Unpopular opinion: Wikipedia's old look was much better than the new one
I say that after throwing some caution to air because I understand that every new thing has some initial resistance or pushback due to the "past comfort zone" effect.
But having said that, I feel the aesthetics of the old site was much better than the new one. But then again, I'm from the old-school world who also prefers old reddit to the new one in browsing experience, so my opinion could be biased! But even considering the modern web design, don't you think the black icons on the top right have a somewhat odd look? And the "21 languages" feels a bit verbose, the I10N icon already conveys what that dropdown is about? And finally, that scrollable sidebar on the left looks a tad ugly?
I just hope this is just a beta stage or something of Wikipedia's new version and a better one will evolve soon! But that's just one humble unpopular opinion, me thinks!
You can dislike it, your opinion is your opinion - but it's an objectively better design. It's more accessible and more usable. The narrower column is more readable. That's not an opinion - UI lab tests prove time and time again that humans read narrower columns more easily than wide ones. I don't think they've gone far enough on that front, but it's a huge improvement.
The sticky contents box is fantastic. It's cleaner and easier to navigate and that means it's better at getting information into people's heads and that is the whole point of wikipedia.
The tightened and cleaned up layout is so nice. They've reduced the overwhelming (and relatively useless to most use cases) number of links on the page and it's going to be less confusing and more navigable for a majority of users.
You just can't rely on most icons. You can have play/pause/power/stop/hamburger menu/shopping cart and maybe save and that's about it before you start to lose people. I would guess that no more than a few percent of users know what the I10N icon means, but the words are very clear. Also that dropdown changes depending on how many translations of a page exists.
However, I'm old reddit until I die. New reddit is a step down in usability.
ps @JCPhoenix
No so far-fetched, it's happened to me with a couple of redesigns I've done. And not just users I know personally :)
User customization looks like it might be the real answer.
Turns out humans just like having the option to fine tune their reading experience. I do well with tightly packed small characters that go to the window edge (which is usually about 1/3 to 1/2 screen)
I find it funny that the article says "towards" when I feel like we've been regressing on that front for the past however many years.
The trend of reducing user customization is one of my biggest gripes with modern UI/UX design. It feels like every site and application is hellbent on reducing the number of options to the absolute minimum. I get that studies probably show that minimalistic design is preferred by most users, but I'd rather they leave options for those who want them. Though I assume that would increase dev time when they have more systems to take care of. That doesn't explain all of it, though, like why Youtube chose to remove "sort by oldest videos". I assume that's more about having control over the user, instead of the other way around.
As an aside, this is why the recent talk about Google trying to kill adblockers is making me nervous: I don't want to give up Vivaldi.
All that said, even though I was kinda weirded out by the narrower columns on Wikipedia at first, I just realised that the old reddit layout I use (and prefer) is [just as narrow!] (https://i.imgur.com/c5R4Hlo.png). And I've managed with that on a 1440p monitor for two years without complaints!
That is making me also nervous! When I ditched Firefox for Chrome many years ago, it was for its performance and ubiquity. I also needed Chrome as a web developer because most clients used that and it ensured ease of testing and development. Never thought they'll abuse that power in this way after attaining such popularity. I really hope they will let the adblock stay on desktop because no major replacements remain at this point. Perhaps time to look at Brendan Eich's Brave browser or Opera then?
Not all humans but the average human maybe! There are plebs like us too who like to read a lot and those perhaps prefer wide length generally. It's good though that Wikipedia has still kept older themes just like old Reddit, so it's fine.
Yeah, yeah, everyone thinks they're the one person who is special and different... ;)
If I still had a UI testing setup I'd put together some tests and you could find out. You might be surprised. But sadly I do not, my job has moved on from that kind of thing.
fwiw I read a lot and I love narrower columns. I can waste less brain power on tracking where the line is and more on enjoying or understanding the words. If I'm really in some good flow I don't even need to track along a line, I can "snapshot" them, which is very fast and completely impossible on wide layouts.
But yes, I agree it's good they've kept the older themes. I would suggest giving it a few weeks before you switch back if you can though, if you're like me and spend far too long diving down various rabbitholes of weird and fascinating stuff on there then you've got a lot of muscle memory associated with using wikipedia and changing that will take a little while - but you might find once you've got used to the new design, it's actually easier and faster to use.
If you like to read a lot, you would likely be well served by appropriate line length. Appropriate line length (not too long, not too short - something like 50 - 75 characters per line) is very important for speed and accuracy in reading. This isn't new info specific to the web either - people realized it a long time ago with newspapers, books, magazines, etc. That's why newspapers are done in columns - it's a lot easier to read a story.
When you are ready blocks of text, if a line is too short, then you end up with a very choppy feeling:
Sentences like
this one make
it very difficult
to effectively read.
If that went on for any length of time, it usually annoys people and encourages people to put abandon what they're reading. Line lengths that are too long seem like they might be good, but in almost every case (every case that I've ever tested, or known any other tester to have done, but I won't say 100%, but maybe @mat has some other info) longer line lengths lead to worse reading, accuracy, and information retention, even in people who claim to prefer longer line lengths. This is for a couple of key reasons:
long line lengths mean that when you reach the end of a line and you move to the next line, your eye has to move further, and it increases the likelihood that you miss your line.
people tend to focus more on the beginning of lines, and focus wanes as the eye travels through a line of text. We become more focused at the beginning of the next line, so the refresh of eyes travelling to new lines is important, as long as it doesn't make reading choppy.
long lines make "short" paragraphs, which also changes how we visually process the whole page.
I've done a lot of usability testing over the last 25 years, and I have had dozens of people straight up tell me that they want their sites to be wider because they felt like space was wasted. We used to just share a test with people and show them that what they think they want just isn't a good idea, and we actually used wikipedia articles to do it. We would take two articles of approximately the same length, and format them differently - one would have an appropriate line length of about 60 characters, and the other would be very long (100 or 120). Then we'd have them read the articles. I don't recall a single time someone was able to read the poorly formatted article faster, or answer basic questions about the article more accurately.
Anyways, long story short, this is objectively good, and my strong inclination is that you'll actually end up finding things generally easier to read on the new redesign, even if you think that you don't like it. That said, you can just choose a variety of different skins, or use a snippet from @petrichor from this thread on the matter to make any adjustment you want!
Yeah, reading these comments is deeply frustrating. People can say super thin line lengths are "objectively" better based on studies of people who aren't me all they want, but that doesn't change that it is uncomfortable for me and causes much more trouble because I have to search for new lines more often. I feel like there's a lot of dismissal of human diversity here.
I don't understand how "making the experience better for most humans" is dismissive of human diversity.
If the situation were flipped, these events happened in reverse order and we'd go from catering to the 99 percent to catering to the 1 percent, people would throw a fit - rightfully so.
The comment I replied to conceded that it may be the best for most people, so that isn't a relevant point. What frustrates me is being told that my preferences and issues with reading thin mobile-looking pages are wrong and that I don't know what I want because my experience clashes with the average and is inconvenient for people in favor of these design trends to work around.
I'm confused who told you anything about your preferences. I'm the only one who replied to you...?
I don't really want to argue because I agree and most of what I am writing is just nitpicky, but I also read earlier in this post by @Atvelonis
(both posts are the top posts for me) and I just wanted to point out a few things I found while trying to find more information.
In the discussion page for Vector 2022 on Wikipedia, in response to a user posting the FAQ about the whitespace another user mentions the various sources (e.g. Computer text line lengths affect reading and learning by Peter Orton, Ph.D. IBM Center for Advanced Learning) often used are decades old.
Regarding resolutions (as examples), Youtube added 1080p support in 2009, the Wikipedia page for 1080p mentions smartphones getting 1080p FHD on the market in 2012. Netflix in 2013.
Another point that was made is that this article, Myth #28: White space is wasted space - UX Myths, is cited in the MediaWiki FAQ and used frequently as justification but has some issues with it.
While doing my (very limited) amount of research to find what the ideal amount characters or space for readability was, I found there isn't really an agreed upon amount.
The MediaWiki Vector 2022 FAQ says: "On websites, there should be between 35 and 100 characters per line. Numbers closer to the smaller end are preferred."
While the MediaWiki page for Limiting content width says, "The popular recommendation is that there should be between 40 and 75 characters per line. The findings of multiple studies conclude that "short line lengths are easier to read". Regarding learning and information retention: "Subjects reading the narrow paragraphs had better retention than those reading the wide paragraphs"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length#Electronic_text
I also want to point out here that several times I've come across that longer lines would be better for people who quickly scan Wikipedia vs shorter lines for when that information needs to be thoroughly processed, which directly contradicts any points that state that smaller numbers are objectively better without stating the case it is used for.
Some other discussion (also fairly old) on Stack Exchange that also has other numbers and links to other sources:
text - What is the best number of paragraph width for readability? - User Experience Stack Exchange
website design - Ideal column width for paragraphs online - User Experience Stack Exchange
Lastly, I want to reiterate I am not against the new design and absolutely agree that whitespace is necessary, but something I just found amusing was this discussion on the Talk Page.
Is there a way to get even more white space?
I'm not a fan of text, I mostly come to Wikipedia for the white space. So as you can imagine, I was very pleased with the new layout. But the problem still remains that there is a lot of the page which is sadly being taken up by pointless text. Is there a way to shrink down the articles even further? Ideally, I'd like a single column of words, one word wide, down the center of the page. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Vector 2023 is scheduled for release on 1 April. By default, it will show just one character per line, but we are assured that there will be a "widescreen" toggle to show a whole word. (Longer words may not be supported initially.) Certes (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think your opinion is actually all that unpopular in most tech circles. I also still generally prefer the old design simply because I like that no frills, oldschool web aesthetic. And I have gotten used to the quirks and annoyances of that style of site after 20+ years of it being the standard. But that's just my personal preference, and if I'm being honest with myself, based mostly on nostalgia.
However, to the redesign's credit, it's actually objectively a lot more readible thanks to the more restricted column width, which makes for more optimal line length. Moving the content box to the sidebar is objectively much better as well, since the old design having it mid-page with no body text beside it wasted a lot of vertical space on every page. And overall, the redesign is pretty subtle with mostly just those minor QoL changes, as well as a few accessibility changes, so I honestly don't see much to complain about.
p.s. If you want to use the old design, you still can. Either create a Wikipedia account and then set your theme to "Vector legacy", or use @petrichor's userscript, which appends
?useskin=vectorto every Wikipedia URL.Interesting you mention old reddit. I also use old reddit (I've tried using new reddit many times; just can't do it), and a big reason for that is screen-width. So to see Wikipedia intentionally shrink the main article space is very reminiscent of new reddit's shrunk-down space. And it's annoying. There's all this wasted screen space on either side. On my screens here at home, which are 24" 1920x1200 each, it looks like total half of my screen is wasted space (if the left nav isn't included, like on the homepage).
But I do like the content navigation on the left sidebar always being there! That's definitely a nice feature. Never realized how much I was scrolling back and forth.
All of web design is just beta stages for some unattainable goal of a perfect UI. One that has a crystal clear navigation and IA. Where site visitors will never get lost and can easily and quickly find exactly what they're looking for. Where visitors will send the designers/devs messages of positive affirmation of how amazing the site is (OK, that's farfetched).
Maybe they'll be like reddit and have "old wikipedia."
They do, if you have an account, you can set your preference to use the old style. You can also use an even older style from 2007, for those who were complaining about Wikipedia's new skin before it was cool.
Wow, "Vector Legacy" and Monobook themes is exactly what I was looking for! Looks like they allow theme customization using CSS/JS too.
The worst part is pages that enforce wide margins even when you half-width the page and now it's barely wider than my phone sideways.
Except that it doesn't work on old browsers like my main browser on my main computer. :-(
I can click it all I want, to no avail. Also I experience a slowly growing number of small glitches here and there from time to time.
I would have expected that Wikipedia would be THE site, if there remained only one, that goes to any lengths to be compatible with all possible devices and browsers in the world. I was very disappointed to be proven wrong. In fact I feel this disappointment stronger than my annoyance at non-working (for me) features.
Apparently its devs have the same mentality as those in other places (not enough concern with avoiding to break stuff that already worked, or implementing new stuff in the most portable way), and succumb to the same trends with the same consequences. I had believed that they would care more.
=(
Out of curiosity, Is there a reason you can't update your browser?
Unfortunately, that's how web goes. I've been involved in several website redesigns (my company is going through another round right now) and unfortunately sometimes people or their devices get left behind. New tech, new trends, new designs. Even when I was more involved in web design and actual coding, I always felt like I was still behind the curve, no matter how much I tried to keep up. It just moves so fast.
But I do agree with you, that out of all sites, Wikipedia should be aiming for compatibility more than anything. It doesn't have to be a flashy site, and luckily it never has been. The world's collective knowledge for free is great, but not if you can't readily access it.
That's very surprising! It looks like the actual "jump-to-header" functionality of the new sidebar is implemented exactly the same as the old nav box; with dead simple fragment URLs. I wonder what about the new site isn't playing well with your browser, and whether Wikipedia would be able to fix it if you reported the issue.
Going completely by what my eyes prefer when reading, I prefer old reddit but I prefer new wikipedia, so I fall in the middle I guess
I'm typically an "old web" preference type of person, but, my eyes cannot deny that for me the new wikipedia is more comfortable to read
The width of a post or comment in old reddit is still restricted (despite the page being left-aligned), but the width of the window is effectively used because as you go deeper into the tree of replies to a thread and you add more offset on the left, the comment width remains constant - there's a set ideal and both sides of the comments serve as guides along the depth of the tree.
Tildes is like this, too, despite being centered. Smart!
On new reddit, some genius decided deeper replies should get increasingly narrower and more squished against the right hand side of the pointless popup box.
Isn't it the same on old.reddit? It just happens less quickly and less often because there is more width available, I think (and the font is smaller too? Perhaps it it isn't, I am not sure, as I only use old.reddit).
But sometimes I experience troubles with the composition box when replying a deep comment, and I have seen the case where there is hardly more than 1 word displayed per line; I never understood when comments were pushed on another page through 'continue this page' and when they weren't, sometimes it kicks in early for no apparent reason, and sometimes it doesn't kick in despite the comments being squeezed to a width of just a few characters.
The old web design was made for tiny little square monitors though. Modern large widescreen monitors stretch the text out well beyond comfortable reading length which the original design never anticipated.
I think it was a good update because it was not a complete revamp, it feels like a sensible progression that does not contradict the way it used to work.
I may enable the older interface just because (1) I've used it for such a long time, and (2) most of the time I don't read Wikipedia like a novel, but rather skim large amounts of text to find what I want, and I feel that greater information density is better for that.
But I wouldn't say that the old is objectively better, it may just be better for me.
I love the new design. By itself, moving the ToC to a sidebar is a massive usability win on desktops. The max line width reduction may annoy some people who prioritize information density above all else, but it's founded in real science showing significant tangible benefits.
I wouldn't really compare it to new Reddit. While new Reddit has some aesthetic and usability improvements, many of its design goals are built around user engagement and other metrics that may not align directly with actual user needs. Wikipedia on the other hand approached their redesign using real-world research to improve usability. They don't have advertisers and investors to please.
I think this is actually a textbook example of a good redesign. For people who disagree, Wikipedia lets you use the old look.
I legitimately thought I had accidentally gone onto the mobile version of the site when I first saw it. And then I didn't see the URL starting with "m" when I checked it.
This will take some time to get used to.
Every UI change starts out uncomfortable but I think the new wikipedia is objectively better. Unlike the "new" reddit which is still horrible many years later.
I disagree. And I'm super critical about this stuff. I run old reddit exclusively (the day they shut off that mode, I'll stop visiting for real). I hate websites removing shit to make room for some arbitrary "mobile interface" where every setting is hidden behind 3 layers of hamburger menus. Ironically, I always hated people posting Wikipedia mobile links (starting with "m."). But new desktop Wikipedia is actually good. It's a subtle redesign in many ways, not reinventing any wheels or fixing what wasn't broken. The chapter selection in the side bar makes a ton of sense. It's IMO one of the best website redesigns in years.
I was a MinervaNeue user until this launched. The sticky table of contents alone won me over. I wish every site on the internet had one of those. (I have a Firefox extension installed to generate them in a sidebar, but it's not nearly as good as having them natively as part of the layout.)
People talk a lot about readability, but I don't think that's the best way to think about it. Sure, accessibility options are important, but different designs encourage users to engage with the content differently. I think the old Wikipedia design is well suited to a certain way of consuming information and the new Wikipedia design is suited for another. There's something about the old design that captures the imagination that the current one I don't think does. Personally, I don't like the trend of centering content and significantly increasing white space