingers and the knockers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "Enable limited width mode" should be disabled as the default for all readers, logged in or not. I think that'll get rid of most of the complaints about the new skin. Some1 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my primary issue with the skin itself, but it won't fix the lack of communication that preceded the rollout. WMF claims they put up banners for almost a year before the change - I never saw anything of the sort, and I know I'm not alone - check Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022. WalnutBun (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Andre🚐 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people who know enough to vote here know how to change their skin. The design team has a lot of incentives to get things right for unregistered accounts and so even if it's not there yet - and I suspect it's not - they'll get there. I wanted to like this change, I found it broke some things I can't live without, I've gone back but that doesn't mean I should impose my preference on a much larger set of people. And I say all this despite the fact that I think the WMF team has made it clear, despite statements to the contrary, that our feedback doesn't matter. Bad form on them for sure. But that's not a reason to rever the change either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify? I've read your comments a couple times now, and they seem to say: "The WMF did this badly on several fronts and this change is causing me issues personally, but that's ok, let the change stand simply because it's already done, and they aren't listening to us anyway."
What am I missing? - jc37 03:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37 my personal preference shouldn't get to dictate something that works for large numbers of people. The fact that I dislike how the WMF team has acted doesn't change my belief, based on general design research and clear data on Wikipedia, that they're ultimately right that this change benefits readers. The people weighing in here, including me, overhwelmingly have the needs of an editor. These are different needs but nearly all regular editors have registered accounts to which they can switch to a different skin and so the default shouldn't matter to us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a fine, reader-friendly, long overdue change. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I find it a much welcome improvement over the old skin. Lightoil (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best path forward is to keep the Vector 2022 skin in place as the default skin and work on improving it. The design team owns the default site appearance and thus can set the guiding principles it wishes to follow. The community can continue to give feedback on the metrics that should be gathered through user testing (to supplement the user testing that has already been done) to evaluate the efficacy of the default skin. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a fine skin with some important improvements. --Enos733 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia has been due for a refresh in its design for a while now, as standards in web design have shifted since 2010. In order for me to support a reversal, I would like to see compelling evidence that the new design is truly detrimental to readers, rather than just procedural arguments (e.g. WMF should have started a new RfC first) or personal preference (e.g. preferring the old design simply because you're more used to it). Two independent media commentators have written that the redesign is "barely noticeable" and "doesn't rock the boat", see [14][15]. Sure, it would have been ideal for the WMF to start a second RfC and get affirmative backing from this community before turning it on, but I do not believe the new skin is so severely bad that we need to roll it back, rather than fix it forward (i.e. fixing issues with the new skin in place). Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't catch the irory behind the cited comentators? 37.134.90.176 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is none, unless you show me how the heck this is ironic. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not necessary. Just configure a different skin in your preferences. I was using Monobook for a long time and I still might go back to it, tho I'm giving Vector 22 a try right now. Andre🚐 03:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To use preferences, one must make an account and use it wherever you might read wikipedia from. If people are making "single purpose" accounts to fix this and complain about it, that should be an indicator of a bad design. Otherwise you are stuck having to use third party scripts, addons or otherwise, as have been suggested in other discussions. The bookmarklet and url modification methods are stopgaps at best, and are among the worst "solutions" provided for ip users. Deadoon (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have chosen to return to the legacy Vector skin until a few of my personal efficiency bugbears have been sorted but I recognize that the new skin has substantial improvements. People have howled at website redesigns with objective improvements since the dawn of the internet. Change is scary, but it's also life. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not sure what everyone else is reading, but when I Google "new Wikipedia layout" and read literally anything written about this today, the universal opinion appears to be that it is a barely noticeable but welcome change. I reverted back to the old one, but it seems clear to me the general public likes this. If anything, they think it's not enough of an update. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This recalls to me the idiom: "eat shit, four billion flies cannot be wrong"... Sorry, I can't resist... 37.134.90.176 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia was long overdue a design update. People were complaining when we switched from monobook to vector, the cycle is repeating now. This is just a knee-jerk reaction against any change, give it some time and people will get used to it. Personally I will continue using legacy vector until it is broken to the point of being unusable, but the way active editors like me use Wikipedia is very different from that of an average reader. I think this change is an improvement for readers, something which people in real life has agreed with me. There is room for improving vector-2022 of course, but rolling it back is not useful. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose (aka No, Just No) - (TLDR: Vector is old/broken, the newer skin looks better and is more usable to casual users, and the team behind it is responsive, just saying I don't like it isn't the way to go) I think the community here has a very strong false assumption that everyone likes seeing Wikipedia the way wikipedia editors (i.e. mostly power users) like to see it. As primarily a Wikipedia reader, this skin is a much better than normal Vector since it has a familiar layout similar to the myriads of technical blog sites, tech news websites, documentation etc. It allows you to consume content without actually having to turn ones head on a widescreen display. Additionally, the ability to choose ones layout even as a IP basically gives you the ability to customize the style you want for reading even without having to log in.
Also, from a purely technical standpoint, rejecting this skin will be a big blow to our ability to modernize our interface with newer technologies and providing a better experiences by eliminating technical debt. If you personally don't like please shift to a different skin/old Vector, don't block what is arguably better both for users and the technical growth for the project.
Additionally, based on my personal experiences, the team rolling out this change has been extremely receptive to feedback and has helped immensely in integrating older tools and has made extensive changes to accomodate the same (c.f Wikisource ProofreadPage integration). I think we made a concerted effort of reporting bugs and issues (via phabricator/vpt etc) instead of doing whatever this is, we would be able to reach a equilibrium much faster. -- 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
(note that I am involved in the technical side of the project and have interacted with engineers as well as written multiple patches for ProofreadPage and associated Wikisource related technical issues) -- Sohom Datta (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what's done is done. It would be a better use of our time to try to improve Vector 2022 with bug reports and suggestions. The dev team have made it clear they're not going to just abandon this new skin, and they've also already responded to various concerns, such as through the addition of a width button. Anarchyte (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A width button that may as well not be there for all the good it does, since if you're not logged in, you have to toggle it for every single page you read every single time you open the site. That's not a solution, it's a way to frustrate people into giving up viewing Wikipedia the way they want to view it. --Kizor 09:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible – See Wikipedia:Vector for déjà vu. Changes will invariably break things, and if we don't want to break things we might as well don't try anything new in the first place. If you hate this new skin, you can switch to the old skin. Here are a few more reasons why:
1. The developers do listen to feedback and is really responsive, they've learned from WP:VisualEditor deployments and has made a concrete plan on how to redesign the skin
2. The new skin reduces friction for readers to digest information
3. It's ergonomic for editing Wikipedia once you've gotten used to it
A lot of the support comments are made by people who are behind the technology adoption life cycle and may need more time to adjust to the changes. I, myself, used to dislike Vector 2022, but I've gotten used to it since then and like the changes. CactiStaccingCrane 08:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence to support my claims:
- Slate – Wikipedia’s Redesign Is Barely Noticeable. That’s the Point.
- Engadget - Wikipedia's first desktop design update in a decade doesn't rock the boat (updated)
CactiStaccingCrane 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a professional software engineer. Don't presume anything about others that you don't know. I am very familiar with technology. I also think the trend in the past decade of reducing information density at the expense of everything else is terrible. Clearly, many agree with me.
And no, contrary to your comment on my page, I will not stop voicing my opinion on the redesign. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not deja vu. I don't see a negative reaction on the talk page for the previous Vector, only constructive criticism. Nobody said "I hate it" or "return it to the old version", at least not on that page. Card Zero (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the deja vu Chris 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is pointless grumbling. The English Wikipedia community has the final say on the content of the English Wikipedia. It doesn't have the final say on the software it runs on. Nobody likes design by committee and design by community is even worse. The WMF web team have been extraordinarily patient in soliciting and acting on our feedback up until now, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt and let them do their job. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and since WMF didn't dismiss swwwiki's appeal to revert the change(WMF said they'll "discuss it") this is clearly possible. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tha that WMF (rightly) asked us what we think about a change does not mean that they're ceding the decision on it to us. I don't think there's much harm in the RfC (except hammering the wedge between enwiki and the WMF even further in) but I guarantee you it won't get Vector 2022 scrapped. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that Vector 2022 be scrapped, and suggesting that we are is arguing in bad faith. We are requesting that the default UI be reverted back to Vector legacy, and that people be given the option to continue using Vector 2022 if they so desire. WalnutBun (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant by scrapped. – Joe (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible. This RFC is balderdash. The idea of "voting" on redesigns is as nonsensical as voting on Duchamp's Fountain. UI design is based on objective principles, not on what a loud minority thinks. Objective feedback can only be obtained through revealed preferences, i.e. by measuring opt-outs. This pushback is caused by resistance to change, not by any objective attributes of the new design. Logged-in users also have no basis to complain on behalf of hypothetical logged-out users; just switch it in your preferences. And no matter the outcome, this can't possibly override the close of the previous, far more prominent RFC. DFlhb (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If logged out users cant opt out, how do you measure if they've opted out? RFCs are the loud minority you complain about, the overwhelming majority of readers are casual logged-out users that would only consider making an account to revert back to the old skin, if at all.
Forcing casual readers to make an account just to have a usable visually attractive skin is frankly the worst UX design decision I've ever seen. BadUX (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us *are* logged-out users that only created accounts in the past couple days specifically to change back to a more sensible UI design. So yes, we can actually speak for logged-out users since we are them, and we're pissed off. Trynn (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trynn, rather, you're a very small subgroup of readers. There around 5-20 accounts posting here that were created for just that purpose, but millions see Wikipedia. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious where your information is coming from. Has there been data published showing the number of new accounts created in the past 3 days and switching default profiles? I haven't seen that. I'll agree that there are only a few of us who are upset enough to create accounts and also start participating in this RfC discussion (although there have also been quite a number of comments from IP users). Trynn (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trynn: Here's some data. The number of daily account creations increased by 3.5k between Jan 17th and Jan 19th. It's reasonable to assume that this is roughly the number of readers who dislike the new skin enough to create an account to disable it. This is a very small subset (0.005%) of the 70 million people who visit Wikipedia each day. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so - but how many of those who don't create accounts know that switching skins is an option to account holders, or that you don't have to be an editor to create an account? How many are using Wikipedia from locations where account creation is blocked for one reason or another? There are tons of valid reasons that someone who prefers Vector legacy over Vector 2022 wouldn't or couldn't make an account, only some of which can be accounted for using more data. WalnutBun (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. Looking at the graphs though, I think phrasing it as "account creations increased by 3.5k" seems disingenuous, as is comparing it to the total number of readers. You could also phrase it as "daily account creations more than doubled since the UI change" and also be correct, and that interpretation of the data indicates the UI rollout was a significant problem. Clearly this is data that should be looked at and considered carefully, and also published more broadly. Trynn (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: What would be even more informative would be the data from the switch to Vector in 2010 for comparison, but I have no idea where this could be found. small jars tc 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: I think Vector 2010 was rolled out on 13 May; here are the stats on new account creations for that month. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of readers simply don't know that creating an account lets you choose to use the old skin. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWantTheOldInterfaceBack, is it? Why? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no indication that logged in user can change their skin built into the logged-out interface. Honestly, it's surprising that this number of accountless users figured this out, and it's indicative of many more who haven’t small jars tc 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, or maybe it's common practice for websites to require an account to change the appearance? — Qwerfjkltalk 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it's not common practice for websites to allow users to change their skin at all (Reddit is the only one that comes to mind). There is no reason for the average reader to assume that Wikipedia is any different. small jars tc 22:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Reddit is the only one that comes to mind for me as well. Reddit also has entire subreddits that are coded only to support old.reddit because their mods dislike new.reddit, which is unusual in itself. I cannot think of any other examples of websites where creating an account allows you to change the interface so drastically. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl What world are you living in that this is common practice? Most websites I'm aware of either don't allow the user to change the appearance at all, or allow anyone to do it without requiring an account. The only two I'm aware of are Wikipedia and reddit, and reddit requires users to pay for the privilege of changing their site-wide skin. Wikipedia is, as far as I'm aware, unique in allowing free accounts to drastically change the appearance of the website as part of the website's functionality (as opposed to requiring a browser extension), and as far as I can tell this stems solely from the desire not to show a cookie consent banner. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the page content and JavaScript don't need to change much (if at all) between different skins for logged-out users, so the claim of "caching" is just straight up wrong - and in any case, the server would know what version of the page to send based on the user's cookies which are sent with the initial request. WalnutBun (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WalnutBun, see this comment and the one posted right after it. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl that's just linking to the edit that brought the RfC to this page and out of Village Pump. WalnutBun (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WalnutBun, oops. The comment is near the top of the oppose section; try Ctrl+f "Varnish". — Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl I'm aware of that comment - but that still doesn't add up. Are they saying that every single user that uses a non-default site skin triggers a fetch from disk? If that's the case, there has to be a better way to do it. WalnutBun (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~@WalnutBun, perhaps, but that's unrelated.~~ — Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
old.reddit.com is free. 103.62.153.129 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to the ones who are answering Trynn, they seem to have a special preference approved as their skin looks like this with a lot of white screen, (not like I have it) which they said in an argument here. Maybe someone here can help them out, I just answered them and noticed that they probably have some preference approved.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UI redesigns may be based on object principles; however, this mostly logged-out user and regular donor bases their level of support on purely subjective things like the subject of this RFC. I'm not the only one. We do, in fact, vote with our pocket books. 129.52.129.65 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CANCER. You can be sure that almost none of the participants in this RFC care about the effect the skin will have on donations to the WMF. Ultimately, their concern for reader's experience is either altruistic, or a result of the attachment they have to their own contributions, of which those readers are the audience. small jars tc 10:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment ("This pushback is caused by resistance to change, not by any objective attributes of the new design"), no, that's false. It's objectively true that there's a lot more white space in the new design. It's objectively true that the white space serves no useful purpose. And, since there's no clear evidence that lack of white space was ever a significant complaint, it's objectively true that the added white space solves no particular problem, while also serving no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's objectively true that the white space serves no useful purpose.
The WMF stated it was done to reduce eye fatigue by eliminating unnecessary saccades and giving space to be used for the eyes' resting spots, so this claim is contentious. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If "this claim is contentious" means "there's an enormous number of people who don't want the white space, and the arguments in favor of white space are rather contrived", then yes, it's contentious. Note that the claims about "resting spots" are true only when assuming that the user never thought of using someplace off of the screen as a resting place (which is what people have normally done for ages). Notice also that newspapers and magazines have not converted to a format where all content is down the center of the page with large blank areas on left and right. It's not because they haven't figured out the "better way", it's because they know it's not particularly useful to do that (except maybe for people who don't know they can rest their eyes by looking off-page). -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I took umbrage with was using the phrase objectively true. Newspapers and magazines have other things to think about like material costs, which Wikipedia thankfully doesn't have to worry about for the time being. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that's what I was objecting to, the use of that kind of phrasing (specifically "not by any objective attributes of the new design"). But I don't take umbrage, I just pointed out how the assertion was inaccurate. As for material costs, believe me, if newspapers and magainzes were to identify a more appealing layout, they'd adopt it. Anyway, the magazine thing was a tangent, my main points stand. -- HLachman (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The objective criteria I was thinking of include reader comfort, accessibility, eye strain, visibility/retrievability (the permanent table of contents), and a focus on essentials (the content/TOC, as opposed to the old sidebar). And "objectively" (i.e. according to studies), narrow text width does increase readability; that's why all newspaper and magazine systematically use column layouts, even when a single article takes up a whole page. DFlhb (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the available studies that have been cited and they don't support the current design. It looks like someone was told about these studies but never actually read anything but the conclusions, ignoring the conditions that resulted in those conclusions. The current design is in conflict with the sources of good design principles that have been provided 71.194.60.172 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible This is a terrible idea. Revert to a technically backwards skin? Really? I switched to Vector 2022 some time ago and have never regretted it. I'm a long time editor with 249564 edits so I have a lot of experience with different skins, and this is by far the best one I've had. Maybe there are some things that can still be improved, eg people complain about a width issue (which I don't have), but the developers have been responsive and I'm sure will continue to be. And this RfC should have at least waited a few weeks for obvious reasons - a lot of people are uncomfortable with change but ever a little while see it as ok or good. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is going to delete the new skin. You will be free to keep using it. But the millions of people who are impacted by it's terrible design will get the benefit of reverting the default. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible Supporting a revert is what keeps us humanity from evolving and making progress. Coldbolt (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This change wasn’t progression in any way.Tvx1 14:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How not? Pioneering the change to mustache, adopting newer design guidelines, floating a bar and toc for easy navigation, images in search… Aaron Liu (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is "mustache"? Is that a codename for a project, or a typo? Card Zero (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's a popular programming-language-agnostic coding language for templates, and since 2020, MediaWiki has supported using it to implement custom skins. See our article at Mustache (template system) as well as this relevant page on MediaWiki.org. I wasn't aware of this either and had to look it up. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all software change is progress. Reverting it's redesign could have saved Quora from decline, but it's management refused to listen to the wishes of it's volunteer community.–small jars tc 17:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Everyone hates change at first, but i, for one, quite like the new design; it’s just a few sensible updates to bring Wikipedia into its third decade and account for ever-widening screens. (I do agree with some that it would be nice to give IP users a way to toggle the theme!) MarijnFlorence (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it "account for ever widening screens" by cramming everything into the middle, exactly? Sounds like its doing the exact opposite. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, making everything fit in ever-widening screens could be called accounting for wide screens. Personally, it works, but I feel there is a lot of wasted space. Cessaune [talk] 02:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ, remember, this is not a vote, but a !vote, which means you have to give reasoning for why you are fine with the change. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I voted against rollout, but am now fairly neutral on the redesign as my main single complaint (the limited width) was addressed. I think the majority of end users will, once they find the toggle, choose unlimited width (hence my contribution below), but I think Vector 2022 is an improvement. I am opposing for now so we can collect more information. JackWilfred (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you want to revert, set your preferences. Cabayi (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As many said, no preferences for non-logged users. Must every reader or editor have an account here, against their own desires? 37.134.90.176 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so. Probably to inflate their account totals. "Look how much people have accounts!" 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. But this highlights issues with the rollout, and why ~50/50 rfc's make for fragile consensus at best. – SJ + 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rollout issues continue; I wish this skin update were recognized as more of a breaking change for some reading and editing and layout-design worklows. Logged-out readers have a rough time: they can't keep the main menu open, they see no indication they could customize skin by logging in, the sticky header doesn't appear. The width toggle persists, but is small + unlabelled and no one knows it's there. Metrics & analysis leave something to be desired, making it hard to understand the effect of changes beyond personal anecdotes. – SJ + 14:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inhumanly strong oppose. Every change is going to be met with discomfort at first. But as with all UX/UI changes, we eventually adapt.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - My views align with those expressed above by Shushugah. In this case, the new design aligns with internet accessibility principles and modern design guidelines which I think sit above crowd wisdom. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern design guidelines have their place, but should not be held as a golden standard above the will of users. WalnutBun (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: So the proposal is to force Vector 2010 upon all users because "WMF is forcing Vector 2022 upon all users" (just like they forced Vector 2010 and all other skins before that). I say: unless you can measurably prove that V2010 was so much better switch back to old Vector for yourself and get over it. Imagine cars, sky scrapers, ships and airplanes were designed by popular vote... Ponor (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this situation is comparable to designing a car or an airplane. It's more akin to deciding what is built in your neighborhood, e.g. whether to build a community garden or a parking space. Which is usually decided by some sort of democratic(ish) approach between actual people living in the neighborhood. Not how to build it, that's the job of engineers. RoadTrain (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s more like whether to use sprawling parking or compact parking with multiple floors Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From day one it was Jimbo or WMF or whoever deciding what our "cars" would/should look like. And they left us with some choices: if you like Lada, you choose Lada, if you like Mazda better, you choose Mazda, and if you want to stick with your old Ford, they give you the option to stay with Ford, it's all here Special:Preferences. If we're about to impose the look on other users, are we any different than WMF? What do we base our decision on, the votes of a few loud ones on this page? Ponor (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WaltCip above. I don't care for the new skin either. But lots of time has gone into hearing and implementing community feedback. Let's give this six months and see how many of us get used to it. Ajpolino (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with waiting is that the argument of "but people have had X amount of time to get used to it" crops up. Whether the change is reverted or not, the decision should be made soon. WalnutBun (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WalnutBun, can you explain this? I'm not sure I understand. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl if we were to wait, say, three months to hold an RfC over whether or not to revert to Vector legacy as the default skin, then people would (correctly) make the argument that "well, people have had three months to get used to this being the default! If we change it back now, we'd be pulling the rug out from under them!". Regardless of whether or not we revert to Vector legacy, we need to make the change soon, to avoid causing two separate events of disruption to the norm. WalnutBun (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WalnutBun, I suppose so, but that sounds like a weak argument not to wait. They'll be plenty of disruption is this is rolled back, and even more if it's then rolled out again. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the subsequent comments and looking into the process a bit further, I just wanted to loop back to reaffirm my opposition to this proposal. The skin is well thought out, its development was completely in the public eye (I think I tried out a beta version almost a year ago?), and its implementation as default was subject to much discussion. The continuing buy-in from the WMF on further improvements to the new skin is a most welcome plus. I'm saddened that many editors don't like the new skin (some evidently strongly so), but I hope those who can make an account pick a skin to their liking, and for the rest I hope they find they grow accustomed to it, as we slowly do with many interface changes. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe we should focus on resolving potential problems with Vector 2022 instead of arguing which skin should be the default, because the latter mostly depends on personal preference. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it has enough problems with it that we need to focus on resolving them, then it shouldn't have been made the default skin in the first place. You iron out the large bugs before deployment, not after. WalnutBun (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with this sentence more. Y Y Y Y Y. Cessaune [talk] 02:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I've been using Vector (2022) on the Mediawiki project since it was changed to default there and made no attempt to change it back to Vector (2010), and have just switched to it on our private wiki but left the system-wide default alone. I want to use it on Wikipedia too, but I cannot just yet. I switched it back to Vector (2010) and use a browser bookmark for the enwiki login using the old skin. Easy-peasy! There are many things I LIKE about the new skin and I can appreciate all the work and long hours that went into its development. I see room (literally) for improvement, and I know that this will come in due time. Although I understand the passion, I DON'T LIKE some of the behaviour towards others. Perhaps they feel it's needed just to be heard. I also noticed that some who participated in the RfC feel like they too were ignored. There may be a need to look at that more closely. Finally, for IP users, giving them a “switch to old look” hyperlink might be worth considering. — WILDSTAR^TALK 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am !voting Oppose: if the limited width is changed to opt-in, per Question 2 below, everything else in this beta skin can be tweaked and worked on. I have been able to use custom CSS to make my Vector 2022 interface look better; some of that can get incorporated into the skin, and some can become shared scripts and CSS for power users. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Vector 2022 is not perfect, but I think its flaws have been blown significantly out of proportion. Switching back and forth is more likely to cause confusion among casual readers than any benefit it might deliver. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – I do actually think the fixed width is a significant improvement in reading experience on wide monitors at least, and something worth exploring further. It's the other things about the new skin that I don't like, namely the "simplification" of the UI due to the lack of visual contrast between the article body, TOC, header and everything else. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for two main reasons:
- This has been in the works for quite some time and has been successfully in use in other wikis; given that, had I voted in the previous discussion, I would have said "yes, go ahead and make the changes for the sake of the common reader, even if I will keep using legacy Vector". If anything, I'm more bugged that logged out users will see two different skins depending on which wiki they're on, though by all indication, this won't be a problem in the long term.
- There are some things that I like better about Vector 2022 - the search bar showing images and short descriptions, the left-hand sidebar being collapsible, and the sticky header and table of contents. The look and feel is something I'll have to get used to, as are the new link colors (which I know were altered with color-blindness in mind); this is a given. It just goes to show that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are both opposing forces grounded in subjectivity.
I can tell there was a lot of thought put into this new design, and while some aspects are understandably controversial, I am at least happy improvements have been made; I remember the logo placement/spacing being awkward in older versions, but that is happily no longer a problem. I doubt the WMF would reverse this regardless of this RfC's outcome, and I imagine the complaints will die down after some time, but people have voiced their concerns, and if this goes through, that's just the way it is. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Vector 2022 being "successfully in use in other wikis", there have been witnesses from the French Wikipedia (the first on which it was implemented) and the Swedish Wikipedia testifying that it caused strong grassroots opposition from the respective communities, which were largely ignored. Æo (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... noted, but I don't intend to change my vote. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are some things I like about the new UI, some things I don't, but everyone should give it some time to get more used to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the new layout is better than previously, and will improve when changes already underway (esp. around page width) have been addressed. I agree with others about change being scary - lots of the above comments reminds me of the hullabaloo about the Facebook redesign back in the day! Turini2 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn’t even remotely. It’s far worse in every possible way. Tvx1 22:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per wasted time r. Schierbecker (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my original comments which were curiously moved to the bottom of this discussion when it was refactored to place only supports at the top. — Wug·a·po·des 23:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I have a confession to make: I have never liked Vector 2010. Ever. I thought the hue of pale white it used was drab, depressing, and off-putting. When Vector was set as the default skin for Wikipedia, I immediately set my preferences to "Monobook" (the default pre-2010) and never looked back. I tried out a few other skins in the past, but I found that Monobook remained my favorite, and so it stayed. I'm not inherently averse to change if it involves genuine improvements; by that same token, I'm also not swayed by arguments in favor of new designs or systems that essentially boil down to, "change is a part of life, get used to it." Change isn't always a good thing, especially not if it leaves us worse off than before. With that in mind, I decided to check out the new design myself, using an incognito window on my Chromebook.
My opinion? Vector 22 is an improvement from 2010. I like that the table of contents section has been moved to the left panel when browsing a page—makes it so that you can navigate between subsections much more easily. I also like how hovering your mouse over a link doesn't just show the name of the page, but a pop-up window with the first few sentences of text accompanied by the infobox image (assuming there is one). Do I think the new design is perfect? Definitely not—there are certainly some improvements to be made that I would deem necessary. For instance, when you click the "hide" button to remove the table of contents from the screen, the "unhide" option (i.e. the jot notes icon beside the article's title) isn't immediately obvious, which I think is problematic. I'd also support making the side panel a different color so as to distinguish it from the page's text. But on the whole, I like Vector 2022, and I'm even thinking about switching from Monobook to the new design.
In short, I feel that Vector 2022 is more user-friendly, more inviting, and an all-around step up from what came before it. It's not without some shortcomings, but as a default skin for readers, it's probably the best we've got. I say we keep it. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurtis: just FYI, the pop-up window with the lead sentence and lead image has also been part of legacy Vector for a few years now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Apaugasma pointed out, a pop-up window with the first few sentences of text accompanied by the infobox image (assuming there is one) is actually from a different feature which users can toggle at Preferences → Appearance → Reading preferences = Enable page previews. I believe it is enabled for unregistered users by default. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up—will strike that part shortly. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok...at first I hated it. To be honest, though, I would've hated ANY interface change for the next year, 10 years, 100 years... Vector 2010 is old. We've needed something new for a while. And of course, we'll adapt. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the issues are big enough to warrant reversion of this, even if the community here could do such a thing. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what is done is done. I am just as disappointed in how the skin was rolled out as everyone else who saw the switch to Vector 2022. Feedback for the future: Rather than completely revamping the site, what would be better are incremental changes. Also I think of Vector 2022 as reinventing the wheel; Timeless is a much more polished skin that has responsive support, a decent-sized font, and good use of space on the left and right. As a community, we have bigger fish to fry in terms of managing content. I hated Vector 2010 because of its lack of responsive design and its lack of features. From this point forward, I think WMF's design team should focus its resources on continuously expanding the ability of the new Vector skin, so they are fit for the modern web. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has been done, does not inherently mean it cannot - or should not - be undone. WalnutBun (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good argument. It is in the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation to manage the technical aspects of the site as office actions, of course usually with but not necessarily always with consultation from the community, and it is in the scope of the community to manage the content that is present on the site, to suggest new features, and to give feedback on office actions. They did this when they originally deployed Vector back in 2009/2010, and they are doing it again while deploying Vector 2022. WMF generally does not manage content. Sure if something immediately breaks the site it will be rolled back for the sanity of Wikipedia, but I don't think this immediately breaks the site in a similar way that a security bug or logic bomb might. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposse Its long overdue for a change. The bugs will get ironed out. Don't like it? Do what I'm doing and use Vector 2010. I don't see our readers up in arms, and that's the real metric for reversion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the new skin is an improvement compared to the old skin and should be kept as default. Lightoil (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This skin has been default in my home wiki for years now and while it takes a bit of adjusting to, I realized I actually spend more time reading articles, it's result of years of research and UX rigor (that is also depend on years of research). Ladsgroup^overleg 04:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that this matters to me much, I still use Monobook just because I know where everything is. But I'm aware my own UI preferences are non-standard compared to best practices and the site should, until a user tells them otherwise via skin preferences, reflect those best practices. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because there is always room for improvement. I say this as someone who changed their preferences to Vector Legacy 2010 the moment they saw the 2022 rollout. Instead of reverting the entire redesign to get things like full content width and non-contracted menus back, the new skin could be updated so that the hamburger menu button stays when you scroll down, there's even currently a Phabricator request to make the content width switch stay instead of always going back to default when going to new pages, for logged-out users. Quick note: I always feel some oppression when a new significant software redesign comes out and I drool over how much I miss the old one blah blah blah, but I never realise the great merits of the new design until a few weeks pass by, and after that I really start liking it over the old design. Vector 2022 is almost certainly not an exception of this. (end of note) I will very likely be changing back to the Vector 2022 skin soon after some improvements such as the ones I've mentioned are made (I'm that kind of person who likes to skip a v2.0 major software release and rather wait for v2.1 before updating), apparently the content width setting already "sticks" for users logged into accounts now. There are already things I really like about the Vector 2022 skin, such as the significantly better search function, now in the centre (bigger text, with thumbnails in search results), and the table of contents always shown on the left. On Vector 2010 you don't have that, and just get a sidebar with empty space instead when you scroll down a page, which is objectively worse for navigation and also poorer use of screen width. It would be a shame to get rid of all these great things, all because of a few flaws that can be fixed / worked on in the new design. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a lot of complaints in the support section about users personally not liking it. If you don't like it, change your skin. The new skin has been developed with regard to online best practices and brings Wikipedia (kicking and screaming, apparently) into the 2020s. If you want to live in the past... well, you can guess what I suggest. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a lot of the complaints in the oppose section are from users personally liking it. Strawman argument. And there was nothing obsolete with original Vector. No change was needed at all. Tvx1 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new skin is really not bad. It has a few teething problems, sure, but nothing that can't be fixed. The push-back from the community is just the usual thing that happens in any community when the status quo changes. It'll all quieten down in a week or two. — Jumbo T (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. It really is ridiculously bad. And the push-back is not the usual thing , but a logical reaction to a unilaterally enforced very poor change. Tvx1 14:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is just my opinion, and you should stop spamming yours as a reply to every oppose vote? Go outside. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is relevant. This is a request for comment, not a deletion discussion; there are no binding outcomes of consensus or lack thereof here. — Jumbo T (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumbo T, my point is that your arguments (you and Tvx1) are not reasons, they're opinions. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: and my point is that this is not a problem, since this is a request for comment, not a request for a decision backed up by watertight reasoning (as is required at AfD etc.). Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumbo T, requests for comment still require !votes to have reasons. That you (don't) like the skin is not a reason it should (not) be used.
Thanks for the ping.— Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: almost all the votes in this mess of an RFC are opinions. That aside, I may not have made it clear, but there was some semblance of a reason in my original comment: any change of this sort and scale will create push-back from a part of the community, no matter how good/bad/confusing the change is. In my opinion (god forbid I invoke my opinion), it's best to wait a while, let tempers cool, and then assess community consensus. Personally, I'm glad a change like this has been made; we wouldn't get anywhere without bold changes. But enough of this, it's getting tiring. — Jumbo T (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumbo T, that's why these RfC s are impossible to close, and no consensus is probably going to be the result.
Personally, I like the skin, I've been using for at least a year. But that doesn't mean others need to use it. I think it'd be fine for them if they did.
Sorry if I've been too persistent; this RfC is exhausting. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a continuous 2 to 1 ratio in favor of rollback, it will actually be difficult to close it with anything other than a consensus to roll back. Tvx1 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, though; the arguments still have to be weighed. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to 5 out of 70+. Characterizing that as replying to every oppose is ridiculous. Tvx1 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cmon man. If you want it in other words, I think people here call it bludgeoning — Jumbo T (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1, it's not replying to every oppose. It is, however, bludgeoning. Please stop. — Qwerfjkltalk 23:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read that essay. My volume of comments here isn't specially high at all. And I'm not even remotely disagreeing with every viewpoint presented here. I only reacted to roughly 7% percent of them. Please also note that essay clearly states that falsly accusing someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil. It's not something you can go and throw around when you are confronted with a couple of comments that you consider a nuisance to try and silence the person writing them. Tvx1 00:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This question is outside of the scope of what the community controls. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Users who prefer V2010 can freely switch to it in preferences. I personally prefer Isarra's Timeless based on Jorm's Winter proposal and I see V2022 as a step in that direction. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The vast majority of our users, readers, cannot switch freely at all. Tvx1 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1, you mean people who aren't logged in? Because readers can have an account. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mean people who only read Wikipedia and thus don't have an account and don't login. And that is by far the largest group of our users. Tvx1 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the updated tools bar, I find the new use of space to be worthwhile -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This question is outside of the scope of what the community controls. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Rejecting this proposal on the grounds that it would violate WP:CONEXCEPT without the WMF claiming that CONEXCEPT applies is premature. If the WMF does make that claim then we can discuss this proposal on that basis, determining whether they are correct and if so whether an IAR exception applies, but until then we should proceed on the basis that it is subject to consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the new skin is just fine and a clear improvement. -- lomrjyo ^talk 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not in any way. More and more technical flaws keep being reported and it didn’t improve anything. Why are you making claims that are blatantly untrue. Tvx1 14:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go read any newspaper, book printed for written text, (like a schoolbook or an encyclopedia). Limited width is the standard for most written text. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also don't like the new skin, so I solved the problem on my own by clicking on the bolded "return to the old look" link plainly visible in the sidebar. Now my personal preference isn't a sitewide problem. You can do it too: click here, then select "Vector legacy (2010)". Problem solved. If you're an IP user and want to save preferences, create an account to save them to, just like how it works on every other website on the internet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
some people can't create accounts. you should know this as an administrator. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Transcleanupgal: who can't create an account? There are some connections that are technically restricted from creating an account, but there is a process for that. If there's something else preventing people generally from creating accounts, that's something we should address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ThadeusOfNazereth, Rhododendrites, and This, that and the other. The skin is fine, the process was fine, and your preferences are available. Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not for IP users. IP users have no option to go back to V2010 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Vector 2022 isn't perfect, but neither is Vector 2010. Rolling back now would be reactionary and short-sighted. Give everyone time to get used to the new skin, and a few months for the WMF team to make improvements and changes in response to feedback. In 3-6 months, if there is still strong opposition, an RfC might be useful to gauge the level of that opposition. The other thing to remember is that an RfC generally only surveys editors, and then only those with strong opinions. The opinion of readers, who make up 99% of Wikipedia's users, goes unrecorded. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just proving that this was a bad idea, seeing as the majority of users (both registered and IP) essentially had no say in the change. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new skin seems a definite improvement to me, and editors (e.g. everyone who dislikes it) can opt to revert to 2010 if they wish. Making 2010 the default again seems a backward step. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new skin comes with improvements to a lot of UX and I think it is overall better for newcomers and for reading Wikipedia. Our reading stats are going down, various reason, but one of them might be bad experience on thin screens. We should take more time make articles work on thin screens and one way is to use Wikipedia in a thinner view. Individual users not ready for the change can always go back to the previous skin. I see no problem here to have both ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nux (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Degrading the experience on wide screens is not a good solution to improving the experience on thin screens. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWantTheOldInterfaceBack Interesting choice of a name ;-). I hope you know you can just switch in preferences (which is quicker then changing a name or creating a puppet or whatever). Nux (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out countlessly, switching is not a durable option for uregistered readers. Not a solution. Tvx1 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles already worked perfectly fine on thin screens, and this update makes them use less than half the screen on wide screens. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, tables, mulit-columns with static number of columns, non-gallery galleries etc are a problem. Mobile skin does some hacks to make it kind of fit onto a phone. But those are hacks. This should be resolved and readable on a PC too (thin-view PC). And then it will be more readable. Besides there is a switch to full-width mode on the bottom right (for those articles that really need space). Nux (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this RFC is primarily about the skin that will be presented to IP users - 99% of our readerbase, and mostly not the ones making changes to articles. Account users can choose their skin so this is not of much relevance to them. IP users are overwhelmingly here to read, not edit. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I think new skin is mostly better for reading. IP readers are also editors. Some of them edit and add tables that are to wide to be readable on all screens. So it is good that they will also see this limitation of width and design to that.
And also, as said before, IP users can switch to full-width mode with one click (bottom, right button on each article page). Nux (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP users cannot just switch to full-width mode with one click. That button does not appear at all for some users, when it does appear it's so far away from the rest of the content/UI as to make it hard to notice it exists, its iconography gives no indication as to what it does, and it does not persist across page views. Trynn (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that even ignore the vast amount of IP's who have stated since the change that they desire to be able to change to the previous default skin without having to create an account, no just switch to the full-width mode. Tvx1 22:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trynn The button should be available for all wide screens (the ones which would benefit from the wider view). If it is not you can file a bug on the Phabricator. AFAIK that feature was made specifically after consulting en.wiki community. On one of many meetings with the team I remember Olga said that the icon is meant resemble full-screen icon. Which is kind of what it does. Nux (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "full-screen" icon is being referred to here? That button looks nothing like any full-screen window widget in Windows, macOS, or any Linux desktop theme I've ever seen before. Is this mobile UI design language that is being applied to desktop users (which is what it seems to be, and is one of the things being complained about)?
What is so difficult about developing this new skin to be responsive to window width, like any other well-designed website out there? Instead there's some button that is located off in the boonies (if it appears at all) using a design language not used in the desktop paradigm, that logged-out users are forced to click on for every page view. Why is this considered an acceptable design decision? Trynn (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trynn: it's this one. Something similar is used universally by video players on the web to toggle full screen, which makes it the most intuitive one to use here. I agree that logged-out users should not be forced to click on this for every page view. The team behind the Vector 2022 screen say they are working on making it persistent across pages (like it is for logged-in users). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma I can't see that, where is it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't see it and never could and if I want to change it I just go to preferences and activate it there. But I sort of like the limited with screen and believe probably 2 columns (you know like in the Bible or any encyclopedia) will be an option to the reader in the future. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller and Paradise Chronicle: the toggle should be at the bottom right of the screen. Apparently though, the toggle only appears if your screen is at least 1600 pixels wide (see the documentation here).
This is properly a feature, but it has also been characterized by some as a bug (see Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022#Toggle box disappears - bug?), because even on big monitors increasing the font size may result in your screen becoming smaller than 1600 pixels.
If you have a big monitor, try hitting ctrl - a few times to see if the toggle appears (you can restore font size after that by hitting ctrl 0 or increase it again by hitting ctrl +). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that in the thread below OVasileva (WMF) announced that they are working on "lowering the width at which the toggle to make pages wider appears from 1600px to 1400px. This will allow the toggle to show on smaller screens. This change will be available this week.". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unless there is some evidence that our readership (i.e. the people who can't change back to Vector 2010 if they want) don't like it. See you all in 10 years when the community is opposed to Vector 2033 and everyone wants it to go back to Vector 2022. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the many readers who have already complained on the various venues and have even made an account just to be able to switch back, for the evidence you are requesting. Tvx1 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked. It's less than 50 out of like a billion. More readers (and editors) than that have given positive reviews in the WMF's surveys. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the WMF's surveys filtered out any responses containing "foul language", which presumably skewed overwhelmingly negative. These surveys must be presumed unreliable until we are given further information on the responses removed for foul language. The entire process appears to have been fundamentally untrustworthy, with the desire to push a redesign through appearing to be the main motive rather than first seeing what people think and then deciding on a course of action. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't look very far obviously. There are 100+ in this RFC alone already. Over the many venues on Wikipedia and MediaWiki there are already thousands. Tvx1 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no view on the methodology of WMF's surveys, as I have not looked at them closely, but I do want to point out that there's a bit of selection bias just looking at complaints on "the various venues". The majority of readers who enjoy or at least don't mind the new skin probably don't care enough to post praise for it on internal forums, whereas if a small subset of the readers dislike it enough to complain, then that's all we're going to see. Mz7 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The WMF put a lot of work into this and shared the results. Lets give the improvements a try and assume good faith. Me, after some hesitation also switched to Vector 2022 and am rather pleased with it. Also, anyone can return to the Vector 2010 if they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, IP users have NO option to change back to V2010. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is called registration ;). Creating an account on wiki takes less effort then writing the sentence above. It's the most friction-less registration I know of. You don't even need an e-mail. Just a nick-name and a password. Nux (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
except that some people can't, or don't want to register. Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And some of us are quite upset at having been forced to create an account just to switch to a more usable UI. And as I mentioned somewhere above, forcing someone to create an account also violates Wikipedia's stated privacy policy. Trynn (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - THe new skin is perfectly lovely and corresponds with long-tested knowledge about text layout, as well as contemporary user interface design principles. Separately, I have process concerns with re-hashing lengthy design consultations with an immediate RfC.--Carwil (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—this RfC is pointless. As mentioned above, the Wikipedia community is in control of content, and the developers are in charge of the software. The new skin comports to tenants of good UI design and offers an objective improvement over what we had. Those who are upset about it can change their preferences to use a different skin. They can offer constructive suggestions on how to improve the skin through the additions of options. Reverting the change will not get us progress. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's fine, we'll all get used to it and in a month this RFC will seem about as dated as one asking to roll back to Monobook. Which you can still use. And some do. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's fine and I know I'll get used to it. As long as other editors retain preferences to choose their preferred skin, I don't see an issue. Einebillion (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; admittedly it takes a while to get used to it, but also: other skins are still available for those who are unable to adapt —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my 2022 RfC comments, including where I, ahem, encourage the WMF to implement this even if the en.wiki community disapprove. The old skin is embarrassing and backwards. The new one is better. We are not professional UI designers. See this comment by Joe Roe in the 2022 RfC also. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here don't seem to have read mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width, which explains why the width has been limited. Without understanding the research and the reasoning, the complaints of disliking it on first sight are not at all compelling.
There is also a lot of unscientific discussion around sampling. First, the view that "if I didn't take part in the WMF survey then it couldn't be representative". A census is clearly not possible or desirable here, so sampling is the correct method to use. The appropriate sample size does not have to be very large for there to be a high degree of confidence that a census would not yield a drastically different result. On the other hand, selection bias is a genuine issue. And it is an issue much, much more significant in this RfC than in any of the processes by which the WMF has used feedback up to this point. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sampling isn't the correct method. How you think it is is beyond baffling.
And no, the new design isn't better. Its worse. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such insightful comments. Sure gives me confidence that this discussion is anything but a waste of time. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we are not all professional UI designers (although probably some of our members probably are in real life), but we are the people that actually have to use these UI's. Our opinion how practical we actual find it to use is therefore invaluable. And the truckload of flaws in the new skin that people have been complaining about seriously questions the professionality of the WMF people as well. Tvx1 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've been using the new Vector skin for a couple of months, now, and do like it. I think it is a mistake to reject the new skin without trying it for a few days. It did take me a few days to adjust to the differences (I formerly used Monobook), but it feels quite natural to me now, and I don't understand what the complaints are about. - Donald Albury 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too much unused space. Everything being crammed into the middle. The fact that those with visual impairments weren't polled at all. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visual impairments aren't the only accessibility issue either. The mystery-meat buttons and unnecessary dropdown menus don't help either. I like that in Vector 2010 there's nothing hidden behind a dropdown. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWantTheOldInterfaceBack, what do you mean visual impairments. The colour change of the links changed to help visually impaired people. Did anything get worse? — Qwerfjkltalk 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when was the color change- even, when was color mentioned at all. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first I didn't like Vector 22, but I gave it a chance, and can see that it's improvement. Reducing the width for readability is a good move. I think rather than having a kneejerk reaction to the new skin we should give it a chance. Also I don't think it's fair to say that the WMF hasn't been communicative or given editors enough warning about this change. There's been an rfc, they've repeatedly posted notices on various noticeboard, there's been watchlist notices, and a sitenotice. Bar obnoxious flashing red banners, I'm not really sure what else they could have done. --Chris 02:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none of the communications you mentioned were shown to users without accounts. As one of those users, I was completely blindsided by this change earlier this week and thought it must've been a bug. It wasn't until I started searching how to report said bug that I found discussions about the UI change and the fact that I had to create an account to switch back to something else. If you want to know what else WMF could have done to be more communicative, it's to actually communicate to the vast majority of users (readers without accounts) that this was coming so they could solicit feedback. Trynn (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page was "shown" to users without accounts as well. WMF has already gotten a lot of feedback with other wikis and also enwiki editors enabling it, rolling it out on English Wikipedia is just one of the last steps. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I really hoped we were done with this, but here we are: new year, new drama. So is this vote or !vote? If it is vote who has the right to vote, has everyone been invited to vote, is it gonna be 50%+1, is it gonna be 2/3? Few months back I said "people tend to be against new things, and those who are against tend to make effort having their voice heard". Still true. All this worry and care about logged off users... c'mon... almost seventy percent of all users are mobile users and their screens are narrower than anything in vector 20022, if you cared for them you would design for them and would not ask why your 1357px-wide-tables all of a sudden don't fit. There are millions of logged out users who most likely don't really care about any of this. Were it that bad, there would be thousands of them at the gate... with torches. PhilipPirrip (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand these complaints about width limit at all. How do you people read 1.5 ft long lines, do you turn your head? Try sending a letter to your boss or teacher in landscape, with no margins (such a waste!!) and I'm sure they won't be pleased. I don't have my Word documents edge to edge because I need to have the whole line in my vision field. That's what I want from Wikipedia as well and I vote against going backwards ~ 2604:CA00:179:4BB:0:0:64:6F46 (talk)
Strong Oppose I'm staggered by people saying there was nothing wrong with the old design. Have you just become blind to how old-fashioned Wikimedia sites look? How, nearly quarter of the way through the 21st century, we're using a late-90s design for our sites? I've studied perceptual psychology and I do web design professionally, so I know well that more than about 70 characters wide makes it more effortful to read because it's harder to saccade back to the start of the line. This whole RFC is a objectionable because it's a case of feelings over facts; the usability of a web site should be evaluated with usability research, not a gerrymandered discussion in which long-time users are over-represented. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
Oppose rollback. It is unreasonable to not expect the default to change. It is unreasonable to not to expect continuing development of the default in situ. The new default is easy to read and edit with, imo. (And any suggestion that editors are not readers of Wikipedia, is just not reality -- editors are readers first and foremost). The consultation before the rollout was long, productive, and advertised, and the default can be bypassed by users invested in older skins. (Also, it's established practice that, us, whenever we have been using IPs or registered, we have had to work with or around the default for the entire life of the project (and certainly not voting on it), so dealing with the default is also to be expected.) Finally, per consensus policy, default configuration is not an appropriate subject for a consensus call. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you don't like it, you can switch back to old UI in seconds. If new technologies never took hold and we always wanted to do things the same way, I'd still be using PAD to connect to Monochrome BBS on an IBM PS/2 with a VT100 terminal emulator. (And somebody will be along in a minute to call me a young whippersnapper for never having programmed Fortran on punched cards). Incidentally, I opposed the rollout of the skin because of real estate concerns, but accepted consensus didn't go my way. Sometimes, that happens. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I have programmed Fortran on punched cards. Definitely doable, just don't drop the deck in a puddle like I once did. Programmers appreciate whitespace, so the real estate concerns haven't bothered me with V22. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered readers can’t switch back! Tvx1 02:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I already got used to it over at fr.wp. Now I don't have to remember the difference between the two skins going back and forth between the two. For those who don't like the white space on a wide screen and don't want to change parameters in settings, there's always ctrl-+ (FF) which eliminates the white space (and collapses the sidebar). The TOC never being more than one click away is IMO really useful. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please please please, listen to the UX specialists that really know more than most of us editors about this. Years of research and design work went into this. If changes are necessary, let's make incremental changes going forward, and not roll back this massive project. --Gnom (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, to my mind, the ideal scenario is a revert to V2010 while the WMF polishes the large number of smaller issues being reported and then deploys it again in perhaps a year. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
user has COI as they were associated with the WMF, this has nothing to do directly with the validity of the argument, It just needs to be disclosed. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Experts can generate all the data in the world but that data is not in itself sufficient to rewire individuals' subjective preferences. If experts calculate that doing XYZ will improve metric ABC by 15%, but 90% of users dislike XYZ regardless and prefer the old design, then the old design should be maintained.
I think a lot of this RFC has been people talking past each other about data and preference. All the data in the world will not make me (and many others, as apparent from this RFC) subjectively prefer fixed width to widescreen. I've seen a lot of citing of research data (and much of it questionably relevant), but very little cogent reasoning for why that in itself justifies forcing a redesign on people that a clear majority appear to dislike.
The metrics are made for man - man is not made for the metrics. This sort of objective UX research should be seen as a way to come up with new styles of design to explore, but if everyone hates the design that comes from said research, then that should be the end of that. Always beware of Goodhart's law. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the opinion of UX specialists by allmighty and the people that actually have to use the interface actually be ignored?? Tvx1 02:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've been using this skin since it was announced to the community last year as being in testing. In fact, I initially didn't like it because, due to a bug, narrow screens were hiding the button for the drop down menu entirely, which meant I had no way to see a list of headers for an article or talk page. When I reported it, the bug was fixed promptly, and I've been using the skin ever since. Frankly, the energy spent here demanding it be rolled back entirely would be better spent reporting specific fixes to help alleviate the problems people are running into. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to most of us, the problem was the discussion process and the change as a whole, not necessarily the design of the new interface, and also, even one of those smaller issues would most likely require duplicating the entirety of all the wikiproject- and would not be solved whether the rollout gets reverted or not Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion process has been ongoing for at least half a year. I don't know why it's a problem now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are absolutely WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the most part I've found Vector 2022 to be an improvement over Vector 2010. There's a few annoyances that impact me as an editor, versus as a reader. While I love the floating ToC and its reduction in required scrolling for page navigation, I find it annoying that I still have to scroll to the top of the page to access the toolbox. Ideally the toolbox should appear in or just before the floating ToC. It would also be nice if the icon panel, whether the floating one that appears when you scroll down the page, or the one at the top of the page was configurable in some way, as I would like to have specific icons appear there that are not in the default list but are in the dropdown.
As for the width question, I've been using a CSS override for the skin since testing it in November 2022. I disagree with the comments made by the developers with regards to the research on optimal content width. As our own article on the research states, the research on electronic text line length has not reached a consensus on whether there is an number of characters per line for electronic text. And, speaking with my former webdev hat on, while I recognise that content caching presents challenges for customisation for editors who are not logged in with regards to supporting multiple skins, because the width limit is being enforced by CSS there is no real technical limitation for why the width limit cannot be exposed as a user configurable parameter and stored in and read from a persistent cookiee or a DOM local store during the page load/rendering process. This sort of cookie or use of local storage is arguably "strictly necessary for the delivery of service", and so would generally be except from the EU privacy directive. And the foundation's cookie statement already lists multiple examples where such preferences are stored in either cookies or local storage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't matter, there was problems with the procedure, you literally went to my talk page to dispute this, and then you post this without even mentioning it. Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That there may have been a procedural issue with the closure of the last RfC, which is as you say disputed, is somewhat irrelevant to establishing this consensus. We are in the situation we are in, and potentially changing the closure of the November RfC will not alter that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this discussion IS the challenging of the closure of the November RfC. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. One RfC cannot alter the closure of another, for that you want to follow the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Outside of an explicit closure challenge at the appropriate noticeboard, the consensus of an RfC stands until another one takes its place, however the old closure is not altered simply because a new consensus has formed. Consensus can change over time.
The question of this RfC is directly above and reads Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? As such the scope of the consensus that forms around this one will be as a result of the rollout of Vector 2022 a few days ago. Either a consensus will be found to keep V22 as the skin, or a consensus will be found to return to V10 as the skin, or unlikely no-consensus will be found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th is correct, whilst this RfC is challenging the actions that have followed on from the previous RfC, it is not challenging the closure directly. Gusfriend (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the new skin is better for reading. If you want the old one back, change it in your preferences. Philbert2.71828 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what about IP editors? Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editors should get a default that is easier to use for reading, i.e. the new skin. I suspect that most drive-by readers don't care much either way, so we should just present them with a good default. Logged-in power users can tweak their preferences to their hearts' content. Philbert2.71828 23:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the new skin being eisier to use is entirely you opinion, this isn't a vote of confidence. Transcleanupgal (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it not being easier to use is entirely your opinion? The vast majority of all the votes on this page are based entirely on opinion, and yet you're only bludgeoning the votes you disagree with. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The skin is much better for readers, as shown by the research collected by the desktop improvements team. From the table of contents, to the ability to hide the gross sidebar, to easier language switching, to the ever-controversial limited width of articles (which is now optional!), Vector 2022 is best for readers - and the data doesn't lie. If you, as an editor, want the old skin, there is literally nothing stopping you from going back to it yourself. Also, the fact that this RfC was so close to the previous one is really not appropriate. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
compleatly invalid as you are not a reader, how is it being the 2nd most used skin something that makes it's case? Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith instead of declaring opinions you don't like to be "invalid." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nobody listed on this page is a reader, the statement could be technically true and still be invalid. Transcleanupgal (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia editors are also by definition Wikipedia readers. How else do we proof read the contributions made on articles by ourselves and others? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate proof reading is much easier when logged-out readers see the same skin that most editors have chosen. Certes (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you're proofing. If it's the layout, then yeah I'd agree that being on the same skin makes that much easier and will have more consistent results. But if you're just proof reading the text for spelling, grammar, and factual errors, then it won't really matter what skin the reader is using. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look at the research. See the research about readability, the table of contents and sticky header, the language button, and the collapsible sidebar. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The amount of research and effort that has gone into this change has been significant and it should be given a chance to bed down. Rather than reverting I would prefer ongoing effort at making the skin even betterer. Things like offering editors the choice of icons or text for some menus, dealing with some of the existing Phab issues, etc. Even spending some time on editor tools or getting notifcations working in the mobile app. Let's move forward. Gusfriend (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the additional comment that I am very glad that I am not going to be the one closing this but, with so many comments on both sides, it could be argued that there is not yet sufficient consensus to return to the Vector2010 skin. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can you say that?? There is a persistent 2 to 1 ratio in favor of rollback. Tvx1 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers in the !vote are currently 191 v. 125 v. 11 (there was a formatting issue which was causing the oppose numbering to restart) which is less than 2:1. There is majority support but that is not the same as consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: Backlash is inevitable with any UI/UX change, and I find it instructive to compare the response here to the response to Vector 2010 and see just how similar they are. Personally, I find this update necessarily forward-looking and a big improvement with regards to readability. For those who oppose the fixed-width, they can easily change it (and WMF have said they're working on making this toggle persistent). Years of effort have been poured into this update with community consultation along the way. If the consensus is that things need to be changed, then make those changes instead of undoing everything. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As someone who has been using Vector 2022 for months now, I really appreciate the more clean look, better sidebar, and limited width. This limited width has also been proven to improve accessbility, and the more accessible option shouldn't be hidden behind a preferences menu and a sign-up screen. DecafPotato (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that V2010 shouldn't be limited to registered users only? ScrewV22 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScrewV22, where are you getting that from? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although I will continue to use legacy, I think 2022 is cleaner and more modern then the clunky and overwhelming for a new editor legacy version. We still have editors that use Monobook, yeah? I'm sure there's some historical precedent of Monobook lovers opposing the switch to Vector as the default, I'm just too lazy to go looking. This is good for new editors, IMO. casualdejekyll 01:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If it were abysmally bad I could see the merit in rolling it back so soon after making it the default, but the complaints I have about it are minor annoyances at worst, such as Sandbox and Contributions being an additional click away. And a number of things the WMF considers improvements (such as the anchored table of contents), I also consider improvements. I’m willing to give them some time to iron out the known bugs and give the rest of us some time to get accustomed to the new look and feel. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the consensus from the original discussion was that IFF those problems were solved that they could be implemented if their not , then this fall under "abysmally bad" Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a rollback. It's an improvement over the previous vector. I'm surprised that the sticking point for so many is the line width. There' extensive research showing that shorter linewidth aids readability, which is why essentially every news website and academic journal limits maximum linewidth. There are certainly improvable elements. There will need to be accommodations for wide tables and long section titles where necessary. I'd love to see more use of the right hand panel - ideally holding references similar to journal layouts like PNAS (example). However, if the scenario was switched and we'd been used to the vecto'22 style and vector'10 was being proposed, I can't imagine as many people viewing it as a net improvement over '22. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Oyez, oyez, oyez. Oh holiest communion: another RfC about white space. Goodie. I have come forth to express my thoughts on this, err, predicament(?) I'm just gonna come out and say it, the WCAG Success Criterion on line-length must be the backbone of this whole debate (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/visual-presentation.html). No if, ands, or buts about it. Those guidelines are the closest thing to a bible the internet has. If we don’t believe in WCAG we are completely adrift, lost at sea, like the ancient mariner. So that’s that, clear as day, simple as sauce. Though, if it please the court, may I add:
- None of us have yet to provide a SINGLE piece of research that shows unlimited line-length are the best for reading (but there are plenty showing that limited line-lengths work well)
- I literally can’t find a single Popular text-based content/information website that doesn’t have limited content width. Not A Single One. .com, .org, .gov,. .net, .info, nada.
- and well, the Fact that Fandom has a full-width toggle, and it is used by a whopping 0.1% of people (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T319449#8379920). Zero-Point-One-Percent — are all of us just choosing to ignore that? We are the zero-point-one-percent, and we must stand up to the oppressive 99.9%. Huzzah!
So the WMF make the line-length shorter as they manifestly should, so people can read the articles that WE spend all of our time working on. And the side effect is a bunch of white space for people with big screens. Oh. My. Goodness. Whitespace? You mean like actual space, that is white? NooooooooooOOoooooo. It can’t be. Oh wait…actually…I can’t find a single bit of information on WCAG, or any other design documentation guide AnYwHeRe, saying that white space is bad. Please, somebody, show me Just One design guidebook, rulebook, textbook, whatever, that says: you must fill all the space of the interface (cool rhyme, btw) or else you will be a Complete FAILURE. Where is that written? Is there an underground bible of design that only the zero-point-one-percenters know about? It’s like we are saying that electric cars are too quiet. The silence is deafening. We can’t hear ourselves think over the insane quietness that the car produces. Huh? Apologies, I’m a little adrenalized at this point ~~ exhaleeeee 🧘 ~~ Have we actually devolved from a group of people who esteem research and facts, to a bunch of conspiracy theorists who surmise that every-single-website, every single designer and developer, every single book printed, in the history of this little planet of ours have ALL gotten it COMPLETELY wrong? And the (poor, poor) People at WMF creating this skin are both sheep who just follow “trends”, and at the same time are Complete Tyrants (or Pirates) who don’t listen to feedback?
You are cross, clearly. I kind of understand why, and I have some sympathies. But uh, my friends, the best critique we can come up with is: there hath been too much white space painted upon this veranda, and it looks like a wolf in a mobile telephone’s clothing? And now we want to burn the entire thing to the ground to prove that we have control over the sheeple? Well shoot, where I come from we call that boneheaded. If someone can show me research saying that line-length should be unlimited, or a credible design guide that says white space is bad, or find a popular text-based website that don't have a limited width, I will gladly eat my proceeding paragraphs of word pudding :)
WCAG 4 LIFE <3 <3 <3 <3 2600:1700:9FFC:34B0:3178:F130:73A8:2D06 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fell in love with your comment. Thank you. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use White Spacing (WCAG) does not appear to match how the Vector 2022 skin uses white space. And the Vector 2022 TOC sidebar does not appear to conform to this recommendation: Make it Easy to Find the Most Important Tasks and Features (WCAG), or this Use a Clear and Understandable Page Structure (WCAG), and the use of icons only (instead of also including words) seems contrary to this: Make the Site Hierarchy Easy to Understand and Navigate (WCAG) and Use Clear Visible Labels (WCAG). Beccaynr (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The English Wikipedia should not be using an entirely different skin than the rest of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis. This is a decision that should be made globally, not on a wiki-by-wiki basis. Additionally, the new skin, implemented following an RfC, is a dramatic improvement over its predecessor, even if it still requires some tweaking. Graham (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, Is there a way that this discussion could be trans-wiki? Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Transcleanupgal: Yes, this discussion could be had at Meta-Wiki, where issues that affect multiple Wikimedia wikis are discussed. Graham (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC has already been moved once, and I don't really see a good reason why drama on enwiki should spread to other wikis when it has already been successfully deployed to 300 other WMF wikis already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "dramatic improvement", please note that enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The white space is one of the improvements to which I am referring. Graham (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's aesthetically appealing to some minority of users, but that doesn't change the fact that enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its purpose is discussed at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions, among other places. Graham (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At your link, the arguments in favor of white space are rather contrived. The white space is, for the most part, both useless and annoying (as confirmed by an enormous number of people). For more comments on that ("resting spots", etc.), see my reply in comment #28. -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean against the consensus of an RFC… Tvx1 02:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mean that. Graham (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not like the design that removing the ToC just below the lead section: the infobox stretches into the main body and pushed right-side images to the next section. But I hope an a-month-of-period to try. --Lopullinen 08:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lopullinen: see #Bring back the TOC. Æo (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an improvement. Aircorn (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I think the new skin has a more modern look and feel than the old one and the switch had to be made sooner or later. Any remaining bugs and shortcomings can be resolved "in situ" while the new skin is live. Let's rather focus on specific issues or tweaks than reject the whole thing. Let's look forward not backwards. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It it ain't broke, don't fix it. and it wasn't broken. Progress is not always good. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no need to flip-flop or turn back the clock here. If you don't like the new skin, turn it off. Any credible argument about what readers think should be based on data, and I've not seen that, except for the one WMF did and led to the change. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP USERS, CAN'T DO that Transcleanupgal (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP users couldn't pick a skin before this change either. Ckoerner (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked repeatedly to stop bludgeoning this discussion, and yet here you are again (with all caps this time). The points you are making have been made elsewhere — you do not need to continue to antagonize the people you disagree with. I'll note that none of the opposers have been bludgeoning the supporters the way you and several other of the supporters have been... 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8552:14FA:1343:4303 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP users can install an extension to fix this Broken Segue 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (This is the same thing I said back in September.) Delete Vector 2010 and never look back. No opt-in skin will ever get as many eyeballs on it to identify and address issues as a new default. It's a 1.0. it's been very thoughtfully designed with readers in mind for over three years. If we implement now, a year from now (maybe even less than for big bugbears) most issues will be resolved. For folks still on the fence, don't just try it for a few days. Settle in and really get to know what it's like. Ckoerner (talk)] 15:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites and everyone else. dwadieff ✉ 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (NB: I work for WMF. I did not work on Vector 2022. WMF did not ask me or any other WMF employees to respond to this RfC. I am adding my opinion as a volunteer editor.) I find the sticky Table of Contents very useful. Friends that I have asked (four people who are readers/not editors of Wikipedia) also commented how they find the sticky ToC helpful. I personally do not mind the extra white space. I prefer text heavy sites to have a limited text width to help with eye tracking. This is what many text heavy websites do on their article pages (e.g. cbc.ca, bbc.com.) These sites don't have extra white space because they are filled with adverts, related article links, etc, but I prefer fewer distractions when reading an encyclopedia. KindRowboat (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The technical justifications for the change that I've seen make sense to me, and the opposition to the changes seem to be primarily rooted in some assertion that "most people don't like it"; notwithstanding that opposition is louder than contentment, I see nothing concrete to indicate that the general outside impression is more negative overall. Furthermore, and this is more of a personal viewpoint, the opinions of longtime users and editors are less pertinent than new and transient users when it comes to the content and layout of the site, that's why registered users are given a "go back" option - this isn't about them. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have said, we shouldn't really care what editors think is best. What matters much more is what works for readers. Unfortunately it's very difficult to actually know what readers prefer. I don't give that much weight to the WMF's research but I give even less weight to editors convinced it's worse for readers for reasons XYZ (e.g. complaints by people who say they never edit here, complaints on other sites, talks with their friends). There are good reasons why these have limited utility especially when making a major change to a UI people are used to. Ultimately since I can't know what's best for readers, I fall back to giving trust as limited as it may be to the WMF's research especially when combined with the fact a lot of what they've done is similar to what other websites are doing. I know a lot of people hate stuff other websites are doing and I don't always either e.g. I much prefer classic Reddit. Maybe all these other websites are really wrong too. OTOH, even more than the WMF, many of these websites ultimately want eyeballs because it's how they make money some way or the other. So there's a lot of money involved and a lot of effort to be sure they're right about what works for the average reader so I definitely consider their research etc matters a lot more than the opinions of random Wikipedians. And while some of them e.g. Reddit are dissimilar enough to Wikipedia that what works for them may have little bearing to us. But there are also a lot of news websites etc who's work and how people interact with them are similar enough that I expect there's a good chance what works for them will carry over in what works for us. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you completely failed just how many readers have already complained??? And how many readers that have create account just to revert the previous skin?? Also, you make the false assumption that plagued the process of this deployment that editors and readers are completely separate concepts. That is just not true. I myself am an editor, but I actually read Wikipedia much more than I edit it. In fact, nearly of accounts complaing, whom you reduce to editors, have been complaining about the reduced readability.Tvx1 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a Monobook user. I wasn't happy with the change to Vector in 2010, and I'm still very grateful that I can retain Monobook for browsing and editing. There was a hullabaloo when Vector was introduced; it died down and Vector became beloved. I'm confident that the same will happen with Vector 22, save for stick in the muds like myself. schetm (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments on this page. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, weak oppose. After having read a large number of support !votes, I sympathise with their reasoning (when it is more than IDONTLIKEIT). There are valid concerns, but they are lost in a sea of complaints and asking questions that have been answered many times on this page. I will try and list the objects that I find valid when I have more time. — Qwerfjkltalk 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Editors will prefer what they are used to and are resistant to change. That doesn't mean the look of the wiki should stand still in time unless we want Wikipedia to look more and more dated to the reader. Garuda3 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the rollback — Saying that the design is a significant improvement is an understatement. The legibility and frankly, the approachability of the content is far superior to the earlier designs. From what I can read in the comments, the main issues seem to be the white space and the hamburger menu icon. Both of these complaints are valid and areas that can be iterated on the design with community collaboration. The entire product team worked diligently and openly (blogging, sharing designs, giving talks, holding space for feedback) throughout the development process. It would be disheartening to make a drastic decision for the design, rather than recognizing what is functional about it and collaboratively working to make it better. Iamjessklein (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the rollback — I believe the new design is a significant improvement and step in the right direction, for all the reasons mentioned here. We (humans) resist change, and it is difficult. However, it seems to me that WMF team was extremely patient and considerate in the redesign, proving in other countries that the new design is worth implementing. Levaplevaplevap (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC) — Levaplevaplevap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Levaplevaplevap (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose the rollback — all for design improvements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.217.207 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 47.208.217.207 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose the rollback — The new design is much easier to read. 45.48.30.140 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 45.48.30.140 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose the rollback — Change is always jarring and rough. That said, the new design has some functional improvements that I would hate to lose, specifically, the TOC. I would rather see some improvement on the new TOC implementation to reduce the amount of whitespace than to lose it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.241.92 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.83.241.92 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose Whilst the sudden change on 18th January came as quite a surprise for me -and presumably many others who had not been following all the upcoming developments - I fully support the developments WMF has introduced. It's alright us editors expressing a view about our likes and dislikes - and, let's face it, few people ever seem to relish change. But we need to remember the majority of Wikipedia users are actually readers, not editors, and the interface needs to work for them in terms of content accessibility as much, if not far more, than it does for us. A lot of work and research has gone in to making that experience better, and on the whole I believe it is. We editors can, if we're registered, simply switch back to our preferred old ways of doing things. There are millions more casual visitors who will benefit from better page design and layout with Vector 2022. There has evidently not been some enormous 'cliff edge' drop off of visits since 18th January (see here), and we should be prepared to give this time to bed in, whilst identifying any outstanding wrinkles, and awaiting the statistical data from WMF to demonstrate success or failure over the coming months. As an owner of a very small iPhone who prefers to work in 'Desktop View' on it, I now find it much easier to select the right menu options than in old Vector. The icons really help. My one related gripe is that it's still as hard to find the link to switch between Mobile View and Desktop View (and vice versa) as it ever was, and this was a bit of a missed opportunity. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new design is more usable and responsive to different screen sizes. This makes it more useful to the public, which is extremely important. The old design was good, but this one is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:500F:DE00:4D0A:68D6:46BF:398C (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2600:4041:500F:DE00:4D0A:68D6:46BF:398C (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose Everyone hates UI changes when they are first introduced to them. After people adjust to them they become fine with it. Give it some time, people, you'll be fine. Endwise (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I have been wishing Wikipedia would make some readability improvements for YEARS, instead of just favoring familiarity. I'm glad that the new skin keeps the spirit of the old design while adding welcome clarity, and I'm sure additional iterations can work out any issues on particular content situations. 69.202.234.45 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 69.202.234.45 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
OpposeThe new design is cleaner, clearer and overall SO much better! Like technology design needs to innovate and evolve over time to be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.110.235 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 104.162.110.235 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose As is often the case with design changes, there will be a novelty period where some will laude it for the novelty and some will despise it for the same. After the novelty period, both will fade, and what will be left is usability. Daneah (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Daneah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Strong oppose I can't believe we are even having this RFC. In addition to reiterating the other !votes that while it's not perfect (no new skin could be), it is in general an improvement that could be further improved, and likely will be, I just have to point out that this is totally the wrong time to have this. Of course right after you make a change, no matter how much you tried to get all the stakeholders involved in discussing it, there will be people who either didn't know about the change till it was made or believed that it would not be are angry about it* and want to go right back, often casting aspersions on the process.
While, yes, support for going back is running higher here, the margin is far too narrow to suggest that the community is of the carefully considered opinion that a mistake has been made. If we really want a discussion like this to be seen as reflective of genuine community consensus, the right thing for those who have started this RFC to do would be to withdraw it immediately, and promise to hold it a year from now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move"
Oppose I think we should give the new design a chance and see if Wikipedia can reach a broader readership. Disclaimer: I'm a former employee that was involved with the project. Niedzielski (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new design is simpler and easier to read. —Will M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.126.143 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 97.94.126.143 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose, there are bugs, but there are always bugs. It has the potential to be better. I find it easier to read once I get used to the changes. (I have poor vision). I like the sticky ToC and will like the sticky toolbar once it is working properly. If logged in you can use whatever skin you loke. If not logged in... well that is your choice. The research suggests the new format will be better for readers. How many of them have complained? 0.001%? More? Fewer? Has anyone measured Reader opinion? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been no attempt to measure overall reader opinion, which is one of the many criticisms of this whole thing. According to the Vector 2022 page there was quantitative testing done and some evaluation of beta testers, but I have not seen any mention of soliciting qualitative feedback from logged-out users like is common practice on other large web sites. This RfC is the closest thing. Trynn (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, Having the outline available at all times is invaluable and iterating on this design to please all parties should be the only considered way forward. As others have said, making snap judgements to reverse new developments will keep Wikipedia stagnant as there will always be someone to veto any change. Carlinmack (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Vector 2022 vastly improves the site's layout and typographic design. In addition it follows contemporary best practices for making key UI elements available as you scroll down the page. — James M. DowlandFan (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DowlandFan (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — Vector 2022 is definitely an improvement from a navigation standpoint as it utilizes the breadcrumb approach, allowing you to jump in and out of your search train at any point seamlessly.– JD M Babymodel89 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Babymodel89 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — [Vector 2022 reduces visual noise and follows conventions that improve information comprehension and retention. This is a long overdue update for Wikipedia.] 66.108.33.153 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 66.108.33.153 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — The new design, while not perfect, is a substantial improvement for legibility across multiple device sizes and browsers. Strongly oppose rolling back. Reefdog (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Change will always create controversy, but it also provides opportunity for meaningful improvement for a *new and wider set of stakeholders than those who were involved in the establishment of the previous status quo*. I understand that this design was created with community feedback, iteration, and with an intent to continue to improve and update based on additional feedback. Wikipedia needs to continue to evolve in order to stay relevant for a new generation of knowledge seekers. That isn't going to happen without updates like this one. Please keep this and please continue to make progress! slifty (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I build websites for a living and I think rolling back should only be considered in extreme circumstances, like the site won't load. I read through some of the complaints and it was hard to identify anything that couldn't be better addressed by iterating further on the current Vector 2022 skin. I like the shorter line measure (how wide a single line of text goes before it breaks), I think it improves readability of the article text. Dan Phiffer (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dan Phiffer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — I work on a large (top 10) website for a living and and can say that the new design is much more legible and fits best practices for readability and ease of use. I find the new design much easier to read. Change is hard, and of course it will be daunting when a thing we all know and love changes because we're so used to it. That comfort and familiarty is shaken up. But I think with time people will come to appreciate the improvements of the new design and we should listen to how to improve it without rollingback 2600:1700:9770:E000:6C01:C24F:833D:BD78 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2600:1700:9770:E000:6C01:C24F:833D:BD78 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — The new design is a lot more readable, and forward thinking. I'm sure it will continue to improve in the future, but for now this is already a major step forward for people who care about readability. 47.157.79.115 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 47.157.79.115 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — I am just a random everyday user of Wikipedia. The new design is a breath of fresh air. I spend so many hours of my life on this website, the least it can do is have a comfortable line length. That alone makes the reading experience significantly better. But there are also loads of other improvements (sticky sidebar? Love it!). Please don't revert! Samanpwbb (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Samanpwbb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose - I am in favor of the the new design because it is more usable and accessible. 198.115.84.241 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 198.115.84.241 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose - It is much more readable with this design. Neohypatia (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Neohypatia (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — It is clean, easy to follow what's on the page 67.1.30.180 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 67.1.30.180 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose - As other opposers have said, what issues exist in the new design are nothing that can't be fixed with continued iteration. Couldn't agree more. A bit too much whitespace for me right now, but I adore the nav sidebar, and I'm confident the right balance will be struck. 141.156.130.5 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 141.156.130.5 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not the biggest fan of the new redesign, but it seems way too soon to roll it back, especially since there were particular reasons of accessibility behind its implementation. 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.229.50 (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 23.31.229.50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Oppose - The usability of the new skin improves substantially, and brings Wikipedia's design up to contemporary standards. Empirically, it is easier to use; it adheres to accepted display guidelines, which helps improve accessibility; and user adoption indicates that the new skin is well-received by regular users. I oppose rolling back the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.222.171 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.26.222.171 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — I frequently hate redesigns, but Wikipedia's is a huge step forward in usefulness and convenience. Ocdtrekkie (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ocdtrekkie (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — Much more usability and taking steps in the right direction. As a designer I think it's more useful to build on this UI with new feedback rather than rollback to the past. 168.91.204.164 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 168.91.204.164 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — It is a real shame that the typical Wikipedia visitor will not be represented in this vote due to the immense complexity of casting one. The result is that subtle, meticulously-researched, evidence-backed design improvements clearly made in service of casual readers are being challenged by a small group of insiders, likely editors. These are the few folks on Earth who probably even noticed a change at all because the exceedingly spare improvements that have been made are catering to the casual reader who is likely to miss them. Why? Because a) casual readers don't spend a significant portion of their waking life on Wikipedia and b) with this new design, casual readers are far more likely to see what they came here to find in the first place: the content. By neatly tucking away the main navigation, moving contents to a sidebar, demoting the presence of editor tools, emphasizing language options, and giving over nearly all of the page to the content, this design puts the focus on the reader experience and not the editing process. In a world where most everyone is "doing their research" with their thumbs, the real obvious improvement is how well this new design works on mobile where the experience is night and day. Anyone suggesting a rollback to the 2010 era is doing so for purely personal aesthetics and without any deference to a modern reader. If there are any concerns with this new design, critics should learn why certain choices were made. If there are (evidence-backed) improvements to be made to this new design, critics should suggest them and move forward rather than set Wikipedia back a decade and thereby endanger it's relevance (and ultimately existence). I sincerely hope that this vote is purely a performative exercise intended to allow incredibly important contributors a chance to vent their frustrations but will ultimately have no consequence on design decisions. Editors and wonks are essential to Wikipedia's success, but ultimately Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the casual readers. Rfriedman81 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't like the new skin when it was first proposed (too much white space), but I've gotten used to it. It is much better for reading longer and more complex articles. I've also found, somewhat to my surprise, that the graphics-heavy articles I mostly work on usually look better, although sometimes I've had to make layout changes. Curiocurio (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The dynamic table-of-contents and fixed line length contribute to the usability for me significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.128.14 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 155.33.128.14 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
The new design is beautiful maybe slightly unpolished. I'm only here because a guy from work tweeted there was an uprising, so to speak. Like with any product, the unsatisfied users are more likely to comment, and review pages always show strong bias in that direction. It's like asking folks at G-party's convention what they think of D-party's president, if ya know what I mean. And the guy hasn't even started yet2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) from phone, regular editor otherwise — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
@2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2: Do you mind providing a link to this tweet? Thanks. @2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2: IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be justified in suggesting there is response bias going on here, but I daresay the opposite probably happened in the original discussion. It stands to reason that most readers and very possibly most editors were unaware of the vector change or where to raise concerns about it. This would be particularly problematic for non-editors. Really we lack a decisive way to measure consensus on this issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do mind because it's from a friend and I respect his privacy. Are you with the FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The new design has been pretty easy to adapt to and particularly prefer the icon-based headers and the cohesion between different platforms. I do agree that there is a lot of white space that could be better designed. There's far more to gain from improving V2022 instead of rolling back entirely. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I love having the TOC available at all times. There will be iterations but rolling the design back is silly and a waste of good work. Let Wikipedia move forward. Sabriel~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the new default theme seems more readable and usable, and follows the work of designers who are attempting to implement usability best practices (white space, fixed width reading, accessible navigation). But I also oppose using an RfC to address this kind of design preference question after testing and deployment. This is not intended or claimed to be a representative vote. It was quite challenging for me to even find the RfC even once I heard that one was taking place. I would prefer for the community to give feedback on the design principles and process (which I understand was done, including through surveys and RfCs) and then developers to implement the design and run tests and gather feedback on it, rather than rolling back any UI change which any group dislikes. I especially appreciate the options to choose a theme, and the addition of options even on the default theme for those who especially dislike fixed width layouts. Npdoty (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing would ever change or improve if we left every collective design decision up to a crowd consensus. Many of the arguments here supporting a rollback amount to "I don't like it." No given examples of what makes the design inferior, or proof of what works, just cries that it's "poorly made" and that their workflow has been interrupted. Not to mention the repeated claims that a narrower text column is suboptimal, which has been patently untrue for the entire history of publishing. Instead of rolling back these progressive changes, everyone should adapt and perhaps work on improving the look and feel of Vector 2022. Rolling back to the old style is not recommended. There should be an option to revert the theme from preferences, but for the people who don't like having to log in for that, I say deal with it. Down10 ^TACO 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rolling back - Usually logged-out user dusting off a very old account here. Here's my chain of reasoning: Were the problems in Vector that gave rise to the redesign real? Yes. Is it a good faith attempt to address those problems? Yes. Are the claimed problems in V2022 so bad and impossible to mitigate that they far outweigh the problems V2022 was intended to solve? No. On that basis, any problems with V2022 should be solved by progressive in-situ improvements, not by relitigating the decision to implement it. Polonius (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new skin doesn't seem to be a significant disimprovement to me (I very recently switched to it from monobook, mostly because I think it's a good idea to stay in touch with the way readers see articles). But more to the point, in the ways that it's different from the old skins, the differences tend to bring it closer to the mobile appearance. When bringing things closer to mobile gets in the way of the user experience, that's bad, but when it can be done in a way that is less problematic in that respect, I think it's a good thing. I don't think these changes are overall worse (some things are worse, some better) and to the extent that they are they can be tweaked later. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I like the new skin a lot. I find it much easier to navigate and to consume. 170.149.100.107 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 170.149.100.107 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — I think the new interface design should be rolled out for a longer period of time before a rollback is considered. Furthermore, I like the parity with the iOS UX. Overall, my experience using the new design is that is far quicker finding the information I am searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.64.77.163 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 170.64.77.163 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The new layout is significantly better for reading than the old, and reflects modern design principles. It's been over 10 years since such a major change, so it's not surprising that people are against it. -Cliff Gilley (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Found this link via Mashable article and was surprised to see this RFC. Consensus (whatever that means) seems impossible here and this RFC seems like a flawed democracy to me if it's meant to represent the average person - I'm lucky I stumbled across it and even that I almost didn't contribute given the lack of civility and various instances of WP:BLUDGEON going on here by certain users here. It took me a while to get used to the change but I like it. It's cleaner and easier to read and I love the floating table of contents. For those that are complaining about having to register an account to change the skin - the fact you can even do this is a gift.. do you think any other website would even consider keeping an old skin around as an option..? 64.21.209.118 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 64.21.209.118 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
No-one has ever said Vector 2022 needs to be deleted. It just needs to be reverted as an automatic default forced onto everyone that requires an opt-out to get back to the good functional skin that WMF replaced without consensus. Forcing people to sign up to fix the site is not a "gift". As for "would any other website keep old skins", Reddit does exactly that with old.reddit (and again, no-one is asking for deletion of Vector 2022, so you could opt-in to using that if you felt like it). Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to use Reddit as an example, we'd need to make an en.old.wikipedia.org and keep the old skin on there instead EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's more of a technical issue with Reddit than an example to follow where Wikipedia could revert the decision to make Vector 2022 the default, and still leave it around for opt-in usage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — important to continuously improve Wikipedia and look forward to the continued iterations based on more feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2f70:ed50:cc6f:e67:289b:1968 — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2600:1700:2f70:ed50:cc6f:e67:289b:1968 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Oppose go forward, not backward. Issues with menus and text width are being fixed. Uwappa (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly, I hated Vector 2022 when I first tried it last year, but it's grown on me as I've gotten used to it. There are still features I'm still getting used to, and there are definitely elements of the skin that I think are inferior to Vector 2010, but overall I do find reading articles easier with this skin versus Vector 2010. And yes, there are bugs, but there's always going to be bugs when something new rolls out. No UI is ever going to be perfect, and no UI is ever going to make everyone happy. (I do agree that it would be nice if skins or other preferences would be accessible to nonregistered users.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: ^^ I agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.195.189 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 87.180.195.189 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Comment moved to correct location. Was previously placed below Shushugah's !vote. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is important to improve the interface. I believe with continuous iterative improvements it will only get better, more usable, and accessible. Dchlr23 (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dchlr23 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Oppose — Change is good. We learn new things, we adapt, we make improvements. The new interface is more intuitive and accessible. We can't take our significance for granted and should not be afraid to keep changing for the better. Incabell (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new layout is excellent for readability, and barely affects basic editing. It seems to be a sensible new default for a general audience. If you really miss Vector legacy that much, it's trivially easy to switch back, IP users notwithstanding. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — It's more organized and more legible. It's no surprise that people balk at changes to products they have been using for a long time, and even invent their rationale afterwards. I can recall people losing it over aesthetic changes to Instagram and Twitter that had a marginal impact on the experience, especially when compared to how they have decided to surface content and such. Keep the design and keep moving forward! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.36.118 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's an improvement for reading; if you don't find it an improvement for editing, you can turn it off again. The Land (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my comments in the previous RfC supporting deployment of Vector 2022. Net positive for the general reader. Editors always have the choice of going back to classic vector if they don't like it. The skin is responsive which makes it usable on mobile, a big win over Vector-2010. Sticky TOC is another improvement. Being deployed as default on English Wikipedia would hopefully mean improvements such as native support for dark mode would be considered in the future, which are impractical to support for Vector 2010 due to its less modern codebase. – SD0001 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the general reader complaining that Wikipedia is much more difficult to read and is massive amount of them creating accounts just to change back to the old skin??? Furthermore you are yet another person who makes the false assumption that editors only edit and never read. Editors are complaining about readability just as much and only editors being able to chance back is insufficient.Tvx1 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1, there are multiple IP users !voting against and for the change. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new design is handsome and more legible. The sticky TOC is very helpful. Surprised there's pushback. You don't need to be Robert Bringhurst to see that it's an improvement. Gwezerek (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the pages are a lot easier to read. So for not logged in users that's a big benefit. Everybody here who doesn't like it, can easily change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.234.90 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the fixed width feature of the Vector 2022 skin is very useful for creating a uniform reading experience. With a fixed width, all editors are now aware what Wikipedia's readers are going to see by default. One of the problems with the previous user interfaces was that editors were editing the layout with regards only to how they saw the content on their screens. The contributor did not take into consideration how the reader experience would be on different size screens or mobile devices. There were some editors who did not even take the layout out of the article in to consideration. Part of this lack of consideration for the layout is the minimal guidelines and policies concerning layout and the reader's visual experience. Organized versus disorganized layout is what determines professional publishing versus amateur self-publishing. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for the same reason I supported Vector 2022 in the previous RfC. It's a massive improvement in usability and it's extremely well-known that pretty much all redesigns frustrate users in the short term, even when they improve the experience in the longer term. The team has responded to the feedback about the width by adding a preference for registered users and a temporary toggle for unregistered users (which they're working on making persistent). FYI, I work for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have not worked on this redesign. No one has requested or suggested that I participate in this discussion.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply because if you don't like it, you can switch back to the old version (as I have). I get that unregistered editors can't do this, but then there are plenty of other things IPs don't have the ability to do. All the more reason to create an account. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created my account solely so I could use monobook. I still use it to this day. The old Vector is clearly outdated. If you don't like it, switch back like I did. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The improved skin was created with feedback loops and input from the community. It's a clear usability and readability improvement (as user tests has shown). chiborg (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This change is positive and desirable. My only complaint is that it does not go far enough in modernizing the interface. I oppose going back to 2010 not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the people who can't vote here -- the people who have not yet decided to join our community and will only do so once Wikipedia looks as if designers might have worked on it sometime during this millennium. Those who wish to stay in the past can simply change their preferred skin in preferences. Datn (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The improved skin has to stay. Had some issues with initial pre-releases but the new interface has got better and better. Nonetheless, i don't understand why users are not yet(?) allowed to set their own default font sizes, text colors, text width, ... in their user preferences (not a tech guy :) (see Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Reading#Customization_of_text)--Afernand74 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, while logged out as an IP am I a regular user/editor. The new skin is broadly fine, and changes little except for UI consistency across platforms and added more modern-feeling flexibility. People hate change, and will complain loudly when a website's interface is changed (especially if unexpectedly) no matter what the updated design looks like. But this is a functional upgrade and people will get used to it - once they do the benefits will outweigh the brief run of complaints. 193.37.240.168 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose C'mon guys. This is some petty shit right here. Let the new interface breathe and improve. It is still my opinion that casual readers and new editors will benefit from the change, and the data and community at large seem to agree. Support !votes, do what you've been telling supporters of the previous RfC all along: If you don't like it, switch back. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. It's supposed to be a discussion leading to some sort of community consensus, but since that seems impossible it is instead a big joke. Upon reading the previous comments then it should be obvious a lot of the problems with Vector 2022 are not just "I don't like it". I will not repeat them here. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeremy Jeremus !vote specifically means not-vote. See WP:!VOTE Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new skin matches the mobile view that's been around for the same time as Vector, which loses the strange disconnect in appearance between the two. The new table of contents is pretty cool for making navigation around an article faster, and the visual design of popups and the media viewer, the second feature I like and the first I really like, is now consistent with the rest of the page. I happen to think that whitespace is an okay idea in webpages, and anyway an unconstrained page width (withstanding that it's a maximum width, not a constant margin) is lesser suited to certain kinds of displays, for example it looks silly on ultrawide displays. Perhaps it needs a persistent toggle for page width, but that's the only thing I can really think of. 5.151.100.105 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will highlight this Oppose as it clearly identifies the problem that caused me to vote Support - the desktop site is now styled for mobile presentations. This leads to a worse UX for desktop users. The notion that desktop views and mobile vies should match is a poor assumption especially for an endeavor as impactful as Wikipedia. TheMissingMuse (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
opposeNew one is easier to use and better for focusing on contributing and taking in content. I know the design team at Wikimedia Foundation worked with community for years to make the changes work for contributors, and it works well for me. As a dyslexic person, it helps me focus on what I am doing to have more space on the page, and I like the tools and links I am used to using being easy to access but not in my visual field all the time. Another thing... I think it is restricting many people from participating in this discussion because we have to contribute our thoughts via interaction that is from 30 years ago and is not accessible to many people. Why isn't it possible to use the visual editor here like in articles? Using visual editor opens up access and a voice to many more people. Alas. I hope this Wikipedia can become more open to a wider breadth of voices on matters like this.Snapdragon66 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it possible to use the visual editor here like in articles? Using visual editor opens up access and a voice to many more people.
Don't remember where I saw it, but there are technical limitations with the visual editor in certain namespaces, especially when people are signing. You should enable the Reply tool if you haven't; it's very similar to the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Previous RFC wasn't no consensus for such a change, many, if not most, of the opposing views supported the change if some usability changes were done, and they are being rolled out (the right bar was rolled out just this week). Betseg (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the implementation addressed most community concerns, such as the variable width issue. Sandstein 09:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reverting to a theme that is over a decade old is not a solution to anything. The old design was dated. If the new theme were actively harmful to the reading public then that would be a different matter, but there's no actual evidence that this is the case (and plenty of evidence to the contrary). Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on "harmful": (a) Someone in the "support" section said "feels harmful to my already bad sight", so that's a matter of perspective. (b) If "harm" were the standard, then both old and new are equal, as there's no objective assessment of either being more or less harmful than the other. (c) "Harm" isn't the question, it's which UI is better. See "support" section for reasons why many consider the previous one better. You haven't refuted any of their reasons. -- HLachman (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I love the persistent nav on the left hand side. That is often a big gripe both on desktop and mobile where I need to scroll or read through a long TOC before getting to the content. Now I can skip around easier. I also think the controlled line length is needed for accessibility and readability purposes. The old design was reminiscent of craigslist era of web design. It is purely functional but wikipedia needs to evolve as accessibility standard and accessibility consumption changes. It's for the ALL of the people not just the loudest voices here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.80.89 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the new modern feel. I just find it easier to use and navigate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hated Vector2022 when I saw it first, so many carefully formatted articles are now a mess (i.e. List of Grand Slam men's singles champions),..... but, this width (and structure) is the future and is more aligned with ipads/book-widths etc. Given it is therefore a question of when and not if, we should make the change and move on. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you like the fact that some pages, in your own words, now are 'a mess'? Apart from that, I don't see how this new structure would be the future. I have had absolutely no problem using Wikipedia on my ipad with the old vector while the new one is as bad as on my laptop screen. Ove Raul (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Give that Vector2010 is an "out-of-date format", in terms of market standards of layouts/width, are going to face re-formatting these articles in the future regardless. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Out of date'? So this whole thing is just a matter of fashion?! That's weird. The old vector is much better in its functionallity. If the layout/width are going towards a more cramped look, I cannot see any advantages in this and cannot see why this would be somehow inevitable. Ove Raul (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Vector2022 is a major step forward in readability. Legacy vector is still there if you want it. TildizenOne (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, on both your statements. Vector 2022 is not more readable, and the old one is not there 'if you want it', because you have to lon in and opt out of the new skin to get the old skin back. Your comment is actually rude to everyone who are not logged in. Ove Raul (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — A few quick points. When receiving feedback, users who are unhappy with product changes are typically much more likely to provide feedback, meaning that I think the people satisfied with the changes are potentially underrepresented. I see a lot of folks unhappy with constrained text-width (which results in more white space). Studies have shown that limiting text width is much easier to read and easier to parse than just letting text run free. This is about accessibility and making information easily consumable by the most people. This seems to be the backbone of the new version, and its a good, necessary change. If a compromise is to be had, keep this change. If people really don't like the nav on the left, maybe turn it off by default... but that doesn't make much sense since there's space there to be used, there's a reason almost all text-heavy resources have adopted a similar design - it's usable and effective! Vector 2022 is better, I suspect there is just a lot of emotional and historic attachment to the old designs. Show both designs to people who have never used Wikipedia before and I'd bet they'd overwhelmingly prefer the newer version. 24.90.6.143 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)RichardSaunders5000[reply]
Oppose (Apologies for the long comment. Disclaimer: In addition to being a long-time editor, I work for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have not been involved directly in designing/developing the new skin, although have been in a few conversations with the team around scheduling. No one at WMF suggested that I comment here.) I've been using the skin on Commons for several months, and on English Wikipedia since the start of the year. Changing after living with something for over 12 years is always going to provoke some reaction. However I do believe Vector 2022 is a positive development for readers, and editors too, especially with the addition of the Page tools menu. To address a few of the non-IDONTLIKEIT arguments:
"It was designed for mobile"
- Wikipedia has a separate mobile site for smartphones with its own skin. That setup of separate sites hasn't changed, and for a host of reasons isn't likely to change any time soon.
- What is true is that there is better sizing of buttons for touchscreens, but this isn't "mobile" specific: many laptops now have touch as an option, and since iOS 13 iPads load the "desktop" site by default.
Line length/whitespace
- The research on readability improvements is comprehensive and compelling
- The WCAG 2.1 guidance on line length. For those not aware, the WCAG is not some randomer's guidance. It's published by the web's main standards organisation, and has legal force in a number of countries where government websites are required to conform with it.
- Practice: nearly every major text-heavy website you can find limits line length. Use a "reader" mode in your browser or extension to improve readbility? This is one of the things they will do.
- Data from Fandom indicates they see little use of their full-width toggle (less than 1%). I expect we will see similar results here too.
- "I just resize the browser window to get my preferred line length!" Two problems with this: most people aren't aware of the readability improvements from shorter lines, so won't even think to do this. And secondly, even as a confirmed wikiaddict, I don't only use my browser for Wikipedia. Should I be constantly resizing my window as I go from site to site?
- Generally not here, but I have noticed some FUD on social media that the space at the sides is going to be used for adverts. Besides the longstanding commitment to Wikimedia sites having no ads, there are also plentiful examples of other sites with whitespace and no ads
"Mystery meat" icons
- I think this is being overstated. Going left to right on the header: Hamburger menu is very well understood by now. Alerts and notices are kind of mysterious, but they are exactly the same in Legacy Vector (I would really like to see them merged, but that's another skin-agnostic topic). Watchlist is admittedly a bit mysterious, but I'll note that the term "Watchlist" is probably quite meaningless to a new user as well. (Also Watchlist was originally only in the Vector 2022 user menu with a description, I think it was a community request to have the icon in the header directly.)
- Personally I like the addition of icons, as I sometimes find myself doing small edits on other sites where I don't speak the language well. So the icons can provide a nice familiar landmark.
I also think there are some improvements which have been broadly overlooked in the discussion, such as search now including images and descriptions making it easier for readers to find the correct page (shout out to the great work of WikiProject Short descriptions - you should enable the gadget and join us, it's fun!) There are also underlying technical improvements to the skin, which will make it easier to develop new features in future.
Nothing is perfect, and there are some things that I would like to see change in the skin. Notably there should be a more obvious "Log in" link, and the TOC could be refined for example in terms of what levels it shows. I also wouldn't mind some more visual distinction between parts of the page (as in phab:T259240) However none of this is even remotely worth a full rollback, which would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
-- the wub "?!" 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been quotes from the developers brought up elsewhere in this discussion indicating that one of the design guidelines was to bring the desktop design closer to mobile design standards. So, yes, "It was designed for mobile" (even though there already is a mobile-specific site). Regarding line length and Fandom, was there any data supplied about user discoverability of that toggle? I've regularly used one particular Fandom wiki for over a decade and literally had no idea that a full-width toggle even existed until I read your comment. Discoverability of any full-width toggle is a serious problem, which I pointed out in one of my comments elsewhere in this discussion.
I also want to respond to the whole "designers/research has shown limited line-length is better" thing that is being brought up again and again by opponents of a roll-back. One of the big appeals (to me, anyway) of using a desktop instead of something like a phone or tablet is the fact that the desktop paradigm conforms to individual preference. If I want limited line length, I have a way to do that. If I want to have a dozen browser windows tiled on my screen, I can do that. If I want to have a Wikipedia article open in a narrow window so that I can have a spreadsheet and a notepad open next to it, I can do that (and I frequently do). Flexibility is the entire point of using a desktop. The argument that we need limited line-length because "research shows it's better" runs completely counter to that flexibility. I get a definite sense of "we know better than you, so just deal with it" from this roll-out and from many of the oppose comments. I, for one, thought that Wikipedia's mission and policies were supposed to be against that sort of thing. Trynn (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trynn, There have been quotes from the developers brought up elsewhere in this discussion indicating that one of the design guidelines was to bring the desktop design closer to mobile design standards.^{[citation needed]} where?
Perhaps you can link to an essay/guideline/policy against it? — Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A desktop design should be a desktop design, not a mobile design. If I wanted a mobile design, I'd browse Wikipedia on my phone. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I be constantly resizing my window as I go from site to site? – Of course not (and nor should you have to create an account or download an extension on every site for the same control) but if you actually believe that a particular line width is the best for your reading experience, why on earth would you need to? It seems to me that any need to contantly adjust when going from site to site can only be the result of overbearing web design, which v22 is a clear example of.
Most people aren't aware of the readability improvements from shorter lines ...so I guess it's your duty as a web developer to take their ability to read in a certain way away from them, for their own good, of course? I find this attitude very worrying.
Data from Fandom indicates they see little use of their full-width toggle (less than 1%). I expect we will see similar results here too. I read ~~Wikia~~ Fandom fairly often. I have long disliked it's design and am happy to learn there's a way to undo the max width. I must have missed it all this time because it uses the same mystery meat icon as v22 does.
The WCAG states that a mechanism [must be] available to achieve the following: [...] Width is no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK). It seems to me that this requirement is automatically fulfilled by the native mechanism (window resizing) unless the site has styling that obstructs this method. In any case, it is possible to provide a non-native mechanism for this within v10 without forcing it on users by default. small jars tc 17:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but this isn't mobile" - Is. This design wastes a lot of screen space and hides options in TINY drop-down menus, forcing extra clicks and extenging time to complete tasks. Such a solution does make sense only on mobile with small screens.
Whoever you are (please sign your comments), how would wasting whitespace make sense on small screens where space is critical?Aaron Liu (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vector2022 is a big improvement in readability of articles, and the changes in the past couple weeks (namely that it's sticky for hiding away toolbars in editing mode but having them present in reading mode) have removed any large issues I had. There are still improvements that could be made around colors and magic icons, but on the whole it's a major improvement. --PresN 01:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll admit: I recoiled when the change was first introduced. That having been said, I have slowly warmed up to V22. I quite enjoy having the ability of starting a search without having to scroll back up the page. There are a couple of rough edges (I have noticed the ToC won't stay in the top bar like I want it to and the default limited width is atrocious) but I highly doubt that V10 came out the gate in the state it is in now. Communication around this change could have been clearer. I believe that perhaps we could implement a preferences menu for logged-out users to choose cosmetic and other trivial settings. —Alpaca the Wizard (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have been using V22 for a couple of months, after knowing that WMF intended to push for V22 to be set as the default skin for everyone, to see how it will affect the reading and writing experience. The initial phase was one of a typical revoltion of the changes, but after getting used to the massive amount of changes, I can understand why the changes are warranted... andecedotally. That being said, it is obvious that the development for the skin is not dead upon release. There are bugs that were previously undiscovered, but now have been discovered, and squashed. There are features to be improved, re-instate, or released. And all these have been ongoing before and after the release. I see V22 as an improvement for reader's experience, neutral for editor's, but as an advanced user, I will get by and adapt to the changes as necessary. – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you have used V22 'for a couple of months' when it is less than a month old? Ove Raul (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ove Raul: It's been around for quite some time. I've used it for roughly more than half a year. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ove Raul going by the creation of my personal vector-2022.css , I have been using it since at least from June 2022 onwards. This skin isn't new on enwiki, and was enabled on here, among many other possible reasons, to facilitate multiple discussions on whether to deploy Vector 2022 as the default skin. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose rolling back instead improve the new skin Broken Segue 20:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rolling back. Deploying big software changes in a diverse environment (different setups, user scripts, etc) always comes with some friction, but the way to go is fixing the remaining issues, learning for the next iteration, and move on. If someone cannot stand the new skin, the good news is that Wikipedia is one of the last few major websites that officially provides the ability to switch skins. MarioGom (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Look, I don't like this change. I don't like the way this change was communicated, or executed. At this point, you can't put the horse back in the barn. Further unwelcome screwing with people's settings / preferences is just going to draw more ire. At this point, those that want the new skin have it. Those that don't - we've rolled it back. All I want is for WMF to do a better job at communicating next time. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything can be reversed. Look at Microsoft, which released Windows 8 with Modern UI, believing that they could convince desktop owners to work in an environment optimized for mobile devices. Then for several years they convinced everyone that "this is modernity, changes are inevitable, and that we whine because we can't get used to it". And then ... they released Windows 10, withdrawing most of the "improvements" ow Win8. Freja Draco (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10 also uses Modern UI. The Windows 8 elements such as the fullscreen start menu are still there just in tablet mode. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"just in tablet mode" Yes, in tablet monde it may make sense, but non on a PC, so they stopped enforcing destkotp users to use it too. And now MS no longer uses "Modern UI" but "Fluent design" which has abandoned many concepts of the previous interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freja Draco (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strongest possible if it matters. Allow me to recapitulate: (a) Registered users can opt out of using 2022, and if they are anything like the Earthlings of Other Wikipedias, some 13 per cent will and 87 per cent will not. So registered users are good. (b) It looks like Unregistered users are about to get their permanent full-width toggle, and if they are not too different from fandom users, 0.1 per cent will actually use the toggle and 99.9 per cent will not. We could have waited for our own usage data as this is a work in progress, so I dare say that the new request for comments was a bit hurried. The new skin was needed because our devices and how we access Wikipedia have changed, and the new skin seems to be a good base for further improvements. I will be disappointed if the decision is reversed, in which case I'm hoping someone will, in a month or two, start a new request to bring back Vector 2022. 50.239.155.90 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a Registered users can opt in using 2022. 7 percent don't go back to previous skin And do any of them know that it's even possible? For years I didn't know that I could go back to monobook, I wrote my own local CSS styles to bring the look of vector 2010 to monobook, so I could do something quite technically advanced, and at the same time I never found out that it can be changed in skin preferences. The new skin was needed because our devices and how we access Wikipedia have changed But for new, mobile users we have a mobile version of Wikipedia. And users of desttops still use desktos and access Wikipedia on desktops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freja Draco (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I do believe it's been said multiple times that the link to opt out is in the side bar. It's also in user preferences. Now you're telling me it was easier for you to find and edit your css than to find your user prefs? Hard to buy that one. As for who should opt in: you do not in 2023 advertise your 2011 product model, do you? 50.239.155.90 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's been said multiple times here that non-logged users and IP editors do not have any chance to opt-out (no that option in the side bar at all; please try to logout by yourself), but to tweak the URL by appending «?useskin=vector» to it. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strongest possible— People hate change. This was very classic at Twitter. Anytime we changed anything, there would be an outpour of negative feedback. This would mostly dissipate after the initial launch, when the novelty of something new ended and people just began to use it as it was meant to be used. My advice would be to stick with it, trust instincts and data. Neigh sayers are usually the vocal minority, and will adapt. On the menu, I think one thing that isn't great about this is how disassociated that side menu is from the content. In the previous design, contents was directly related to the article, and the side was for link unrelated to the article. Some simple visual design shifts could help make them feel like one unit.Ruccis (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely with your view that "People hate change [...] Anytime we changed anything, there would be an outpour of negative feedback. This would mostly dissipate after the initial launch [...] Neigh sayers are usually the vocal minority, and will adapt"; this is quite stereotypical (and I see it has been repeated in many opposing comments) and disrespectful of critical views, which in many cases are very thoughtful considerations. I agree on "how disassociated that side menu is from the content"; please see #Bring back the TOC. Æo (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think they dislike the entire sidebar TOC, they appear to only dislike the contrast between it and the rest of the sidebar Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Often people who like a specific change improperly expand their argument as being pro-change in general. So user's Ruccis comment is not surprizing. The constant reiteration of the design as "new" is a bit grating though. It is conceivable that some people do not see Vector 2022 as new at all. One may just see it as different. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: it was weird to begin with, but I've mostly got used to it after a couple of days and I'll probably have no problem with it in a couple of weeks or so, which is what has happened with other website design changes, including Twitter and Facebook, but also Wikipedia itself when it changed from Monobook. Change is a necessary way of going forward; could you still imagine if we had Standard in 2023? Sceptre (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the most important improvement is the width restriction. As screens get wider, readability of articles gets worse and worse (after all, people reading articles is Wikipedia's primary mission). The amount of eye movement needed is very tiring. I've been following the new skin for months and have admired its steady improvement. I wish the proposal to slightly darken the side margins had won out, though: again, this would help the readability of the main text. Some of the opposition (for sure, not all) comes from the inevitable shock of anything new; please give it a chance. David Brooks (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose: Per above, there are improvements with the new skin. However, those issues can just be quickly addressed, but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and I feel like the right way moving forward is to address those issues, but going back to a previous version just because of problems that do not critically affect the skin as a whole just does not feel like the right way moving forward. Personally I've been using it for more than 6 months now, and I got used to it very quickly and there is nothing too inconvenient to me. User3749 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: My first instinct was that I didn't like this. But I stopped and asked myself whether maybe it was just unfamiliarity. I use two computers, so I left one logged in (this one) and switched it back to the 2010 skin, and one logged out to use the IP view of the 2022 skin. Once I figured out where things were, I started to like the new one. Switching to the computer with 2010 skin, I started to get annoyed that I had to keep scrolling all the way up to get to the TOC. There's also the fact that the 2022 skin has a Top link in the left-column TOC - and that saves me lots of scrolling generally. I really like the left-column TOC. Yes, there are teething problems... but babies and bathwater and all that. Overall, I think the new skin is better for general reading (and that represents the vast majority of Wikipedia users, not the vocal few), and I'm starting to prefer it for WP-space stuff too. I think the devs did a good job on this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the change on the French Wikipedia a while ago and I thought: oh, this feels nice. It may take a few days to adjust, as with many other re-designs, but I'd never go back. I use my school-provided laptop at work, so I'm mostly logged out. I sometimes also use a desktop computer at home and a tablet for commuting. I kept switching to a slightly less functional mobile site because the old desktop skin was a nightmare to use on the tablet. However, with the new skin (Vector 22), I can use all desktop capabilities on my tablet, and the overall experience is great because there is no longer any confusion about where things are when I am logged out or logged in, whether I am on my tablet, laptop or desktop.SoupePrimordiale (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PresN and others. Almost all of my issues with this skin have been fixed in some way or given a toggle, and the new tools are a big boon to have. I will never not need having a sticky TOC in my life. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do see Vector 2022 as progress and necessary progress. I agree, make fixes to it, I want an inline ToC under the intro back specifically, but reverting to 2010 as the default is a very bad idea that I think will hamper the long term outlook of the site that has been talking about its issues attracting younger editors for over a decade now. Anyway, desktop browsing is slowly becoming a niche market.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 03:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since logged in editors like myself can switch back to 2010, I do not think a rollback is necessary. Reader experience should be the number one consideration, and there have already been studies, surveys, etc. supporting this change from that perspective. It might not please everyone, but I think it makes sense. I prefer editing in 2010, but even when I am not logged in, the new skin seems easy to get used to. Many have already said it, but the main point in its favor for readers is the sticky TOC. The line length is subjective I guess? But there is good empirical evidence showing it makes reading easier. Once readers adjust to the new format, it will likely be seen as a step forward. Some have decried it as an attempt to make it mobile friendly. I read this critique before even trying the new skin and really expected something much worse than it ended up being. I was relieved to see that buttons are still desktop size, and very little is changed just to make it appear slicker or more uniform just for the sake of aesthetics.--MattMauler (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing is unfixable and the new skin should be kept, though I would like to have the old TOC back and the new TOC only appear when I scroll further down. I don't know if that is possible but it's not a deal breaker for me. I do like the line length limit, which should be even less than the one currently set; nevertheless,many pictures and info boxes help keep the length below 150 ch/l and make reading a lot more enjoyable. I'd like to see more constructivism on the opposite side. The owner of this house has always been the one to choose the colors of the walls, and I bet many were unsatisfied with the skin they now want back. Can't think of any change that would get 100% approval, but I'm sure this is something we can use to build a better site for all. 2604:CA00:17B:422:0:0:62:20DD (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Recently, I discovered the Citizen skin, which is available on encyc.org. Vector 2022 could take some cues from it: there are fewer horizontal lines, its design is responsive as well, its TOC is expanded and always visible, it has a customizable page width, font size and dark theme toggle. The pages do not shift left or right depending on whether or not the sidebar is collapsed. Vector 2022 is my favorite Wikipedia skin by far, therefore I oppose the rollback, but it still needs some work Aprovar (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think citizen looks way too simplified and casual. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Aaron Liu I'm only saying that Citizen has some cool features, and because the site is using our Vector by default, those features should - I'm guessing - be possible on Wikipedia as well. Not saying the whole look and feel should be copied. Aprovar (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My primary issue was the non-stickiness of the width toggle, but stickiness has been implemented, plus the toggle becomes available at lower browser widths. I now dub the new skin "good enough". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm only a reader since I don't have time to edit. I'm here because my husband told me about the "insurrection". He's a regular Wikipedian, football dpt, but he's not affected as he uses some dinosaur-era skin. I commented the other day how the new skin had some lovely features – the smart table of contents, the persistent top bar, and the narrower text column makes many pages look less like a scrapbook and more like encyclopedia. DESIGN MATTERS! It'd be bad to lose the new features and I thought I should leave my comment, even though I wouldn't have known where had he not told me... I apologize if I'm not supposed to vote. Thank you, keep the good work 209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These are WP:!VOTEs. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are fine, you've laid out reasons and didn't just voice approval. Cessaune [talk] 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vector 2022 is massively better for readers as the new default, and the WMF spent months working with the community to continually update the skin to respond to feedback, which I believe they'll keep doing. If anyone doesn't personally like it, then they can choose a different skin, but this is clearly better as a modern design focused on bringing the encyclopedic content to the forefront. Steven Walling • talk 22:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Massively better? In what way (this is a serious question)? Cessaune [talk] 02:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original RFC has a section with a summary and links to the results from the extensive testing done on the new skin vs the old skin. We know objectively that it makes articles easier to navigate for readers, which are the primary audience of a default skin since most of them aren't logged in. This makes sense, considering that things like a sticky header and TOC are basic, common sense modern web design. Steven Walling • talk 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about WP:ACCESSIBILITY, for example? We can't assume that everyone who has a disability is logged in. I don't like the primary audience argument. We should be considering all groups evenly IMO, given that editors, daily readers, people with disabilities etc. are a non-insignificant minority. Cessaune [talk] 18:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider a sticky header an improvement. I know it became popular, but it is horrible. It wastes your screen space all the time with something that is rarely needed. Sites without it, where you just scroll to the top are way better. But it is new, so everyone has to have it these days. Tarkalak (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is searching to other articles, editing articles, going to the talk page, viewing history and going to your user pages and preferences rarely needed? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that it objectively makes articles easier to navigate for users; in earlier discussions I explored issue with their methodology, and the WMF has deceptively presented results of their analysis to make the best case for Vector2022, most significantly regarding a user experience survey where they claimed The majority of respondents reported that the new experience is easier to use or that the new and old experience are equally easy to use. The statement was true, but incredibly misleading; 60 users found Vector 2010 easier to use, 49 found Vector 2010 and Vector 2022 equally easy to use, and just 37 found Vector 2022 easier to use. BilledMammal (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's shady. That's really bad. Cessaune [talk] 18:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surveys are not what I was referring to as objective analysis, in fact they're the exact opposite. Surveys and RFCs like this ask people their subjective opinions and feelings. The objective results are things like how randomized tests showed that among readers, section navigation increased by 50% with the new TOC and searches increased by 30%. In short, there are huge increases in the efficiency and speed at which people are able to find information on Wikipedia, which is our primary goal with a default skin. Steven Walling • talk 19:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surveys are not objective, but how the WMF presented the results of the survey shows that we cannot trust the WMF to present objective analysis in a neutral manner, or to not omit objective analysis that supports Vector 2010 over Vector 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"navigation increased by 50% with the new TOC" But does that mean Wikipedia is getting more useful? If the new skin displays 1/2 or 1/3 of what was visible with the old skin on the screen, then it is logical that users will use the navigation tools more often. And it is logical that navigating the articles becomes more laborious for them. Freja Draco (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The survey was talking about jumping between sections (Including scrolling between them in v10), not just scrolling length. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? It is massively worst. If anyone likes it they can switch to it on the settings, but the old one should be default. I made an account to switch back. Tarkalak (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like many, I was quite surprised and somewhat annoyed when this was rolled out in January. While obviously assuming good faith in the WMF, I don't think the process was handled that well - the watchlist notice about the RFC was only up for a week before being removed for some reason, and then the final result was odd given a numerical majority against changing, with sound rationales. At the very least the discussion should have resulted in no consensus, and maybe even consensus against. But that's water under the bridge now; the new look has been out for a month already, I've been using it since the roll out, and to be honest I've grown used to it in that time. Reading in a narrower box actually does seem easier, and now that the white space at left and right is being utilised for useful thing, it's quite alright (I'd appreciated a few more editor buttons on the right bar though, such as "Contributions" and "Sandbox"). My only request really is to please bring a modified version of Vector 2022 to the mobile space, its loading a whole page and having all the editor buttons available make it so much better than the terrible mobile interface currently in use, which I never use. (I really don't think it's helpful for editors to use a completely different skin from our readers, that just means we're not optimizing our output for their experience). — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely curious what you mean when you say "now that the white space at left and right is being utilised for useful thing, it's quite alright". Do you not see the massive amount of dead whitespace on the left and right now? I just checked the Vector2022 preview again, and it still fills at least a third of my screen with blank space on either side. What utilization has supposedly been done? Trynn (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the "WMF" would never get perfect consensus anyway. I like the changes and plenty of people don't mind. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've been using V22 for a while and have no substantial issues with it. I think we should trust the research that has been done showing that the changes are positive overall. For full disclosure I work at the WMF but have not been involved in this project and was not asked to vote. Sam Walton (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although not perfect, I believe V22 is still a substantial improvement on the previous skin. — The Anome (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – if you don't like the new layout, just don't use it. – Teratix ₵ 10:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true for registered users, but IP users can only change layouts by installing a third-party browser extensions, or adding text to the URL each time they load a page. Daß Wölf 11:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...or get an account. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an IP user, getting an account makes you, well, not an IP user, so your logic isn't sound. Secondly, not everyone has access to an account everywhere they are (workplaces, schools, libraries sometimes ban people from creating/using accounts, it's happened to me). Third, most can use whatever skin they want. That's not the issue. The issue is that WMF is making choices that many think are not net positive but net negative changes, and WMF is making those decisions while disregarding th eopinions of their editors. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, you have to agree that WMF isn't being straightforward or reasonable at all given the previous RfC (WP:CONEXEMPT, I know, but we're asking something pretty reasonable). Cessaune [talk] 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cessaune, yes, I agree that the rollout has been poorly handled. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dislike the new skin, and I dislike the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I note its similarity to Wikiwand. For years I have been seeing people recommend Wikiwand because of the "better design" than Wikipedia. In my opinion it is really disastrous that people using the content on this site are getting it through a clone website with unknown changes + tracking + advertisements. We can't go back to the old skin if that was part of the problem. NotBartEhrman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The skin should be designed with the best interests of the readers in mind, not what the editors think should happen. If the sentiment of the readers is genuinely that this is a bad change, only then should the change be rolled back. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides my earlier comment on CONEXCEPT, this is the better skin, especially after the adjustments the WMF has been making. 3 of my 4 comments from the deployment RFC remain pertinent; see support 147 therein. Izno (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This entire "backlash" is extremely predictable. There is always a passionate resistance to UI changes. Having a RfC to decide UI changes seems like a poor way to improving the site readability. I adopted the new look months before the official change and it's a visual improvement. Change like this is never going to be 100% popular and this seems like a pure case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This change has been made. Please move on to something that's a more productive use of time. Nemov (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Nemov above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It takes some getting used to, but it is an improvement. I also believe this skin makes Wikipedia more attractive to more people. Dajasj (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is an improvement that more improvements can be built upon, as it follows readability and accessibility guidelines, as it simply looks better, focusing on the text rather than having tons of useless wikigeek links on the side, as it is default skin on many, many other wikipediae, as majority of users chose to stick with the newest version, despite the loud few claiming it's bad and they wouldn't, as request for comment polling is inherently biased, as some would always be dissatisfied with whatever comes out from the foundation's kitchen and when their old sine qua nons are satisfied, they'll add a few more, et cetera, et cetera 12.51.135.28 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
focusing on the text rather than having tons of useless wikigeek links on the side – Would we have that text in the first place without "wikigeeks"? The tools for improving Wikipedia should be exposed to every reader. Your comment only serves to demonstrate that v22 promotes a wikiconsumerist attitude and discourages boldness. small jars tc 15:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as an editor I'm still regularly annoyed by the fact that my tools aren't where I expect them to be (I've found moving tools to the right sidebar helps), but as a reader the difference for me is night and day. If it were up to me the display would be two columns and a serif font (I've always found Arial an extremely difficult font to read, since l, h, b and d are so hard to distinguish) but the new skin makes a world of difference. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, echoing comments from Rhododendrites, Steven Walling, Nemov and 12.51.135.28 above. The Foundation literally pays people to be subject-area experts in user-interface design, accessibility and so on; with a few exceptions, most editors are not subject-matter experts. We would do well to remember that our own experiences are not universal — also, especially for those of us who have been here for almost all of the 20+ years of the English Wikipedia, change is hard and finding something familiar become something unfamiliar is always uncomfortable. I'm sure there are changes that the Foundation staff could make that might address some users' concerns (providing a toggle or prefs setting to remove the width constraint for users who prefer fullscreen content, for example) and it's really good to see the WMF Product & Tech teams engaging in this discussion to improve the experience without losing the benefits brought by the new skin. If we do have to roll back to Vector 2010, I would strongly prefer that this be for logged-in users only, perhaps running banners for logged-out users to let them know how to create an account if they would prefer a different skin, if the community feels it important that logged-out users have the option to use the older skin. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: An aside for Guettarda: I use my User CSS to change the default font to Source Sans Pro, which you can import from Google Fonts. I do a lot more in my User CSS, so there's lot of extra stuff there too, but I'd be happy to walk you through it, if CSS isn't something you know how to do.)
Oppose - change is hard, but sometimes necessary. Renata•3 21:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As a college student, I have spent the past few months asking dozens of my peers outside the community for their thoughts on the redesign of such a major online source. These students, who have largely grown up using the encyclopedia's articles, overwhelmingly indicate an approval of the modern appearance of the new Vector skin. If Wikipedia suddenly reverted to Vector 2010, it would showcase internal dysfunction. Even if I personally favor the current default page width, that seems far more reasonable to discusss in terms of honing the site's design, rather than flip-flopping. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very reluctant Oppose. I personally hate the new skin, and switched back to Vector 2010 literally the first chance I got. But I cannot deny that Vector 2010 is... well, very 2010. Wikipedia should evolve with the times, content wise but also in terms of UI and looks. And so I'd rather have the unfortunate instance of a questionable rollout being kept as is, than the alternative. Plus, I disagree with @HAL333:'s central premise that the initial discussion had no consensus, when it clearly closed in favour of Vector 2022, but with reservations. I also disagree with their assertion that editors ~~are~~ aren't a small fraction of Wikipedia userbase, that assertion seems patently false. Lastly, this might be one of the few places I'd claim to be actually out of the English Wikipedia community's purview here. The readerbase of Wikipedia is far larger than the editor-base, and a skin primarily focused on readability being pushed out as an opt-out seems to be possibly even out of the community's scope. Perhaps with a different person starting the RFC with stronger arguments, I'd be more swayed, but as it stands from my cursory readings and understanding of this issue, I'm growing more and more opposed as I keep reading. Soni (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"But I cannot deny that Vector 2010 is... well, very 2010. Wikipedia should evolve with the times, content wise but also in terms of UI and looks." I personally find the mobile-esque V22 to be more awkward and clumsy than V10, which in turn is wieldy and sleek. Evolution is not always in the right direction, and may sometimes turn out to be an involution. Æo (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best oppose arguments I've read yet, and I've read almost all of them. Good write-up, even though I support rollback. Cessaune [talk] 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will take several perspectives on this matter:
1) I believe, for the most part, that the old Vector Skin (2010) is best suited for editing. What I mean is that, and if I remember correctly, I have always felt that this skin in Wikipedia looked quite unwelcoming to my eyes, insofar as needing to read humongous lines that immediately made my mind, and my eyes, tired. Most people do not enjoy reading a line that is the width of your screen (especially the elderly!), and in today's world, these screens are massive, which means that there are massive lines to keep up with. From the perspective of the brain, this is quite tiresome, especially when things that we read today are generally, in physical form, limited to a book size, or in other instances, inside objects that could be relatively large but at a distance from us that is significant (i.e. a blackboard in a University of school setting, or an advert somewhere in the road). Meaning, we are used to having snippets of information presented at us, and in a reasonable way that can be digested; the Wikipedia legacy skin is really maybe one of the only generalized examples in the world, where we (most readers, that is) were forced to read something that was relatively unnatural to the general way of consuming text (which, could also be good if you think of it as an example that brings forth something different - but how good and natural is that differential for something that is an encyclopedic source of content, that is sometimes very important in the lives of those that use it; shouldn't it flow with the rest the variables in our lives?). Now, this has consequences: your mind treats the experience differently, because it is not the same experience as usual, and if the skin layout is also somewhat unnatural (which, honestly, it is - it is quite square, linear, and feels like a program, rather than something smooth and welcoming, and relatable in the outside world), then your mind is also inputting the information being read alongside these visual and intuitive cues that can either be consciously worked with (for some, or many of us), or just left in the subconscious within the reading experience. Note that it could also be positive to have this very male, linear experience, where what you read is what you need to read sort of experience, and it gets ingested that way. Personally, I do not like it as much overall, because it is usually a lot to take in. Some people prefer that; for me, I like the new skin as a general experience because it is more respectful to my eyes, and I can take in less and focus more on what is immediately in front, and I can relate it to a book experience and bring all of that joy in as well, usually. The Legacy Vector is so different from my own general reading experience that I have to turn on a a bit of a different reading behavior mechanism. And this can be exhausting at times, actually. So that is why I prefer the new Vector Skin 2022, from a psychological point of view.
2) From a perspective of change: Change is good, it lets your mind rest and move onto something new, while taking some of the old with you. The new skin doesn't have to be The Skin for the next 35 years, we can possibly make amends and bring new changes (like remove a bit some of the white space, and find more of a middle ground - I find that idea fascinating). But the importance of turning the page on something as big as Wikipedia is actually needed right now. People want change, people want space, people need space. We're moving in a direction where we are not focusing so much on everything being tight together and feel forcefull, but more relaxed, and respectful of one's senses. I think this new Vector skin is that. I really enjoy reading with it, it's a much smoother experience, and brings forth some feminine qualities that were really absent from the previous Skin. I don't have a source for this in front of me, however the more your peripheral vision is unaffected by visual stimuli, the more your focal vision is able to focus. In the reading experience, one moves and reads through the lines, and tracks past visual cues with incoming expected cues, as with any visual experience. It is logical, imo, that if we have less on the periphery, then we will be able to focus more on the immediate front text, so to speak (though, the converse could be true, if I have plenty of text in a line, I might be able to anchor my reading more within that line; but, again, it depends on how much we can handle and how used to these long lines we are). Again, change, is really, really important. And something as important as Wikipedia making a change like this also stimulates other changes in other industries and general collective aspects of life as a whole - there is a greater sense of "things are moving on here, let's also be part of this." Stagnancy is usually the primary contributor of decay, and having change of this magnitude is refreshing, welcoming, and permits the mind to breathe fresh air. I totally support keeping this Vector 2022 skin as our default skin.
3) Also, worth mentioning, that this skin unites us with the greater global Wikipedia, which is great and permits flow between languages of a common article if a reader desires.
Note: I do think we can reduce the whitespacing some, at least, while still maintaining this white space that is a focus of the new skin; I think it is great. Thank you to everyone that was involved in producing it, and working it, and everyone involved in this discussion (for support and oppose, and neutral and alterante ); whichever the outcome, we will have both skins as preferences we can choose from. Our real next effort is how to more effectively incorporate readers as editors, I think. Maybe this skin will help, that would be an interesting metric to observe. Best regards. Radlrb (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC), last updated 12:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. The commentary to Radlrb's vote had reached an excessive length and was therefore moved to the discussions' subpage: /Discussion#Commentary to Radlrb's oppose !vote.--Æo (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support V22. It seems significantly more maintainable, sane in design and customizable. This would also be easier to make into a dark skin. Please adopt Zebra styling change and make it the main skin! MathAfrique (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. As a (younger and more tech-savvy?) user who's been using the skin for more than half a year, I've gotten used to it at this point. The whitespace margin issues that are plaguing many others I've solved for myself by enlarging text for the domain, and the only real gripe that I have at this point is not having a persistent hidden table of contents across pages, which is being tracked on Phabricator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enlarging text size was the solution I also implemented. Personally I've always been a fan of the skin. Moxy- 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a checkbox in the prefs that really fixes it. Andre🚐 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was made aware of it a while back, though at a much later date than my own fix. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As much as I don't like the new skin, it's not like I can't change back to Vector 2010 (and I did just that). However, I'll echo other people who say that if single-purpose accounts are created for the sole purpose of changing back to an older skin, then the design might be to reconsider. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean SPAs that don't edit? That's the only metric I think would be worth considering - I noticed what looked like a couple SPAs that seemed like they were just made to vote/badger in this discussion, something I can't imagine as being representative of average readers. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're seeing a new breed of zero-purpose accounts (ZPA?) such as Redesign is utterly awful and IJustCreatedAccountBecauseOfThis1diocy‎ which were set up to comment on the new design and/or to allow use of Special:Preferences. Technically they're not here to build an encyclopedia but, as they have legitimate reasons for being here and do no harm, I hope we can invoke IAR on that one. Some of them may even go on to become valued regular editors, though possibly under a different username. Certes (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my own case, I'm here to read articles. Vector2022 actively gets in the way of that. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I created this account specifically so I could view Wikipedia in Vector 2010. I may go on to do some occasional editing afterward now that my interest has been piqued. I plan on either creating a new account or changing my username if possible once these discussions are over. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that changes that completely disregard the majority of people who come here (simply to read, instead of read and edit) is a bad choice no matter how you look at it. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as one of those. I made an account solely to save my preference to get rid of the fixed-width thing. I didn't even have time to explore the other changes, I was just closing wikipedia because it looked like a mobile site. I made an account because my experience as a reader took a big step backwards. Newuiawful (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader who did not use to edit Wikipedia until this day, found themself so horrified by the new skin that they had to create an account after all just to be able to switch skins and make a statement with their usernames, to lobby against the changes made. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth Yes, that's what I meant. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I changed to Vector2022 few days ago and it is somewhat mixed experience. There are things I like (table of contents on the left), things I don't like (watchlist etc. buried behind icons) and things I don't care (whitespace - I prefer smaller paragraph width anyway). That is on 2560x1440 display with 150 % UI scaling. My other devices use lower screen resolution (1366x768 on notebook and 1280x1024 on Pegasos 2) and my intention is to thoroughly test Vector2022 with these computers during weekend. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I tested Vector2022 with my other computers and results are - yet again - mixed.
1) The Good: Using new skin on notebook (1366x768, 110 % text size in Firefox) is definitely a better experience than older Vector (tested the same pages side by side with useskin). Using new table of contents really helps (no need to return to the top), especially with longer articles. Paragraph width is shorter than in older Vector, but that a plus for someone, who has problems to read a wider text. Only issue is with the selection of language versions - I would prefer a simple ABC list, not sorting by region.
2) The Not So Good: Another device I used for my test is nearly 20 years old Pegasos 2 with Odyssey webbrowser based on an older Webkit engine. Original Vector works well with this setup, which is sadly not the case with Vector2022. Some of the new features aren't displayed at all (floating search menu, table of contents), or don't work as intended (language version selection). Basic viewing and editing is OK. Sure, 99.99 % of Wikipedia editors/readers use state of the art devices, so this issue is probably not that important.
Conclusion: Vector 2022 works well with screens of various size and offers many nice features with few minor issues. It is obviously intended for newer webbrowsers, so it will be really hard choice for me, wich skin to select as default. Pavlor (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted/Neutral I don't know how I feel about this in all honesty. On the one hand, I got used to Vector 2022 after a bit and didn't really mind it. However on the other hand there appears to be major backlash to this change (yes it might take a bit for people to get used to it but we don't know that) and a general opposition from the community. So I'm not entirely sure. Wikipedia is supposed to be sort of community based, however if the community doesn't like it then should we ignore them because statistics say the new skin is better or should we listen to them? I might add to this !vote later on as I compose my thoughts more on this matter, but for now this is how I feel. ― Blaze WolfTalk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I agree with users arguing that changes to user interfaces are most often badly received yet absolutely necessary, and I do think that some of the changes are improvements and that asking for further upgrades to Vector 2022 is the way to go.
However, I also believe that limiting the line width and thus text density would be detrimental for an encyclopedia (as opposed to others text types in which limited line width is commonly used, to which the research cited seems to be confined), because it makes 'looking up things' much harder (and 'looking up' benefits from being able to see more text and structural elements at once; more on that in my !vote on Question 2 below).
If unlimited line width would be the default for unregistered users (about whom anything !voted for or against in this RfC should be) in Vector 2022, I would strongly oppose rolling back to legacy Vector. However, if the limited line width must be a part of Vector 2022's default configuration, I think unregistered readers would be better served by legacy Vector, however outdated it may be. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Sooner or later, the change had to be coming, it has been over a decade now. However, I would like the devs to be responsive to the community concerns. Many do not like the wasted spaces on the right. Why can't we give every user the ability to extend content. Devs say it's for improved readability, but it so happens that every person is different from every other person. Why not allow people to make changes as they see fit, in the year 2023, when literally every site is so much customisable? zhwiki used to provide js that collapsed the sidebar on vector legacy, providing more content area for those who chose it. Why not hardcode this into software, this time for the right side? And similar small steps that eventually help gain community confidence in this skin. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, as a mobile user, I don't really have much of a dog in the fight - but seeing so many unregistered users commenting about this gives me pause. I can't say I've read much about the reasons for the skin change, but the fact we don't have any way to allow the general reader to change the skin is pretty crazy. I have been telling people to have an account to fix this if it's a problem for them, but I'm not sure that's a great solution. It's also not really a great look for IPs who think we are trying to get them to all create accounts for a long time, now will have even more ammo. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the new skin. But I don't see any scenario where this would be undone. I think a better course of action would be to work on improving, not removing, the new skin. I'd personally like to see moving the page tools to the right, making limited width off by default and adding an option that allows preferences, talk page, contribs and the other buttons to be where they were before and not hidden. If this isn't going to be done, then maybe I'd find myself amongst the supporters, but the Vector 2022 team has already stated that improvement is on the way. I just wish it had been done before it impacted the millions of people who read this site. With that said, I wouldn't be fully against removal, which is why I'm here in neutral. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am still testing the skin, WMF suggested a week, at least a week they shall get. I want to like the change, find some of the arguments for interesting, and expect any UI change to have a backlash. That said, there are some very odd features pushed out with the skin. The width of the left column changes when you click "hide" on the ToC, shifting the entire screen. An update whose most obvious feature is creating a consistent width, not actually creating a consistent width, is something I haven't seen explained. (Clicking hide on the top of the ToC also makes the entire thing vanish, you can't unhide it without scrolling all the way to the top and finding the very unobvious icon.) The removal of the link to your talkpage from the default links at the top is a change that seems particularly against the community ethos here. The new image preview in search is janky, and the log-in button was hidden. There are other minor UI things I have personal issues with, and that's probably not a problem for any UI change, but these ones mentioned stand out as being generally applicable. Many of these don't seem fundamental to the skin, so they didn't need to be lumped in to something that was bound to generate opposition already. The deployment was further quite odd in being explicitly incomplete. The tools are supposed to be in the right whitespace, but this was not done due to technical issues. It seems a major change, to have what looks now like empty space actually hold something. It is odd the deployment was not delayed alongside this, given previous RfCs raising whitespace quite prominently. CMD (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the issue with hiding the login was raised in at least 2021, which does not fill me with optimism it will be fixed at any speed. This issue is particularly notable as if you're logged out, you won't have skin or UI hacks which might solve other issues. CMD (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched back. A shame, there are advantages to the new skin. That said, it is bizarre that the skin aimed at having the limited width is the one without a consistent left-side space. Vector10 will always start a page in the same place. En.wiki should not have to implement its own code hacks to make a log-in button visible, and the lack of a log-in button shouldn't take years to fix. A couple of issues have been fixed, credit to the team, (and great credit for the email outreach notification below which felt honest and straightforward,) but other issues seem to have engendered no action. CMD (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure: My one gripe at present is that I no longer see a TOC in the sandbox while I prepare an article, nor do I see the floating TOC icon that I gather is the new Vector 2022 style. I'm also (as usual) unable to suss out information in Wikipedia on this issue, and in particular how I might fix this. For context: I'm a relatively new account, and have only recently begun doing any editing/writing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johsebb (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from #Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Although I agree with this change, there are some problems and it's hard to get used to the change (although viwiki has rolled the change one year ago). The lack of number in the TOC section are my concerns, however as we cannot see the number of talk page sections easily. Thingofme (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As much as I'd prefer to use the old skin, I do see the advantages of having a newer more responsive skin, and some of the changes are good, but it also brings unwelcome changes. Unfortunately, simply rolling back would ultimately be a stopgap measure and this issue would crop up again in the near future; clearly, someone wants to change something because they feel it is lacking. Moreover I think it's most important to fix the issues with the new skin, than anything else. Some basic improvements to the interface would be helpful - whitespace is good, sure, but too much is detrimental. Right now, the whitespace is bigger than the actual articles, on your average 16:9 monitor. It's even worse on ultrawide. And with the left sidebar being wider too, tables (especially wide ones) look horrifically off-kilter. A lot of people are citing studies about how limiting line width improves readability, but none of this addresses issues such as excessive scrolling, if the readability of a given line width is dependent on font size or screen size, etc., not to mention non-text issues like image placement and other layout issues. Xander T. (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A policy heavy neutral So, we're trying to adjudge this for readers - whether I like it for me is irrelevant. Normally, a rollout like this would be a CONEXCEPT case. But they created an RfC and thus submitted it to community authority for that aspect. That's not perpetual, so to me, we can only "legally" undo the change if we believe they've failed to comply with the close conditions. There is the toggle, but I can't believe anyone who is viewing dozens of articles is clicking it every time. The messiness continues, as it's questionable if the "dedicated discussions for the potential blockers" that couldn't be fixed were had. There was obviously a huge VPT discussion, but were the three specific aspects called out and covered? Less clear. By all means run a wave of surveys after 2 weeks to see how opinions change after the shock factor, but why the team chose not to run an immediate survey to compare that against I don't understand. Additionally, it is affecting editors, with log-in button buried. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear, see phab:T321498. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl anything in particular on it? - I'm aware of the general issues with making perpetual logged-out aspects, re caching, flashes and so on. I've also attended multiple calls with the team, including discussions of the specific issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear ...and this comment, that the toggle should be persistent soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I see one advantage: This gets people to sign in! And if you're signed in, you will likely engage with the project more. So this may be for Wikipedia what a "freemium" model is for some commercial sites: "Yes, you can use our services for free, but sign on and we'll give you such a better user experience". On the other hand, a change where there is no obvious "right" or "wrong" way of doing it should always aim to give people a choice and properly hear them. In the months leading up to this, I, as a casual user, never once saw an announcement or an invitation to participate in the discussion. There are very prominent places to announce such wide-ranging changes, but they only seem to be used for donation drives... BinUnterwegs (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought this was a plausible compromise, if not an advantage. But I realized yesterday that this is not in fact true: almost noone will sign in, because they don't know that they have the option to change it. If you're logged out, you don't see the "Switch to old look" message because you no longer have any sidebar links at all. – SJ + 06:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SJ, good point. Do you know whether there are any statistics from the experience on the French Wikipedia etc. on whether the share of users deciding to sign-in went up (among those who were already registered)? Nemo 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This kind of backlash is pretty typical any time any kind of major sweeping change (UI/UX or otherwise) happens. In some cases (see: facebook redesign, gmail redesign, chrome redesign, tumblr dark blue, youtube removal of annotations, youtube removal of dislikes etc.) the changes are kept and most people eventually get used to it and forget about it (albeit reluctantly in some cases). In other cases (e.g. new/old reddit) most people get used to the new design but a sizable number of people still stick with an option to stay with the old design. In other cases (e.g. New Coke) the backlash is so severe the change is quickly reverted.
Skin preference pretty subjective. I know that people usually have a knee-jerk response to change, so I'm giving this new skin an honest chance. Personally, I don't feel too strongly one way or another. In the new design, I like that the search bar is more prominent. I like that the TOC follows you so that it's easier to navigate around the article. I can get behind the restricted width for readability. The more recent changes make the tool sidebars (which I rarely use) feel less cluttered. I don't like that the TOC is collapsed by default (esp. on pages like WP:ITN/C). I don't like that the heading numbers from the TOC are gone, this makes it more difficult to distinguish a deeply nested heading structure. The "On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title" just feels out of place.
I don't know what the best approach here would be. It's important to note that feedback on this new design may be skewed toward the negative side, as people who don't really mind it and just move on with their day would have no incentive to seek out these feedback threads. On the other hand, it's also important to remember that people who are actively involved in the meta side of wikipedia and RFC discussions aren't necessarily representative of wikipedia users (many of whom do not have an account) as a whole. It's also possible a large number of users also don't like the change but are not vocal about it. You really do not want to run off the trust thermocline. (Is there really no way to provide these users a way to set their skin preferences without logging in? Is a doubling of load to Wikipedia cache servers really that much of an impact? Is the saving in costs worth the risk of damage to user trust?) Regardless of what happens, I would be interested to see statistics on how many users opted back to the old design, how many new accounts were created specifically to comment on the design change, etc. Ahiijny (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I don't have any confidence that WMF will rollback even this RFC get a consensus according to their email.--Lemonaka (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether WMF will act or not we should form a consensus. I also don’t see how the canvassing means they’re not gonna respect consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu I still respect your work and effort, but I'm tired of this topic, too tired for all. Kinda of disappointment. Lemonaka (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s alright. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always trying to defend WMF against all accusations, I have said again and again Not their fault at all, but this email is just some kinds of betrayal. Lemonaka (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hopeful that they will. We're seeing conflicting messages from different parts of the WMF behemoth, but let's assume good faith. If they disappoint us, it's up to each of us to decide whether to continue contributing. Certes (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral towards the rollback itself, but I desperately hope that the Foundation takes in what I consider the correct, pro-social lessons from this furore:
1. Communicate clearly and in advance. An unappealing, awkward default skin is hardly the end of the world, but it was definitely an unpleasant surprise. Whatever announcements were made, I missed; either because there genuinely weren't any, or because I assumed from the name that Vector 2022 would be superficially similar to the original Vector skin. MonoBook has more in common with the original Vector than Vector 2022 does; something this radically different should have a distinct name.
2. When the closing editors say "if the above concerns are addressed, go ahead", that means you should address those concerns before, not after, rollout.
3. This is kind of tangential, but I don't understand why the Flash of unstyled content is so dreaded that skin-selection via cookie for IP users is dismissed.
An actual problem with Vector 2022 itself I just noticed in trying it out both logged in and anonymously: it behaves distinctly differently depending on whether you're logged in or not, in ways that have no reason to depend on that. That's... well, it seems crazy, frankly. It's effectively two similar but distinct skins. Why you do this? (Side note: I am not a brand new account, but anyone who checks my contributions will see that I haven't done much, and haven't done anything in a long time. I came down as "Neutral" because I am not a representative sample, and the default skin really doesn't matter if IP users can select a skin, but at a personal level I was confused and upset enough to lodge a complaint, which for me is a fairly high threshold.) --Proginoskes (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Doesn't affect me, I'm still using Monobook. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Why are we deciding this? Shouldn't it be the readers that are determining the default skin? Look, I understand you've been editing on this skin for over a decade or whatever. I prefer it too. But this change is more important for the readers than us. The editors all have accounts and know how to press 2 buttons to toggle the skin back. Think of this from the perspective of the 12 year old reading about economic theory they don't understand for their school project. They can't read links with font size less than 18. The fact is Wikipedia is stuck in the past in many aspects, and Vector 2010 is a big example of it. The WMF won't listen to us anyway. They don't see our concerns as a problem. This situation has many parallels to old.reddit.com--As time passes, it will become more and more clear as more and more people join the project and almost all of them keep the new Vector skin, that it isn't actually bad, and the old one is simply what you're used to, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's change, humans hate it, it's how we work. But don't ruin it for everyone else because you think HTML5 sites that UNIX software is on look better. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While editor bias is indeed a problem, readers are also allowed to !vote here.
I don't think it's a parallel to old reddit, new reddit is actually way less functionable than old reddit. As time passed, it became more and more clear that using old reddit was "hip" and redditors with quite a bit of experience use old reddit. It also uses way less JS than new reddit while v22 only has like 3 or 4 more spots with JS. Plus, new reddit was a complete redesign while V22 was more of a reskin/recolor with added functionality. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that readers can !vote here--and a few have--but it should go without saying that almost all of them are unaware of this page's existence. You make a good point about old Reddit though. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC has a lot of reader participation, actually — I can't remember the last time I've seen this many IPs and new users participating in a discussion like this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your "a lot" is only comparatively. we all know how much people read WP without an account every day. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong neutral Not sure whether to put this as an alternate proposal, but why can't we just add a special skin preference for unregistered users? They can use mobile view if they know where to look for it, so why don't we add an 'old view' button as well? This seems to me a much more moderate proposal than changing anything further for everyone. It would also help if these buttons (mobile view and suggested old view button) were at the top of the page or in a sidebar, a bit like language links... WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 20:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While there are obvious benefits to the change overall, there are some backward steps to which the WMF are being blind, deaf and totally inflexible. I can't oppose a rollback if the WMF won't bother listening to users. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral When I discovered the shift to Vector 2022, I quickly switched back to the older default skin so I don't have much experience with the new one, nor a strong opinion. (I'll just note that at the time I started writing this there were 343 votes in support of the rollback & 222 against -- which shows me that there is a strong division here. This won't be an easy RfC to find a consensus about.) But the reason I'm adding my comment is that the last time there was a change in the skin, we were told that the old skins would no longer be supported. We had to migrate, too bad, fuck off & die if you don't like progress. I'm hoping that the Foundation does not repeat this indifference to what we volunteers -- the people who create the Internet resources that pay their salaries -- & discontinue supporting the old skins, especially as a lot of users don't want to use the new skin. -- llywrch (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywrch, It has already been confirmed by a WMF account that V10 will still be supported. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strongest possible I DON'T CARE and why don't you go plant potatoes? Really? As there ever been a UI change a "community" liked? I haven't seen one in 30 years using the 'net... It is always "the worst thing ever". Alas... it is not. It is slightly better here, slightly worse there. Go! Edit! Read! It is fine. Really. The world ain't exploding tomorrow. I hope... - Nabla (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant neutral. On the one hand, the new skin seems to be a bland, characterless “flat design” that would have been trendy 10 years ago, but which I think everyone got tired of by 5 years ago. The developers requested feedback last year, and I provided some, but it has gone unacknowledged. We have now gone live with a skin that has very poor separation between the user-editable content area and the Mediawiki navigation/structure areas. So that’s the one hand.
On the other hand, I don’t think a rollback is realistic. The new skin does have some technical improvements which would be a shame to lose, and I think reverting to the previous skin would be perceived as a chaotic flip-flop that would ultimately bring the project into disrepute. I would like to see some evidence that the devs are working through the massive backlog of feedback and figuring out how to fix-forward, because there are some very legitimate grievances here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2: If Vector 2022 is kept as default, should unlimited text width be the default?

Support alternate proposal

Support, although I prefer option 1: reverting to the old design. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems by far the most complained about feature and switching it would make it more similar to how it was before. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems to be one of the chief complaints about the new skin. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Limited text width looks horrendous in wider screens and distracts from the reading experience. It should be opt-in, not opt-out. Carpimaps (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I seen the new prototypes and it looks much better. Oppose Carpimaps (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ HAL333 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the excess of white space is the main concern with V22. —El Millo (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I would be upset if the other problems with Vector 2022 go unaddressed, particularly the difficulty in navigation and the all-white design. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support main complaint of the readers, though I'd prefer finding a solution for the newly created navigation issues as well. --Icodense (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly support — I designed and composed many tables, over many years, to the then-existing page-width. Some of them still look OK, but others (see List of pre-World Series baseball champions and Demographics of South Africa) are impossible to read completely without endless left-to-right scrolling or shrinking the page to 75% of normal. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unbelievable that this wasn't the default to begin with. It's practically unusable without it. Parabolist (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly the new design has to be reverted but the most egregious design flaw is displaying everything in a thin strip down the middle of the page. The text should... by default... fill the majority of the page. Fixed width blocks of text is so 1990's when screens were only 80 characters wide. Ikaruseijin (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This new design clearly must be default-reverted, but if it isn't, the massive whitespace drowning out every article is by far the biggest design flaw in this new one. It's hard enough to read the thin strip of text as it is; if the article has pictures (as most articles about notable topics do), it's nearly impossible to coherently follow the flow of the text.
Support I've just spend 15 minutes to use an account I've almost never used to try to understand why this limited width is enforced. On a 16:10, 32 inch screen, wikipedia is two mini columns barely readable embedded in a white page. The full screen button is a joke, as soon as you change from a page to a new one, it resets to the limited width. Only after login in and setting my preferences to full width, it becomes usable. You cannot seriously think that all wikipedia users will create an account and login in right? You may have another kind of problems if we would all do so. For the rest about vector 2, I am not well enough into editing to complain. But clearly, the designers knew the problem of the limited width and of the folded left menu, otherwise they would not have added a button to unfold the menu and another one to extend the width. The major bug is that the status of these buttons are not cached and are reset at each clicks. Please, fixed that urgently. It is pretty clear that most of the complains are only due to this, mine included. What an oversight!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdirt (talk • contribs)
Agree. I think this is a good compromise, especially for such a drastic change. I think there should be a button that allows the user to enable "reading mode", which removes the clutters and present content in a fixed width. CactiStaccingCrane 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most browsers have that built in these days. Nobody has to bother reimplementing it. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and the ability to reduce window width has been built in since the dawn of graphical operating systems.–small jars tc 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I switched my vote in the original RFC from oppose to neutral because it sounded like the width thing was going to be solved. It sounds like it was solved poorly. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Limited-width text is good, but this should be limited to text. Instead, the new skin limits the width of everything, putting infoboxes, images, tables and other non-text items into the same narrow strip of content, with white all around. Either we redesign the website to put non-text items on the empty sides, or limited-width doesn't make any sense. By the way, I would support a real redesign which would move infoboxes, images etc. on the sides and limit the text width. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whitespace problem is a distraction. Narrow content space is fine on vertical-oriented phones, where the phone doesn't have whitespace on the sides. In a horizontally oriented monitor, it's fundamentally a waste of resources to leave so much of the screen unusable. By leaving the width to float to the maximum width of the device, it conforms naturally to the user's own setup in a way that is most useful. If users wish to increase their own whitespace for their own preferences, let them... The default should be to fit each device best, not force a one-size-fits-all design onto a multitude of devices for which it is not well suited. It's also my only real complaint about the new Vector skin. I actually like many of the design and functionality choices, and would return to using it if the screen width problem was fixed.--Jayron32 12:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would solve a few of the primary issues I have with the design. The whitespace replaced with functional content, and the toggle between no longer being extremely isolated giving it some semblance of contrast. Even with the black on white design, text alone is more than enough to break up the blinding nature of the background and make it less painful to look at on high contrast displays, compared to the extremely pale gray of the standard whitespace. Although it would be less able to utilize the space provided, considering the toggle takes up it's own unique margin, and itself doesn't compress when expanded.Deadoon (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The excessive white space is literally the only problem I have with the new skin. Endianer (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at least temporarily Though I personally dislike the new aesthetic, and agree with the sentiment of not fixing what isn't broken, I recognise that part of why I may feel that way is likely influenced by me just being used to Vector 2010. But there are some aspects of the redesign that really bug me outside of the aesthetic and the big white space. For example: why is create account always visible on logged out screens but log in is hidden behind a menu? My issues with this redesign include the aesthetic, but also the functional. I don't think it works the way it is.Xx78900 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the basis of almost all complaints I've seen from end users about Vector 2022, and the reason I opposed it in the initial RfC. We sort of accepted that we as editors weren't the intended audience for the limited width and that this was something that would work for end users, but that does not appear to be the case. JackWilfred (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. The excess white space is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems with the new design. The toggle button isn't consistent, and casual readers shouldn't have to be forced to create an account just to disable the option in the Preferences. Limited width should be opt-in, not opt-out IMO. Some1 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Æo (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much white space, too hard to navigate, the previous 2010 design was simpler, more manageable on a wider variety of displays, rather than this newer version which looks like a poor mobile-display conversion. Also, so many people have written about it in the Teahouse, unsurprisingly, but only actual users with accounts can opt-out, that's clearly a bad idea. My first instinct upon seeing the new design was to turn it off. ButterCashier (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an IP reader and editor, while no better solution found and implemented. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, because the line width shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how I (and, I believe, many others) use Wikipedia. I am usually an early adopter of new interfaces. The sidebar TOC here is an improvement, in my opinion (even though it's still buggy). The width is not. I'm a lawyer in my day job, and lawyers (especially appellate lawyers) are heavily invested in making their briefs easier to read and understand. (Have you ever been on #AppellateTwitter? It's a trip.) I am intimately familiar with white space. My briefs use low-density fonts, are left-aligned rather than fully justified, don't use blockquotes or ALLCAPS headings or unnecessary defined terms or acronyms, and so on. These have been daily considerations for me in my professional life. What I've come to realize over the last few days, though, is that I don't read Wikipedia in the same way or for the same purpose that I read a legal brief or judicial opinion (or a novel). I almost exclusively *scan* Wikipedia. High information density is very important to me here; it's a feature, not a bug. I want the maximum possible amount of information on my screen when I am doing the kind of reading I am doing on Wikipedia. I want to be able to see the nearby headings for context (which, again, is a mark in favor of the sidebar TOC). The width works against all of that *for the type of reading I come to Wikipedia to do*. Here's a simile that may help illustrate the issue. Reading is like eating. There are lots of different reasons I eat. Sometimes I eat to fill my belly; sometimes I eat to fuel myself for a hike or river paddle; sometimes I eat for pleasure. I eat differently in all those situations (respectively: more high-calorie-density and protein-rich foods to fuel a hike; mainly low-calorie-density, high-fiber foods like vegetables for everyday living; sugary sweets and confections for pleasure). I read for different reasons too, and *why* I'm reading matters to *what* and *how* I'm reading. The change in width is like forcing me to eat celery when I need to be carbo loading. So while I absolutely understand "giving the reader a break" and "slowing down the firehose of information" from most documents, I'm understanding now that it just doesn't make sense for this site. Jeffreynye (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! I come here specifically FOR the "firehose of information". If I want a break, I close the browser. I really don't appreciate having these self-appointed efficiency experts hobble the reading experience because they believe they know what I'm looking for better than I do myself. It's analogous to the information problem of top-down economies in a different form. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The white space problem is significantly disruptive to my editing experience. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support My biggest gripe with the new skin, and why I'm using the legacy version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I went to dig up my old account for this, because I do not approve of this change. Of the changes, I don't particularly mind the decision to add the ToC to the side, but the huge amount of whitespace is horrible for my experience reading articles, and makes it feel like I'm using a mobile website. If that was changed, I think the new Vector would be a much more acceptable design. SkyAmp6 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would fix one of the bigguest problems with it. The other being hiding and burying some of the most heavily used menu items. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support–Constriction is not a feature.small jars tc 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Establishing unlimited text width as the default would resolve what is, in my opinion, the primary problem with the moment-to-moment user experience of Vector 2022. See also Jeffreynye's thorough and eloquent explanation of why unlimited text width is particularly suitable for the Wikipedia environment, as opposed to that of other text-focused websites. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the single biggest gripe with the new skin, and it is something that the majority of editors wanted at the RfC that was held on whether or not to move to new vector. If this cannot be achived upstream in the skin itself due to a lack of willingness by the WMF, we can simply use common.css to keep this fixed for everyone until switching the default in the code (something that is technically trivial to do, by the way) is implemented. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anonymous readers do not have a way to set a preference for wide-screen viewing, and the limited width was by far the primary objection in the rollout RFC (read through the oppose votes, and you'll see that 90+% of those who cited a specific problem state that the width is a problem). The previous RFC would have sailed through as "support" if the width problems had been resolved, and the limited width continues to be the primary objection among post-rollout commenters. All of the incompatibility with tools and scripts for us power users can be resolved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the #1 reason why Vector 2022 is bad. Restricting width like this uses so little screen space at the expense of any customizability in width to the user. If anything, it should be default expanded width and then a toggle button for restricted width. I see no quality evidence that this improves readability beyond the cherry-picking provided by WMF. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even after pressing the button, it's still too narrow for my taste. There's nearly an inch of white space to the left of the text and about half an inch to the right. Just give us widescreen, get rid of the button, and let the small minority of users that want a restrictive narrow column find it in the settings. Fix these issues and I'd accept Vector 2022 as the default. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Jeffreynye's comment above. There are some things I personally don't like about V22, some things I do like, and also some things I just love. But I'm not !voting based on that, nor should anyone: since any registered user can revert to legacy vector, this RfC should be about unregistered users' experience only. But this involves more: registered users should also switch to whatever skin unregistered users have every time they are working on the lay-out of articles, and the width that unregistered users will get to see is in fact of fundamental importance for all our future lay-out decisions.
Now while I appreciate the research cited by the web team showing that limited line width is beneficial for reading comprehension, I am not entirely convinced that this research can simply be generalized to every type of application. Contrary to the websites which are often cited as examples of big players who use limited width, we are an encyclopedia. The type of information we offer is fundamentally different from what is usually offered on the web. I believe that it may be the case that encyclopedic content heavily benefits from text density, because people who are looking for a specific piece of information will want to scan a lot of text at once, and because all readers will have a strong need to orient themselves within the structure of the text (which is benefited by seeing as much as possible of the section headings and other structural elements, as well as of the info in other parts of the text).
This is not based on any research, but on my long-term (+10 years) and heavy use of Wikipedia for research purposes. Still, I think that contrary to the non-specific research on the benefits of limited line width, my experience may be generalized: people do primarily use Wikipedia to do research, whether it be scholarly research like me or just 'looking things up'. It is my belief that the limited width will be detrimental to that 'looking up'. At the very least, I would like to see research that is specific to Wikipedia or encyclopedic text in general before moving to the limited width lay-out. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—What about allowing readers (logged-in or otherwise) the option of toggling wide text on and off? --Kurtis ^(talk) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can (by clicking the 'full screen' button at the bottom to the right), though it doesn't persist across pages. This persistence is something the web team has said they are willing to work on. However, when editing we need to base our lay-out on one of the two views, and the large majority of unregistered readers will see the default view most of the time. Customization options are always only used by a minority. This makes determining what the default view should be a crucial decision.
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, graphs tend to be too small. Sometimes, you can hardly read what is written on the axis. There is not enough space to have graphs, which are large enough. One can click on the graph to view it without problems. So, now we have too small graphs combined with wasted space. That does not make any sense. --Boehm (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, everything else was fine, it was just the width that causes all sorts of table layout issues (such as with WP:RJL). --Rschen7754 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why on earth do you oppose???? Tvx1 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support "but", You don't use an encyclopedia the same way as a social media, a news, or a novel. As long as there is no better way found, and thoroughly test, to display the content of an encyclopedia, thing should stay as they are. A good web design should be adapted to the content and the usage, not the other way around. There is always room for improvement and innovation, not to be a trend follower. DerpFox (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Support possible My biggest gripe with the new skin is the limited text so making it unlimited would be a great improvement. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wasted monitor space makes it a lot more work to read something. Also showing far less of the article at once makes it very difficult to take a fast overall look. This problem is compounded when editing / reviewing in editing mode where the presence of long references makes even less of the article even worse when editing because This aspect of the change is so huge that they should have requested feedback on it separately. If they asked for that specific feedback, they would have received feedback relevant to reading and editing an electronic encyclopedia and even more specifically reading and editing Wikipedia instead of going by self-interpreting other less applicable studies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find that this makes me scroll more because there is less information on the screen at a time, and it is a major contributor to the excess whitespace, which irritates my eyes.WikEdits5 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the majority of people here Toa Nidhiki05 05:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my main gripe with the new layout, and it blatently disregards responsive design principles. On my 4k monitor, content takes up less than half of overall window. The amount of whitespace shown on either side is excessive and incredibly distracting. In contrast, viewing the new UI on my iPad is actually not that bad; but that's because the content and UI elements fill the majority of the smaller screen size of an iPad. Many of us prefer browsing on a desktop explicitly because we can get more content on the screen at one time. Whitespace is not necessarily bad, but it needs to be used with intent and purpose. The excessive whitespace of the new UI when rendered on high res displays does not fulfill any useful purpose. Trynn (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if reverting back to the old design is vetoed by the powers that be. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support possible The FAQ that tries to explain the reasoning behind this points to research done almost two decades ago. The main article used to justify the shorter lines (by Peter orton, PhD) explicitly says "Isn’t reading text on a low resolution computer monitor difficult enough?" Well, maybe in 2007 this was true or relevant, but technology has moved on. The scientific articles also acknowledges that this is a polarizing issue - people who like short lines actively hate longer lines, and vice versa. Arbitrarily forcing one choice as the default was bound to create backlash. Rizzardi (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the best option conditional on a bad choice of action. Mindlessly following trends of web design is absurd. Waving about studies that don't pertain to the specific needs of an electronic encyclopedia doesn't make the trend-following any more mindful, either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Easily the worst aspect of this skin. Cards84664 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most of the complaints we get on the IRC side are about the whitespace and squished text. This would address those concerns directly. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Justiyaya 03:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally feel that the difference on my screens are not that significant when TOC is pinned in terms of reading experience and line width, just creates a bit more empty space. Although this matters a significant bit more with the TOC collapsed, given the minimal difference between TOC collapsed and uncollapsed (in line width), turning this on by default probably creates more options for the reader to easily choose from. Additionally given the amount of complaints to most people this would most likely be positive. Regardless switching to/back from infinite line width is quite easy anyways Justiyaya 13:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The answer to this question is also obvious. Artificially creating dead space on your website for a desktop skin is backwards design. If I wanted less width then I would decease the width of my browser. Deadgye (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whitespace is not good, and while I find myself in neutral concerning rolling back the deployment, I strongly support this. As others have said, this is bad design. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As others have mentioned, this is the main problem with the new layout. Changing this alone might solve most of the issues with the layout. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support; yet still... based on what nux said but flipped on it's head, if WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would be used in an opposing vote. If that doesn't apply, then the outcome would most likely be support, and I don't think it applies here per the essay WP:VINE. However, we shouldn't need to have votes backed up with reasoning, this should be a count of who likes it, and who doesn't. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a consensus discussion, and that consensus is determined based on the relative strengths and qualities of the arguments presented, !votes that amount to "I like it" or "I don't like it" will ultimately be weighed as being of low quality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_{could you at least read Wikipedia:VINE before objecting,} Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read both the VINE and PNSD essays. VINE does not apply here, because policy states that this is not a vote. This, like all RfCs, is a consensus discussion.Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no other RFC has that note that it is nor, if wp:VINE doesn't apply her then it applies nowhere; so it applies here via wp:IAR, as is essentially how all essays apply.Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the transclusion count, the {{not a vote}} template has been used in at least 7621 discussions. Some of these are RfCs, some are deletion discussions. You can find a list of all of the uses of that template, both for live and archived discussions here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the one other instance I could find with an rfc and not a vote together was one other one and it was not a simple yes or no vote, also you responded to the wrong comment Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you could only find a single RfC, as there are at least 29 non-archive transclusions of that template on the first page alone, and there are at least 150 pages of results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked explicitly in the category of rfc's and then searched for articles within the category with the template, only 3 showed up, my methodology could be wrong.Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah yep. it was bad methodology, only three wikipedia RfC have that template, including this one, so there is still no prescient, but it is reasonable that it still applied to previous RfC and that it was just never needed on that fact alone. Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. While RfCs do get added to Category:Wikipedia requests for comment, they are only in that category as long as the RfC has an active {{Rfc}} header. Legobot automatically removes that header from RfCs after thirty days, however regardless of that removal, RfCs continue until either the discussion tapers off or someone formally closes it.
As such, there will be a significant number of RfCs, including currently active ones that do not have a {{Rfc}} header due to being open longer than 30 days, that will not be in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. Additionally, from looking at the source of the {{not a vote}} template, it does not appear to add any maintenance categories whenever it is added to a page. If you wish to see all uses of the template, you either need to parse through the transclusion count which I linked before, or you can try a hastemplate: search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no arguments so your vote is empty. You might want to scroll to top and read the frames in one of the top sections #RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? Nux (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided an argument that I don't care that I haven't provided an argument it doesn't matter also that only applies to the first discussion and has no precedent even there. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get why there's all the white space there. "Optimal line length for reading" means jack shit if it's 1. dead space, one of the biggest crimes of UX and 2. looks pretty dang ugly. Use all the space you're given. I already don't like the blank space on the side of Legacy underneath the sidebar, to be honest. casualdejekyll 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read UX.stack: What is the best number of paragraph width for readability?. Or look at how W3C WCAG and many other have constrained their width. Note how very popular Medium.com have quite thin articles and a sidebar (much like Wikipedia with Vector'22). Nux (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Use available width. Speed up reading with narrow text columns. Uwappa (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Let's use whatever space we have got. Users may have different browsers, may use different window sizes and font sizes, hence a fixed text width does not fit all and may even get in the way. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fixed max-width, not a fixed width. V'22 is actually more responsive then V'10. Nux (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I'd still let the users (or rather, each user individually on his or her screen) decide how it should look like. Anyway, when logged in, I don't use any of the Vector skins. Maybe that's why I find the new one particularly unsuitable. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Insofar as this would make it closer to the 2010 default skin; however, I'd still prefer Vector 2010 to a modification of Vector 2022. But, if 2022 stays the default, this should definitely be implemented as a compromise. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support If reverting is impossible, this is a fairer middle ground. Noonan2 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Narrowing the pages also messes with tables and images placement done with a wider page in mind. The default width should not have such excessive whitespace, though if there is no TOC it should not take up the full width either so that all pages are consistent. the lack of the gray background and dividing line makes it even worse. Absolutely ridiculous to put the toolbar on the right side now, narrowing the page even further. Moreover, the expand button only shows up "In a wide browser window". Well, I think my laptop is wide enough to want a wider text, but this doesn't even appear for me to use! Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: while a limited-width display can be helpful in some situations (like if someone is editing from a phone), it doesn't make any sense to me to enforce it as the default for everyone. As soon as I saw it, I edited my user stylesheet to get rid of it. It makes the site very difficult to read, and I say this as someone with a very large and fancy monitor: one can only imagine what a pain it is for people with lower-resolution displays. As for whether the survey is biased towards editors, well, this is certainly a factor, but I don't think it invalidates the outcome. The only reason that Wikipedia has any articles on it is because people decide to sign up and edit, so making this experience a hassle seems like a very bad idea. jp×g 02:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support My main issue with the new interface is limited text width being forced on us. I do a lot of browsing in private mode for various reasons and having Wikipedia default to narrow text which fills up only 1/3rd of my full-screen window is a pain. What about longer articles? Sure it's easier to access the ToC now, but some sections within the ToC themselves are really, really long. For example, this page stands out as a prime example. Basically, it feels like some proper testing and polish could fix the issues the new skin has. Xander T. (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are other issues with Vector 2022, but at least this would be a step in the right direction. If I wanted skinny text then I would size my browser window accordingly. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but returning to the old skin would be better. My reasons for supporting this: the redesign, including the limited width, is part of a trend to make websites look more like phone apps which is culturally wrong for Wikipedia (and right for commercial sites only in so far as there's anything right about commercial sites), and is happening simply because we employed web devs and they had to produce some work to justify their pay. The supposition that it's easier to read in a narrow format isn't valid, because Wikipedia is not a novel, and long lines are (probably) better for skim-reading in order to find details for reference. And if anybody wants to read it in a narrow format on desktop, they can do this by narrowing their window. If these users want narrow-format text *and* to keep their window fullscreen on a large monitor, this fullscreen habit (along with the demand for "responsive web apps") is again part of mobile phone culture and they shouldn't get what they want, which is to chip away at the desktop idiom and replace everything with the mobile idiom, with its manipulation of users and its walled gardens, inimical to the Stallman-like free internet culture that Wikipedia was born out of. And, by the way, testing for popularity is biased if somebody decides behind the scenes *what* will be tested for popularity, much like holding repeated referenda to get a "yes" answer. Did the community want a Desktop Improvements Initiative in the first place? Card Zero (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For the very simple reason that people who prefer to read shorter line lengths can, if the default design uses unlimited length, always narrow their browser window or switch to their browser's reading mode. The other direction does not work: people who prefer longer line lengths can't easily and consistently make them longer in the current situation. BinUnterwegs (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The squeezing of the content in the middle is certainly the most significant problem with the new skin, as it worsens readability and perception of the page, as well as limits layout options. But it is not the only problem, the new navigations on the left and right with the dropdown menus, unintuitive icons and huge line spacing massively worsen the usability, so I prefer option 1: reverting to the old design. Rio65trio (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Created this account primarily to deal with the width issue; I'll learn to live with the rest, despite my resistance to superfluous change. I cannot stand how "mobile" my desktop view looks on most of the internet, and here is no different. I have a widescreen monitor (24" at 1920x1080) so having all content squeezed into the middle with all this wasted white space on the sides is worse for my readability, not better. Give all users control, not just those with accounts. Vector2022WidthSucks (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Support, obviously. The narrow width is atrocious, and there is no possible reason for it.--155.4.221.27 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the narrow width looks like shit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support white-space is redundant. starship .paint (exalt) 07:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while I oppose a rollback, in talking to off-wiki friends, they all think the limited width sucks. schetm (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is far and away the thing the most people have complained to me about since the change. Those, by the way, are your "readers"—people who know me and that I edit Wikipedia. They don't, or maybe have at most corrected a typo here or there. They, like me, do not have large monitors to show large amounts of whitespace; they have them to fit a lot on the screen. I've really got no dog in the fight; I'll keep using Monobook regardless. But unless they want to create an account just to read, well, they don't have that option. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like the new layout as a default but also think it currently has too much whitespace. Widening the text more sounds like a great idea. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this seemed to be the biggest issue readers had. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Narrow content mode makes some content plain unreadable. When not unreadable, it makes reading more difficult as it doesn't fit as much content on the same screen and requires more scrolling. 2A02:2168:84D9:2200:CF72:6FE7:ABBA:3DC6 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; even if Vector2010 is restored, the default version of Vector2022 should be full width. Redundant white space removes the advantages of reading on laptops and desktops with minimal counterbalancing benefit. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BilledMammal above me, with a very strong preference for retaining original Vector as default. At this point I can't AGF any more that problems will get fixed eventually. Daß Wölf 23:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. If Vector '22 remains the default theme, the content should take up a good portion of the screen width by default, like the original Vector. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure on one hand this is the biggest complaint and the button doesn't persist, on the other hand this is the entire point of including this as the default and as a fact it is better looking. I'm not sure what to say on this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Until the content flash issue for pagetools issue is addressed, I will be conditional supporting this.Aaron Liu (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Actually, oppose. We do need a consistent width across Wikipedia. Many articles are edited with vastly different with in mind causing chaos for different screen sizes. Internal consistency would solve this issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I have changed my !VOTE on this quite a few times, but this time around hopefully it can stay as conditional support only for logged-out users. I saw new arguments about scripting. Max width on by default is definintly more intrusive than off, and logged-out users with JavaScript disabled won't be able to switch that. As the toggle will be persistent, users can easily enable limited width. However logged-in users have a toggle in Preferences so they don't need a default change. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to me that there's very little merit in the narrow screen. It would make sense if articles were just text with section headers, but very few articles are like that, they've got images, tables, lists, etc where the wider screen works better. Nigej (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we have to keep V2022, then yes, make full width the default. –Fredddie™ 01:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - white space is a main concern of many, including me. Likely, WMF is going to introduce an interface redesign, that separates the content with lines and colors, which will make it seem like the white space is gone, and will also please most readers. Cessaune [talk] 02:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dislike the extra blank space of this skin, and the full-width option makes it a bit better. Strobilomyces (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't think of any situation where the width is being limited that the user couldn't manually narrow the window if they wanted that. I get that limiting column width improves readability, but that is only a result for sentence-by-sentence reading from top to bottom for the first time, not for skimming, editing, or referring to for cross-checking or other research uses. Δπ (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took the advice of some other commenters, and tried to get used to the new layout. After using vector 2022 for a while, I have come to like certain things. The top nav does look nicer, and the page looks cleaner. However, it is harder to skim for information. Limited line length is a good idea for articles that are meant to be read start to finish, but that is not how I use wikipedia. Wikipedia is more of a transactional resource - I generally am looking for keywords, and rely on the formatting of the page to guide me to the things that are most important. By limiting the line length, we are limiting the number of keywords on the page, and there are fewer section headers for me to skim. It slows me down, and sometimes I miss what I am looking for. I recognize that there is still a table of contents, but I think it is lacking in 2 ways. First, it cannot show images, and I used to use images to help me see where to skim to. Second, it no longer provides a clear separation from the page overview and the rest of the page content. I used to read the entirety of the overview, then click on the TOC item that I was most interested in hearing more about. I think that by taking out the limited width, it will help to mitigate some of these issues, because I'll have less far to skim for images and keywords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbeagan1 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This revision would address my main concern. Like others above, I am often skimming the text and outline fast, and I want to minimize clicking and scrolling or any other task or distraction. -- econterms (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support is a persistent toggle for vector 2010 skin possible? 103.62.153.143 (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes it significantly easier to read texts on wide screens/monitors. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the limitation of the width on Vector 2022 looks bad. Those white spaces should better be used. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support. yes please. i don't want to toggle this off on every single wiki. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and let readers and IP editors choose their preferred skin. The white space looks terrible and the interface needs improvement. However, I do like that in the search bar, the dropdown menu shows small images and short descriptions. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second choice after reverting entirely (proposal 1). If some particular readers want a narrower viewport, they can do that themselves. Meanwhile, websites that will not expand to fill the available window width are intensely frustrating, especially with "rich" content like we provide (images on both sides of text, tables, infoboxes, etc., etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose alternate proposal

Oppose, ILIKEIT and it's better for reading according to the research mentioned in the RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ILIKEIT very much describes the pro-2022 crowd, and on the topic of that "research": Lies, damned lies, and statistics. HAL333 07:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333, and IDONTLIKEIT describes the anti-V22 crowd. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. HAL333 14:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can prove anything with statistics except the truth. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which means the "research" in the RfC is nothing but useless fluff. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl what the hell are you talking about? Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Transcleanupgal, this is a quote, not my opinion. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there was nothing there implying it was a quote. Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quote it is, nonetheless. I was offering an explanation, not a criticism. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Studies differ and a brief search finds two relevant studies. An early study found that longer line lengths were preferable, although they only tested up to 80 characters, and a more recent study found that when consuming content through vertical scrolling wider pages resulted in more efficient reading. BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - There's a button to make it fullscreen if you want (even for IP's) and the width actually makes sense on a widescreen. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that button doesn't work for IPs. I just logged out and tested it out. You have to re-click it every single time you load a new page. And it seems that the dev team has no interest in fixing this, even though all it would require is a cookie and a few lines of JavaScript. Furthermore, the button is an instance of mystery meat navigation, and it is small and hidden in a very inconvenient location all the way at the footer of the page, below the bottom of the article. On a wide screen monitor, like on any other monitor, if you want narrower text you can resize your window. The redesign hides that ability for all but patient (have to re-select on every new page load) and competent (find mystery meat button hiding in weird corner) IP users. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. The button looks like the symbol they used on YouTube for maximizing a video, not widening a text box. Also it doesn't show up if you're using a narrower window like 4:3. My first thoughts when I saw the button were "The heck is this, why would I want to use Wikipedia in full screen mode where I can't switch tabs as easily for research, because it hides my tabs bar?". That is, it looks like what the F11 button does in most browsers. Xander T. (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think that an icon with a double-headed horizontal arrow (like ) would be more intuitive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWantTheOldInterfaceBack Is there a phabricator task for the bug that your describing here ? Sohom Datta (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what phabricator is. I created this account yesterday to get the old look back. And from what I can tell this is perceived as a "feature", not a bug, since it is allegedly impossible to store a simple cookie and ten lines of javascript for IP users due to "caching issues" or something. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWantTheOldInterfaceBack, a WMF account just posted that this will become fixed i.e. you won't have to reclick the button. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry about that, but phabricator is where you report to developers if you have a issue with the Wikipedia interface (link to bug reporting teplate). Once it's on Phabricator, engineers can follow up and solve the issue at hand (much like issues of Github etc).
Also, whatever you mentioned about "caching issues" is unfortunately probably a fairly valid explanation, since the solution using ten lines of Javascript is going cause a FOUC (flash of unstyled content) where the layout changes after it has been rendered (leading people to believe that the site is slow/sluggish etc). To do this properly, you need some kind of server-side mechanism to figure out which layout the user wants before each and every page is rendered, which imo is slightly difficult when your having to do for one of the world's most popular sites.
( Sohom Datta (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For context, currently we just have one version of a page which are cached in Varnish servers which is then served to everyone (with the cache being refreshed periodically), which is a lot less server intensive. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to second what @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack is saying here. That button is small and (more importantly) nowhere near any other elements on the screen. On a 4k monitor, it's literally inches away from any other content or UI widgets with nothing but whitespace in between. Also, since the intent of the line-length limit is to reduce eye movement, that also hinders discoverability of that button. When I first experienced the new UI (and like many others, thought it was bug that was displaying a mobile site), I had no idea that button even existed until I started reading comments in the various talk pages that mentioned it. If "but there's a button" is going to be used an excuse then that button also has to be extremely obvious, which it currently isn't. Trynn (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately all it needs for those cookies and strings of javascripts is just a couple of dozens of millions of dollars of Wikipedia serverspace. Another argument thus to get rid of Vector 2022 as quickly as possible. Tvx1 14:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a wide screen user I would say the width actually makes no sense on a widescreen. As any other widescreen user, anyone, who wants to keep less info on the screen can use multi-window layout or narrow their window. There is no reason to force users. This is wikipedian, not facebook. 193.239.57.118 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fixed-width layout is a pretty common way of formatting articles on the Internet these days. For example, almost all common news websites use it to format their articles, e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. Think about how much whitespace there is looking at a Google search result page on a large monitor—theoretically Google could fill up the entire page with text, but the fixed-width layout centralizes things and makes it more readable. A similar concept is applicable to Wikipedia. I'm sure it looks a bit wonky for us editors who have been using the old style for decades, but in reality, the fixed-width layout is not the unambiguously detrimental feature that others are making it out to be. Mz7 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Crowd-sourcing encyclopaedia articles is a fantastic idea. Crowd-sourcing web design... not so much. Leave it to the professionals. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same professionals who shown themselves to be hopeless amateurs over the last few days?? Tvx1 14:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No personal insults, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This critique was re. ~~skills~~ conceptual skills (not the programming skills), not the person, so I consider it acceptable. I've seen much harder words on this page and the other.
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then your judgment is very very very foolish and inept (see, I'm critiquing your judgment SKILLS rather than YOU so it's clearly above board.)
In seriousness: broadly insulting a professional's skills is the same as insulting the professional person. It also adds no value to the conversation. But, hey, I'm just an IP address so don't mind me 173.49.243.134 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Steue.— Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very much, Qwerfjkl for your ping.

To the IP:
Some one writing under IP address deserves as much respect as a logged in one.
So, I think: you shouldn't belittle your value or the value of your contribution.
I've seen some of the professionally competentests contributions from IPs.

Thank you, IP,
your reply made me think about it again; and I think:
I dont even consider the technical/programming skills to be criticised, but rather the concept of what to change and how (the concept comes before the programming).
So I've made my original contrib more precise.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Regarless of vocal pushback, limited content width has been widely upheld as a fundamentally good design principle across the entire field of UI design for more than a decade. It's great for accessibility among other reasons. Practically every website has a width limit. Apple.com does. NYTimes.com does. WashingtonPost.com does. Google.com does! Only UI designers are qualified to objectively evaluate the merits of this; the rest of us are just expressing resistance to change. I used to hate the limited width too, but now I like it.
The idea that the limited width breaks tables, or that these tables now require scrolling, is also simply false. The tables are not affected by the limited width, and will take up the whole width of the user's web browser.
As is, I don't believe this question could lead to a binding consensus; ~~this needs to be based on surveys of non-logged in users, which the WMF should go out of its way to conduct, in order to reassure detractors.~~ edit: Nope, I'm satisfied with the surveys which were already conducted. DFlhb (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only UI designers are qualified to objectively evaluate the merits of this Only artists can critique art, only game developers can critique games, movie directors can critique movies, writers can critique books, and so on. The general user who has to experience that has no say at all? Apple is only limited width for a section, google uses full width at 1080p when you search(and their email is always full width), nyt and wapo uses much more as well. Wikipedia is the most constricted version of any I have encountered, and has no mechanisms for using that extra space either, even fandom will fill the voids at the edges with wiki-art and ads. At ratios higher than 16:9 1080p, it becomes a tiny island in a sea of blindingly bright whitespace, with a practically invisible toggle that doesn't even work when logged out nestled in the corner of all that whitespace. Deadoon (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you say, every page I list rigidly limits page width for contents (not other page elements). And yes, non-designers can claim to speak objectively ("this is worse!"), but what they always mean is simply "I don't like it". Interface design is objective, and has nothing to do with personal tastes, yet the entirety of the opposition to the redesign rests on personal taste and preference. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The enjoyment of the design is subjective, claiming objectivity in matters of opinion and subjective matters is the most disingenuous thing you can do. In your opinion the design should only be evaluated by people with a some nebulous qualifications and everyone else should be thrown in the trash and ignored because apparently the general public doesn't matter. Great "opinion" you have there. I guess third part developers will love all the new traffic they get to their addons, scripts, and other tutorials on how fix this problem, afterall that is what is leading many people here, a near doubling of user accounts created, looking for solutions to a problem that didn't exist a few days ago.
Deadoon (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Users can limit the width at the browser level if they are some weirdo who doesn't want their widescreen monitor to actually output widescreen content. There is zero justification for this enforced low-information default. It's terrible design. My desktop is not a phone. Stop treating it like one 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, WMF's response to that argument in the FAQ is Most users don't resize their browser windows or use browser plugins to improve the design of the websites they view. Wikis should be good-looking immediately, in their basic form. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that is utterly false. Tvx1 14:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, limited content width is used, not to improve reader experience, but to fill the periphery with commercials. I fear that with Wikipedia—one of the last bastions of uncommercialized space on the web—adopting this format, they will soon follow suit and cram it with ads. ~ HAL333 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333, I think one result of Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners was that there won't be ads in the foreseeable future. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. That's comforting. ~ HAL333 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable fear. Hopefully it won't come to pass. DFlhb (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't all that accessible for many people, me included. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to NYT is awful. The NYT has full-size images that fully break the text. We have thumbnail images on the left or right side of the text (as well as infoboxes, tables, etc) which do not work as well with narrow paragraphs. Our articles are not the same as newspaper articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — It’s easily the best part of the new design, and just good design sense. MarijnFlorence (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all I don't think this RfC can or should be binding since this change overwhelmingly affects non-editors who will not participate here. That being said there's a lot of evidence that limiting the line length improves readability. If you prefer full width, there's a button to toggle that. My only complaint is that the full-width preference doesn't persist between pages and on reload for IP users. Surely that preference should be stored in a cookie or something. – Anne drew 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm echoing my comments in question one above. I've seen a lot of references to the evidence that limited line length improves readability, but I can't actually find any of the papers being cited in the documentation for the new design (Lin 2004 and a Wichita State lab study were both cited by outbound links). Do you happen to have that evidence or can point me toward it? Guidethebored (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Online text 2004 Wichita State Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Guidethebored (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Anne drew Andrew and Drew - we're working showing the toggle at lower widths right now (expected to roll out next width) and investigating what progress we can make on persistence, see our update below for more info. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the update was rolled out while manifestly incomplete? In the hope that the possibility of progressing towards fixing it could one day be investigated? XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer full width, there's a button to toggle that.
Why not have a toggle for restricted width? — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Wikipedia's viewers are non-editors.
Sounds like the elite few trying to make decisions for the common masses.
73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
73.8.230.57, who is this in response to?
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew said that this RfC is not binding because there are few readers here. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, line length has been limited for centuries. Data&science based decisions, anyone? Ponor (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Fixed width is actually the main part of the new skin that I prefer over the old one (and the sole reason I started using it before its official deployment). IMO this would just make it a worse version of the old skin, with the lack of visual borders between the content, TOC, header, and everything else; just a sea of white. I do agree that the non-persistence of the width toggle is annoying. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on research and rationales behind the change in the first place. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose... but to be honest I never liked the unlimited width, it's unique to wikipedia in, like, a bad way DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm using Vector legacy on a laptop and I feel like anything wider than my current configuration would make pages hard to read.
pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's admittedly subjective, but so are most of the judgements from support voters.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably toggled the wide view by hitting the 'full screen' button at the bottom right. The default view is objectively less wide, by design.
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This change went live in my home wiki years ago and at first I didn't like it (although I like basically everything else about the new vector) but after a while I realized that not just I like it, I spend more time reading articles and I enjoy reading much more. The concept of smaller width is not new. Look at academic papers. People have data to back this up. Here is my slightly unpopular opinion: This should have been deployed with max-width set to 2000px at first and then every week, we'd reduce 100px from it until we reach the value we want. That way, the new change is not shocking to users and it let them get used to it slowly (ebay did this when changing their background color long time ago) but it's too late for it now.
[user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]^overleg 04:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Screens have different amounts of pixels per inch. So, going by pixels would result in different effects, depending on the screen's pixels per inch; not a good idea.
Why not let people themselves decide what they are happy with?
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joe Roe. I am also having a hard time understanding what would be implemented exactly per the phrasing of the question. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The design works for what its designed for, if any users prefer the other style the option exists for them to set that for themselves. But the default should adhere to UX research and best practices. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think limited width is good in general for readability. Getting the look more consistent across devices will make it easier to make articles look okay and to consistently avoid WP:sandwiching. However, the current design is not pleasing to the eye: I think a better design on the sides will make the whitespace less grating (for instance design 8 of the visual refinements. Having both a grey and then a white border does not look good. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The data is clear that limited width is best for readers. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As many others have hashed out, lines that are too long are hard to read. I have mixed feelings about the new theme, and limited width is the only change I support without reservation. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per best design practices. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Established industry design practice.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because many others do it doesn't mean we have to. Part of the reason many websites limit width is so they have dedicated space for ads. Wikipedia does not have ads and hopefully never will. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not part of the reason other websites use limited width. Even websites that have no ads use limited width. And because many other s do it does mean we should do it, that's how web design works.
Editors should appreciate that web design isn't about aesthetics. It's not about making the website look good. A web design is a user interface -- it's a tool used to allow human beings to operate computers. Like any tool, the optimum design is determined by testing, not by opinions. Professional Design 101 says that nobody ever makes a design decision based on what they personally like or don't like. All design decisions are made by testing, data, results, objective facts. And decades of this testing has determined that optimum line width is about 50-85 characters, which is why every publisher in the known world uses fixed widths, e.g. column display on widescreen, or whitespace gutters, or a combination. And this has been the case, again, for like almost 100 years now, I think. Open any book and behold the wide margins. Count how many characters per line if you want. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I think this may be a hyperbolic representation of how things really are. Yes, optimal design should be based on testing, but not everything has been tested. Moreover, that what has been tested may be more ambiguous than you represent it.
I'm not at all an expert here, but isn't it the case that traditional printed encyclopedias used a larger page format than, say, novels or monographs, precisely to allow for greater text density? Yes, this text was spread in columns, which does not work well in a web interface, but it did have greater density, right? I believe that some of the research cited by the web team says that while limiting text width increases reading comprehension, it decreases reading speed. It's worse for quickly scanning a text for information, to 'look up things', because that benefits from being able to see more text and structural elements (paragraphs, line breaks, infoboxes, images, etc.) at once.
This seems to be the trade-off, it's not a one-way street. It may well be that reading comprehension is more important for the average Wikipedia reader than the speed of scanning the text and finding a specific bit of information, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. I think more specific research into the usage of encyclopedic text types is needed before we make this important shift. Then again, I'm very far from being an expert on this matter, and I would be happy to be shown wrong here.
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
open any kind of book... read a newspaper...a magazine...the opposes of Vector 2010 don't have arguments for it. It was in front of our eyes all the time. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Industry design practice has been damaging software usability for at least a decade. The industry is out of touch with people that actually use their software. I've been using computers since DOS 2.0, and as far as I'm concerned, peak interface clarity and usability happened around Win2k, and has been downhill ever since.
As an example off the top of my head, Microsoft's move to the Ribbon in products like Microsoft Office was proven to be 50% slower for older users, and 17% slower for TEENAGERS.
If we keep listening to the "industry," we're going to have exclusively voice-activated toilets, and if that doesn't cause you existential horror, there's something wrong with you.
2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"Established industry design practice" Unlimited width is also an established design practice. Appeals to authority based on misinformation are just not helpful. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - widespread, universal, long-time, established industry design practice, supported by decades of scientific research and testing. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Fixed width presentation is decidedly NOT a universal, long-time, established industry design practice for software text presentation. Not only are there countless counter examples, there a numerous use cases on wikipedia itself where that design choice degrades the user experience. Most notably tables, infoboxes, and locale specific text presentations. TheMissingMuse (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per multiple reasons given above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because, and I don't think WMF really got into this, but right now editors are creating content for multiple platforms. A huge portion of the reader base is coming here on a smartphone. Then there's a substantial portion on tablets, many in portrait orientation. Another giant chunk on laptops. Another chunk on desktops with laptop-esque screens. Another chunk on desktops with ultra-wide screens. Another chunk on desktop with square or portrait screens. A big part of the problem with the narrow reading area for me, is when I go to an article with non-prose content, especially tables, that were clearly crafted in a wider display area. I think that means though, that Vector 2022 is highlighting a previously existing problem. Editors are most likely to edit on a wider screen than our average reader. In that sense, the places where a narrow display area really squishes the article are actually highlighting a problem that does need to be resolved. Overall, I'm not a fan of Vector 2022 but I don't think trying to roll back the skin bit by bit is a solution. What I believe would be even worse is some kind of midpoint Frankenstein between the two skins. The WMF have some kind of plan for the blank space on the right side of the screen that they are still working on. I would much rather them focus on getting that to testing.Rjjiii (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeread a book, a newspaper or a magazine, the text width is narrower than our desktop since centuries. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but maybe thats the new modern. Back to the future...to renaissance humanism Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This appears to be the main advantage 2022 has over 2010. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per Paradise Chronicle above. The limited text width is an improvement. There is a reason why many major producers of written content online (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Seattle Times, Semafor, Politico, and The Verge to name just a few) operate in limited columns.
ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People don't use Wikipedia the way they use news websites. This decision should be made for Wikipedia usage. Narrow widths may make sense for shortform articles in online news publications, but to apply this standard to an encyclopedia soley because to fall in line with non-encyclopedias would not be a reasonable move.
WikEdits5 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false premise but fine, let's look at other encyclopedias. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, which comprises dozens of different encyclopedias (including Grove Music Online) uses a single, limited column. A random sample of five Springer encyclopedias I have access to showed that their entries are all organized in single, limited columns. The print versions of those five are also arranged in columns. Encyclopedia.com and Encyclopædia Britannica are laid out in (you guessed it) single, limited columns. Expanding the comparison to beyond just encyclopedias shows the same things - World Bank print publications are typically laid out in columns, as are many journals published by University of Chicago Press and many journals published by Taylor & Francis.
ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with those above who say that web design decisions shouldn't be left to the opinions of amateurs. "Wikipedia equates the opinions on randoms on the internet with peer-reviewed knowledge" is usually a misconception that trainers like myself have to dispel, but discussions like this give the criticism some bit. What study have the supporters done of the human visual system? How are they making saccades across hundreds of characters when 65-70 characters is a well-recognised optimum? Wikimedia sites are made for human beings; if you swear your visual system works differently from the standard human one, fine: we respect that diversity! Log in and set a full-width skin, but let the default design presented to the world reflect actual research. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as I said above ctrl-+ makes the white space a moot point. The benefits of the persistent TOC and the space-saving language button outweigh any negatives. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Please please please, listen to the UX experts that have put years of research and design work into this. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User has COI for having connections to the WMF Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonsensical statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Text gets hard to read if it runs interminably wide. Limited text width has been good design for ages. Philbert2.71828 22:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: We already developed a compromise to have it be toggleable. The data shows that this is a good change for readability. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean that you force your fear of change upon everyone. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There is already an option to have unlimited screen width on Vector 2022 to satisfy those who wish to use it, but unlimited width is annoying for widescreen monitors and users with certain disabilities. DecafPotato (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – there is quite a lot of reasearch around optimal line lenght for reading. On top of that I would like to point out especially that it is not even possible to pass WCAG AAA without having a restricted width (WCAG says 80 characters is a maximum width) (correction: 80 characters limit is less solid then I thought, but thaere is a recomendation for 80 characters; "Lines should not exceed 80 characters or glyphs" [16]). I do hope that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY will prevail and that actual scientific research will be taken seriously. There is also a Reading Mode in Firefox with width constraint (and AFAIK there is something similar in Chrome too), but those are not interactive, so do not replace a proper layout for Wikipedia.
Nux (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite right with respect to WCAG. As stated in WCAG2.1 Technique C20 and Technique G204, the standard does not require developers to limit the maximum line width to 80 characters or less. The standard requires that websites are responsive to window sizing, such that if a user narrows their browser window, the website responds in such a manner that it does not interfere with text reflow and present horizontal scrollbars. The proper accessibility standard is to allow for the reader to decide on how many characters per line are presented based on how wide or narrow their browser window is.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they do "For people with some reading or vision disabilities, long lines of text can become a significant barrier. They have trouble keeping their place and following the flow of text. Having a narrow block of text makes it easier for them to continue on to the next line in a block. Lines should not exceed 80 characters or glyphs (40 if ), where glyphs are the element of writing in the writing system for the text. Studies have shown that Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) characters are approximately twice as wide as non-CJK characters when both types of characters are displayed with characteristics that achieve the same readability, so the maximum line width for CJK characters is half that of non-CJK characters." Understanding SC 1.4.8 (WCAG)
Nux (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're linking to an older version of that text, the current version is here. I would also link to the relevant section of the current draft of WCAG3, however it does not yet have a recommendation on character limits per lines.
While the 2.1 guidance does state no more than 80 characters, the two techniques for actually implementing the guidance; C20 and G204 which I linked previously, both state that text should be responsive based on the user's browser width, and not interfere with text reflow as a user scales up or down their browser window. The purpose of the WCAG is to provide disabled readers with choices to meet their individual needs, instead of assuming that all readers have the same minimum needs. In practice this means that ideally there should be no prescribed minimum or maximum number of characters per line, as the website user can adjust their browser window size based on their reading device(s) and individual needs.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WCAG2.1 states exactly the same and WCAG 3.0 is clearly not released yet so I cannot comment on that. But that's beside the point. The recommendation are quite clear. And coincidently people with good eyesight also prefer smaller width to be able to read fast. For to wide text you have to move your head, not just your eyes. There are links provided by WMF too if you care to expand your knowledge. There have been studies around optimal width of text and found it is about 60-70 characters with max reaching 80 Readability: The Optimal Line Length, Baymard Institute, NANAVATI, A. A. et al, Optimal Line Length in Reading—a Literature Review. Visible Language, s. l., v. 39, n. 2, p. 121–145, 2005 (and more in the links provided by WMF). There are some variations with font size, margin width etc, but width should be below 80 for comfortable and fast reading.
Nux (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is that the new UI should be used because it limits content width to a max of 80 characters, then your understanding is wrong. Character limits vary based on desktop resolution size. At the resolution and scaling I use (3840x2160 @125%), the new Vector UI already blows way past that maximum character limit by showing about 140-150 characters per line. And that's with the content only using a third of my screen real estate. If you want a max line limit of 80 characters, you'd be asking for the whitespace problem to be even worse by restricting the content width to about half what was implemented for Vector 2022. Vector 2022 doesn't even follow the guidelines it's supposedly relying upon.
Trynn (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the limit is 60em (see `mw-content-container` class). Yes, 60em is above 80 characters, but it is still a start. Also note that due to having infoboxes and images actual text column is smaller and about 100 characters. Yes, that is too big for WCAG AAA and I hope we can someday make a step to smaller width. Maybe with two column layout.
Nux (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read the research, I also have read the research linked at Line length#Electronic text, as well as other more recently published papers, and from that I know that there is no scientific consensus on the optimal line length when reading on a computer screen. Some research shows readers prefer a short line length of around 30 characters, and other research shows they prefer line lengths in excess of 100 characters. Current research shows there is no difference in comprehension between readers who prefer shorter or longer line lengths.
As for WCAG, again please look at the techniques for implementing the guidance, which I linked to in my first reply. The implementation notes for the guidance states that the guidance does not require a maximum line length of 80 characters, and that line length should be responsive based on the size of the browser window. This allows for websites to cater to readers whose ideal line length is both low and high, as it allows the reader to specify which line length they prefer.
Actually, now that I'm testing this more fully, Vector 2022 is actually in violation of this guideline's no minimum line length requirement, because it causes horizontal scrolling at around 70-73 characters per line, and will now allow the browser window to go any smaller than that. In this screenshot, the line length is at 80 characters per line. In this screenshot, the window will not scale any smaller horizontally, and the text width is 72 characters per line. The implementation notes for Technique G204 states that websites should not interfere with the reflow of text if the window is narrowed, and unfortunately Vector 2022 is preventing the reflow of text below that amount.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, can you point me to that "more recently published papers" that did large studies and shown that unlimited width is OK? I have access to the Wikipedia Library so anything you find there is fine for me to read. Note that I'm specifically interest in fast or comfortable reading of text not scanning for words. Different things. Also note that for those that prefer bigger width for reading there is an option in preferences. Anons can either register (takes about 1-2 minutes) or install Stylus.
Nux (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically with regards to unlimited width studies, I'm not aware of any. With only one exception that I can recall, which had counts of 347 and 240 CPL on some graphs but not elsewhere in the result, all studies I've read have maxed out at around 120-130 CPL. That said, and not citing anything that's already been cited at Line length:
This 2015 paper found that the preferred line length varied with age, with younger readers preferring longer lines (90 and 120 CPL about even), older and people with low vision preferring shorter lines (30 and 60 CPL about even), and with most participants preferring 90 CPL.
This 2012 study found that the participants preferred line lengths of between 60 and 90 CPL, but were fastest at reading 120 CPL. I'm wary of the conclusions on comprehension from this study though, as other studies have found line lengths in excess of 100 CPL to not affect comprehension (cited on Line length article).
This 2021 article (non-peer reviewed, but written by Dr Mary Dyson, one of the more prolific authors and experts in this area), points out some of the inconsistencies in findings on screen based line length research, and makes commentary on some interesting research on saccades published in 2019 and 2020 that conflicted with older research. It concludes with a suggestion that designers should challenge the conventional wisdom with regards to upper and lower line lengths and typesetting.
Unfortunately there hasn't been a review or meta-analysis paper that I'm aware of in this area since the mid 2000s, so I think we're a bit overdue for one. Overall though, the takeaway from this should not be that shorter lines are better than longer lines, or vice versa. Despite some research recommendations and common wisdom of 70-80 CPL as a maximum, there is evidence that some readers benefit and prefer lines as short as 40 CPL, with others preferring lines at least as large as 130 CPL. Therefore the takeaway should be that there is no research consensus on whether there should be an upper or lower limit. Speaking anecdotally, I'm most comfortable reading text between 200 and 300 CPL, dependent on font size, and I currently have Vector 2022 set up to allow that.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th thank you for that. Interesting research for tablets and with age-groups. The groups seems quite small (~20 participants per group), especially that it was a questionnaire... But the preference difference seems significant, which I find interesting.
However, taking into account the studies you cited, it is clear from them that by default the lines should still be limited and at best not larger than 120 cpl. Coincidently 60em that is set by WMF is actually about 120 characters. Not sure if they did that fully intentional ;), but it seems they made a good choice to set 120 characters limit.
So the default option set on new Vector is correct. It's good that there is an option to change width limitation, but there should be a width constraint by default.
Nux (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're talking in circles here!
With regards to CPL preference differences, there are also some older studies that show a similar preference distribution by age. The article by Dr Dyson cites, in the "Further doubt" section, a 1978 paper by Hartley et al., of children aged 11-13, who apparently preferred longer lines. Unfortunately this paper isn't available digitally as far as I can tell, so I've not been able to read it. There's also four papers cited in the "Line length on screen" section, some of which are cited on our Line length article, showing an inconsistent preference towards longer lines than recommended by conventional wisdom.
The groups seems quite small (~20 participants per group), especially that it was a questionnaire Most studies sadly, regardless of field, tend to have small groups. It's often expensive to get funding for larger groups, which puts them out of reach of many researchers. The major exception that I'm aware of is clinical trials in medicine, which can have group sizes in the low to mid hundreds.
With regards to characters to em units, there's no exact mapping from em to CPL, as the rendered size of 1em is relative with regards to the font-size being applied to the element, but it is not relative with regards to font-family. By default (ie, no font-size override set) 1em is the equivalent of 16 pixels on the user's device, regardless of what font-family they are using.
If you're targeting modern browsers, I believe you're better off specifying a ch value for max-width or min-width. That unit is always relative in size to the 0 glyph of the font-family that is being used to render the output on a user's device. Theoretically there's no technical reason why the WMF couldn't expose a setting to both logged in and logged out editors that would directly and accurately allow them to set an exact number of CPL, by giving them direct control of the ch value which is applied to the relevant max-width properties. The only real "gotcha" to watch out for with ch values is that some fonts like Helvetica or Georgia do not have fixed-width characters, so you will on occasion get uneven line justification. But again, the font-family could be exposed as a setting to the user, which gets applied at rendering time. Exposing either or both of these settings will not affect page caching, because CSS interpretation and rendering is always done on the user's device. If the WMF have considered this as an option though, and ruled it out, I would be interested to know why, as I've not seen it discussed on either of these two RfCs.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th "I feel like we're talking in circles here!" Are we? I was sure we arrived at the conclusion. You haven't found any good sources that would say unlimited width is good. Sources say that 120 cpl is good. New Vector default is very close to that. All is good, right?
People that want to stay anonymous can use Stylus. You seem to be a programmer. Stylus supports variables. You can write a style that is configurable with whatever cpl the user wants. Even with no authentication.
Nux (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're talking in circles. We're interpreting the same evidence and reaching different conclusions based on it. My position is still that unlimited width is ideal, as there are users who prefer very long line lengths far in excess of 120 CPL. The research on whether there is an ideal CPL value, or a maximum CPL value for screen reading has not yet reached a consensus for either question.
Stylus is an option, one that I use daily to enforce dark-mode on websites that do not have native dark-mode support, but it is not without its own accessibility challenges. In order to take advantage of it, you either need to know how to write your own custom CSS rules and be comfortable with updating it whenever any regular maintenance or tweaks happen behind the scenes, or you're reliant on some other user of the website both making, maintaining, and releasing a style sheet that meets your needs.
The better option as I see it would be exposing two CSS properties in a settings widget (the ch value for max-width, and font-family value), similar in style to the patch being trialled by Jdlrobson in phab:T91201, that gives the user (whether logged in or out) direct control over the maximum number of characters per line. This would be instead of or supplementary to the straight on/off toggle for limited content width. This allows non-technical users to easily set an exact line length dependent on their needs, in a unit that is relative to the font being used to render the content.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think smart defaults means providing defaults that most of the people want. If you cannot agree on that then yes, further discussion is pointless.
As for Stylus -- there is a form for user options. There is just one thing to change and you are done.
Nux (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Smart defaults do not preclude ease of configuration and customisation.
There is just one thing to change and you are done. Ok, pretend for a moment you've never made a website before, maybe even never programmed anything before. How do you know there's a property to change that will fix the problem you are having? How do you know what that property is? How do you know what value to set that property to? Assuming you can figure out that there is a max-width property you can set, how do you make sure that you're only overriding it for the main content area, and not any of the other defined areas on the site like the TOC sidebar or header? How do you know that HTML tags have optional class or ID parameters? How do you know how to limit your max-width override to the specific subset of classes and IDs that only affect the primary content area?
Stylus is a good option, if you're a user with a technical background, and know how to write and modify HTML and CSS rules. But very few people actually have the technical background to do that. Most people don't have the requisite skills or background to do that however, and will very quickly give up in frustration if you say to them "Get this browser extension, and fix it yourself" and/or "Read the manual, here's a link".
Also I feel it's important to point out that the rather nifty looking form in the screenshot that is at the top of that documentation linked requires foreknowledge of both Stylus' preprocessor directives to create the form, and of StackOverflow's class names, ID names, and HTML attribute nesting to determine which those preprocessor directives will be applied to which element. It is not a one-click solution to make a similar form for Wikipedia. And while yes you can copy and paste that into a fresh Stylus install on your local machine, and hopefully have it work if they haven't redesigned the site since it was written, it will likely not work on other websites, which will almost certainly have different HTML attribute nesting and property names.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reading mode. The research on narrower linewidth and readability is so extensive. An argument could be made for fullwidth in source editing templates where nested templates and functions where less line wrapping can sometimes make code easier to parse. Although IP editors can't change to vector'10. But this change has brought the interface up to standards that became the norm a decade ago, it's really not pushing anything desperately new. I've commented above on further improvements (like my person preference for emphasising references by placing them on the right rather than the bottom e.g. PNAS's layout), but wider content width would be a distinct downgrade for the average reader. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I was sceptical of the research around line length that was used as a rationale for the change, and it did take me a couple months to get used to the new skin (as I was accustomed to the older one), but I found that articles are much more readable with the short line length. Graham (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer limited text width (though the width should be discussed), as it may help editors to set page layout for most of readers. A page has a good effect in 1280px width screen, but may seems ugly in 2048px. (Or vice versa, a wide table suit for 2048px is horrible for 1280px.)--Lopullinen 08:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mostly for the same reason I opposed above. These decisions shouldn't be based on the personal design preferences of a small fraction of the audience that can easily just change the display in their personal wiki preferences. I guess this is fine as a petition to let the WMF know what that part of the audience thinks, but I'd caution those under the impression that an on-wiki poll like this will somehow be binding. As an aside, this is a proposal that doesn't even define what it's asking about. Is "unlimited text width" a subjective description based on "there's too much whitespace"? Is it a technical term? Does it refer to a specific CSS property? What are the implications for making the change? How does it interact with the other elements of design? Update: A clearer way to word this is "oppose" to the extent that this is trying to force a change; "neutral" as a way of providing feedback (anecdotally, people I've talked to mostly like the change, but I haven't talked to many people, and I personally don't have a strong opinion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These decisions shouldn't be based on the personal design preferences of a small fraction..." describes the shift to V22 as the default pretty well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something that was developed, repeatedly tested, with multiple stages of surveys/feedback, over three years is not "based on personal design preferences", regardless of whether you like the result or think they should've weighed editors' opinions more heavily. But you also left off part of the sentence, which is where I think you and I disagree most: you think that Wikipedians should be prioritized over readers when it comes to reader experience; I think readers should be prioritized over Wikipedians. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think that readers should be prioritised over Wikipedians, or at least taken just as seriously as editors in discussions. However, the surveys and feedback were not open to everybody (I hadn't heard about them until V22 started to become big news in the community). The fact that we have IPs coming over here to discuss, IPs that are just average readers, shows that they too have a voice. This RfC provides a much more diverse and probably more comprehensive (if not more accessible) feedback to V22. We have over 300 participants, this has just as much weight as any pre-V22 survey, with discussion from both experts and normal readers. The IPs cannot change anything because they don't have preferences, which is why it's a positive thing to have their voices heard here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per my comments regarding text width in question #1. (NB: I work for WMF. I did not work on Vector 2022. I was not asked to post here by WMF. This is my opinion as a volunteer editor.) KindRowboat (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose my opinions here are basically the same as in why I support keeping Vactor 2022. I'd note that despite a lot of people claiming this is some sort of mobile centric focus, I definitely recall reading about such issues in the early days where widescreen monitors were starting to get more popular, before the iPhone existed. However I would strongly encourage the WMF to find a way they can allow unregistered editors to have a saved default preference regardless of the need for cookies and double caching. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment in the main RfC, per the research underpinning the advantages of fixed-width over unlimited-width, per the WCAG guidelines and per the specific research and testing that the WMF has done with Vector 2022. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shorter line length is the main improvement over the old design, so no. This whole discussion got me to tweak the Vector 2022 design a little bit, here is my custom CSS, with larger text and system fonts. But keep the limited text width! Dan Phiffer (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the research says, fixed width is better for readability. – SD0001 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose assuming we are speaking of desktops, fixed width does improve the readability (there's a reason almost all of news sources have fixed width on their websites), but the user should have an intuitive option to make it wider, even if logged out. All of the functional buttons and links should be sticked at the left side (though also all should disappear if the user chooses so). What I definitely oppose is the current way of choosing (or rather, not choosing it): changing the blank space is not obvious or requires HTML/CSS/JS knowledge, users have to dig in preferences instead of having this on-screen and this option is not available for IPs. But once an easy toggle is done, this isn't that much of an issue.
Also, look up [17], [18] and [19]. Notice that the second one is way better readable than the first one, and the third one probably even more so. Also, even text files are wrapped to about 1/3 on screen size (on my computer). Still, to each their own, and if they want wide lines - the reader's wish should be WMF's command. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think casual readers will have a much harder time changing their user preferences to their benefit than experienced editors, so the burden to scavenge through settings and toggle the limited page width should not be on them. Among the changes made by Vector 2022, this is one of the most important in my opinion. Readability has improved greatly, and it's not even close. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readability have gone worst with the huge white space being added. The language is more hidden and getting rid of the new skin requires creating an account. Why is this an Oppose? You are listing the problems with the new skin. Tarkalak (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's much easier to read with a limited width, and this is supported by research. Betseg (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per my comment in the main RfC. the wub "?!" 22:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beyond WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is actually something that can be said about improving readability of Wikipedia articles. As many editors and the WMF have pointed out, there is significant research that shows the effects of a forced-limited width. Vector 2010 made sense when it was deployed originally in 2009 because the screen sizes were lower resolution, a mix between 680 by 480 and 1280 by 720 screens, and the effect of the smaller screens (and larger fonts and scaling) means that Vector 2010 kind of already had a reasonable width that provides the correct information density. That doesn't work anymore; the information density when reading on Vector 2010 is way too low, making skimming difficult for reading comprehension. You also need to consider that some people have ultrawide monitors and utilize tools to tell their computer to treat two monitors like one big one, for these users Vector 2010 does not make much sense. At the end of the day, it is not about what people like, but about what is best for their understanding. A skin needs to work in all screen sizes, in all screen configurations, in all orientations, and Vector 2010 has demonstrated that it can't. Just zoom all the way out and maximize your window to see how ridiculous full width looks on an extremely ultrawide monitor. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for these claims? I sincerely doubt there was any significant proportion of 640×480 screens in any developed country in 2009. Even in many developing countries like mine, CRT screens were well on the way out. If our article Display resolution is accurate, 640×480 was phased out on Windows in 2001, and 4K monitors were already being released in 2010-12. Daß Wölf 23:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was Vector 2010 worked well for its time, but it no longer works now. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just not true. Tvx1 01:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Limited-width text is fairly standard for a reason. This is what many are already used to from most newspapers, online encyclopedias, etc. Those who think otherwise can customize this. MarioGom (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly. For me, the most important improvement in V-2022 is the width restriction. As screens get wider, readability of articles gets worse and worse (after all, people reading articles is Wikipedia's primary mission). The amount of eye movement needed is very tiring. David Brooks (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you can just resize your browser’s window or your screen’s resolution. Tvx1 01:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment at the RfC above. Basically we should trust the research that limited width is better for readers. I appreciate the work done by the developers to make evidence-based improvements (and to track various measures of their efficacy). Ajpolino (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No we shouldn’t because the research was utterly flawed. Tvx1 01:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The width restriction is what finally gives Wikipedia the polished appearance of high-quality publications. I read a lot, and the new page layout is definitely more comfortable for my eyes. SoupePrimordiale (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose very much because it would go against the core principles of the new skin design. Or good design in general.50.239.155.90 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Luckily I saw this one, never thought there could be more than one request to vote or !vote or !vote-but-yeah per page. Anyway, per my comment above and everything that others have said, the skin comes as a whole. They've added a permanent width switch, all data suggest 5-6 inch long lines are much more readable than 12-15-infinitely long lines, etc. etc. 2604:CA00:17B:422:0:0:62:20DD (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Limited width seems right to me personally and is also reported as better in papers cited by User:Sideswipe9th further below. \ Aprovar (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I mean limited width is basically the biggest reason why this change was initiated, and why the tests done by the WMF have shown it to be a valuable new skin. Like many, I found it odd at first, but now I'm well used to it and I agree it improves readability. On the rare occasions when I need more width, the toggle button is right where I need it. In fact, I'd even propose the flipside of this - if the WMF do decide to go back to V2010, I hope they might make limited width be the default there and add a similar toggle button. We edit for the readers not our ourselves. — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unlimited-width text is harder for most humans to read, which is why the change to limit it was made in the first place. For those who would prefer unlimited width mode, an option is already provided that supports that, but the harder-to-read mode should most definitely not be the default. 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Izno (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, takes some getting used to, but is worth it. The fact that research backs it is even more important tho. Dajasj (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is the most valuable part of Vector 22. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for research-backed reasons stated above, given that a full-screen button is already present on a page's main view and Wikipedia retains the preference, even for readers who are not logged in. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's go with the research rather than our own opinions, as we do for all other decisions on wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that the persistent wide-load control is working (even for readers), I'm not concerned with this. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sub-rfc void - ~~Considering the low participation I expect this sub-rfc to get,~~ I don't see how any consensus here should or could affect the site-wide skin features. While I see how the community can vote on if the skin becomes the default or not, I remain unconvinced that the community should or could vote on specific features like this, especially (IIRC) the option to toggle the particular feature is possible. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that this sub-RfC seems to be creating confusion in some users, who are voting here thinking that it is the main RfC. Æo (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: could vote -> could vote in a way that is binding. And if it is not, as that is the de facto state of the large rfc, there is no reason for this to 'double up' a previous, wider consensus. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not logged in, the toggle must be pressed on every single page, every single time you come here. For the vast majority who read Wikipedia without registering an account, it may as well not be there for all the good it does. --Kizor 15:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kizor, I understand, but how does that affect the relationship between this RfC and the previous one? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:CENT-listed request for Comment. This question is neutral and brief, and I see no reason why the RfC is anything other than valid. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ixtal: Please don't poison the well by declaring the RFC "low participation" when it's only a few hours old. I will note that at my count, in less than a day, we've had over 50 comments. Don't know if the rates are going to decrease or not over the next few days, but even accounting for gradual slowdowns in participation, we're still likely to hit WP:200 or WP:300 levels in a week or so; that's pretty much the definition of a "High participation" RFC. I mean, vote how you want to vote, but don't tell everyone who hasn't voted yet "Don't bother, your vote doesn't matter". That's rude and uncalled for. Let people make up their own minds what they think, and don't try to nullify their opinions before they even give them. --Jayron32 19:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, I had not noticed that the RFC was this recent and will cross out the text about low participation. Thanks for pointing that out. Nonetheless, I still do not see how this subrfc would be binding and disagree that me stating that nullifies others' opinions. Additionally, I do not see voicing that opinion as being 'rude'. In my eyes, this question 2 should not have been asked until question 1 is closed, especially as the WMF is still tweaking the implementation of Vector2022. My doubts as to the standing us as editors have to make design decisions on specific features like text width still remains and if you are of the mind that not only question 2 is a valid rfc but that a consensus here would require the WMF to alter Vector2022's defaults I would really appreciate if you could expand on that in a reply. I greatly respect your thoughts on wiki matters and would like to better understand why and where we disagree :). Hope you enjoy the weekend. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral + Comment – the empty space issue doesn't actually seem that dramatic on my 16:9 1440p display with 125% upscale (so 2048×1152 effective resolution). Looking at the feedback by others on here, the issue seems more pronounced on higher resolutions like those of 2560px width. Perhaps a way to improve on that aspect is to introduce another level of content width limitation for those higher resolutions - i.e. have a default level 1 shorter width (like, 1800px) for medium resolutions like 16:9 1080p, and then a default level 2 content width (like, 2200px) for high resolutions. It's good that the colour light grey has been chosen for the empty space on the sides, rather than plain white that a lot of websites seem to use. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant - this is a survey of editors, and those users sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to comment on its internal workings (indeed competent to find this discussion in the first place). This sort of decision needs to be based on feedback from readers, i.e. through a formal survey, not a straw poll. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Many of the contributors here actually are readers who regoistered in order to participate. Tvx1 01:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally registered so I can get rid of this horrible change. Tarkalak (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarkalak, but not all readers share your opinion. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all readers share any single opinion. Tarkalak (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dead simple choice for the devs. In a single-digit number of keystrokes, silence 80–85% of complainants, pretend to have acknowledged user input, and be ready to get back to work on whatever else it is nobody asked for or wanted. What's not to love? 172.58.30.177 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next step: remove the old skin as an option. Tarkalak (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Monobook 5lyfe! Sent from a mobile device in a van on top of a hill where I have signal. Who has a desktop monitor in this economy?
Me gustaría ordenar los comentarios,
¿podrías utilizar una de las secciones anteriores?
Steue ( discusión ) 16:47 24 ene 2023 (UTC) } [ responder ]
Listo. InfiniteNexus ( discusión ) 23:18 24 ene 2023 (UTC) [ responder ]

La discusión anterior está cerrada. No la modifique. Los comentarios posteriores deben realizarse en la página de discusión correspondiente. No se deben realizar más modificaciones a esta discusión.

Discusión

Movido a Wikipedia:Solicitudes de comentarios/Reversión de Vector 2022/Discusión

Debido a la gran extensión y tamaño de esta página, las discusiones se han movido a una subpágina y solo se han mantenido sus títulos a continuación como una lista.Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios en la subpágina y no debajo.Gracias.

Referencias

^ "Política de privacidad". Fundación Wikimedia. 25 de junio de 2021.