Topic on Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width/Flow

Limiting content width was tried in 2014. Other than 960px vs. 715px, what is being done differently this time?

@Pelagic — I have just re-read the 2014 discussion about 715px (link), which I assume is what you're referring to. I believe the main differences are:

- we are not limiting the width of special pages and other pages such as History

- we are updating the entire page layout such that a) the content is always centered on the screen, b) the sidebar never gets too far from the content, c) overall there should be less awkwardness

- we have a plan to experiment with a persistent table of contents further along in the project (link to more info)

- we are using the same width limitation on the editor so that the page you see while editing resembles the page a reader would see (not sure if this was part of the original design)

We realize that this is going to be a controversial change. It seems clear from past discussions that the preferences of certain users around information density is almost opposite from what we believe will be most beneficial to most readers: limiting the width. I hope that this can be resolved eventually, either by the introduction of gadgets/user-scripts that allow logged-in users to modify the width, or the introduction of "reading accessibility" features that provide this functionality.

I am curious to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this matter. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply, Alex, and my apologies for neglecting to link the page.

I was was interested to learn from that 2014 discussion that some editors purposely make the page really wide because they’re not reading the article but skimming its structure.

A recurring theme there was "if you want the lines shorter, then just make the browser window narrower". I do that myself when working on a large screen. But in real life I see a lot of users who always maximise their windows even when it's counter-productive. I could rant at length about that, but it deserves a separate topic/thread.

Something else that was controversial previously was defining the max-width in pixels rather than ems.

Right so regarding "just make the browser window narrower", I agree with the response that was something to the effect of: well we don't want people to have to adjust their window in order to have a good reading experience, it should just be good from the start. Also we might consider that there are people who would prefer a narrower column of text but wouldn't think to adjust the size of their window.

We're definitely making the assumption that the vast majority of people visiting the website want to read in a traditional manner (so to speak), which unfortunately means people who want a full-width experience are in the minority. We're also making the assumption that the page is still skim-able, though I think we should follow up with more research on that.

Still that just sucks. Period. I use a 1920x1080 for a damn reason, and this reason is NOT in order to have a 50% middle space with contents and two 25% blazing white column with absolutely nothing. It's just burn my eyes and annoy me a LOT, much more than a brick of text. I hate wasted space... and it's totally what it feels like. Images still sticking inside the goddamn content column while there are 50% free space all around. I feel like scrolling unnecessary, it's fill me with angers and frustration.

''Also we might consider that there are people who would prefer a narrower column of text but wouldn't think to adjust the size of their window.''

Fuck them. Fuck this people, plain and simple. We can't prevent tard to be tard, not at the cost of preventing other regular "smart" users from fully using their screens if they want it and, more important, NEED IT. Period.

And yes I'm a bit mad cause now I'm forced to log in just in order to read properly Wikimedia's project on my desk, but not only. Because I also see what will occure next. First you let us the option to go back to previous skin version and then, in couple months / years, you'll just stop do the maintenance on it (like you did for the default buttons bar) and if bugs or shits occure on previous version rendering you'll simply say something like "use the vanilla version or try your best to patch it yourself" and FUCK THAT.

When WMF devs will ever learn to listen their community ? Read the comments from 2014, almost no one want this.

I can tolerate 10~15% max of white space from each side, and it already means 192~288px waste blank column each side in my case. If you really want ease the reading so maybe think about a toggle button that switch it to a reader mode, like does some tablets.

It's not against personnally you AHollender, just against the whole dev bureaucracy system that want to absolutely push that nonsense while a lot of users don't like that.

@Vive la Rosière I can understand why this has upset you, and I am sorry that you are angry. Though I don't think the aggressive language you are using to communicate is necessary. Perhaps it is the result of some auto-translation, I am not sure. But I can hear you just fine without the curse words, I promise :)

People have different preferences, plain and simple. You want the content to take up your whole screen, others do not. At the end of the day the layout is not going to be perfect for everyone. As a starting point, when talking about line length, I think it's important to recognize that someone on a wide monitor might currently see lines that are over 18 (or 19, 20, ec.) inches long. According to the research we have found thus far, and in my personal opinion, this is not a good reading experience for most people. And we have been hard pressed to find other popular content websites that offer such an experience. So we strongly believe there needs to be some sort of limitation on how wide the content can get. Now of course some people, yourself included, disagree entirely and say that they content should always fill as much space as possible. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own preferences and experience. However we do believe that the people with a preference for full-width content are in the minority. And again you may disagree, but until we've taken a proper survey from logged-in and logged-out users we cannot take the opinions of those who have written negative comments to be representative of the majority of users.

Secondly you commented upon some users who you call "tard" (which again, at least in English is an offensive term which I don't see the need for) and others who you call "regular" or "smart". I think it's important to state that we must include and support all users regardless of their technical expertise, language abilities, intelligence level, or any other criteria. I recognize that this might upset you further, but ultimately I think that the burden of customizing the interface to meet your needs is going to fall on the more experienced users, not the less experienced. Some people may not be familiar with how to adjust the zoom level, or perhaps they are using assistive technology which makes clicking the mouse difficult. We must make sure these people are well supported by the default experience. In short: we can make some improvements that the majority will appreciate, and then over time build back in some of the customizations and configurations such that most people can get exactly what they want.

Lastly you mention "I hate wasted space". I can understand that perspective. However I don't think it makes sense to fill the space just so it isn't wasted. We should create the best interface we can, and "wasted space" isn't a criteria I think is worth anchoring on. We focus on elements that add value, and whatever space is left over afterwards is fine. Perhaps you can make your window smaller and open another browser window to the side of it if it bothers you so much :) Other contributors have already begun to come up with constructive ideas for elements that could live in the margins. I encourage you to also think about that. Let's be constructive and collaborative and work together.

There are more notes on these topics on our FAQ page: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions#Why is the width of the content limited? Why is there so much white space?

Here is a user script that will allow you to toggle the content width to be wider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdlrobson/vector-max-width-toggle.js

I understand the need to provide a good reading experience to everyone, regardless of screen size, and I think that overall this is a good approach. However, I personally prefer to use a wide screen, and I do find it rather irritating that I'm unable to make use of its available width even when I want to. I typically have a browser with multiple tabs open, set at my preferred reading width so that I can have part of the destop or other windows visible at the side. With the new layout, my preferred reading width is effectively overridden within the Wikipedia tab only.

Following up on the comments within the FAQ, I would like the ability within Preferences to define my own default reading width.

When making substantial edits I normally pull in the window to make sure that what I've done will look OK on a smaller screen, and I'd be supportive of a feature that could easily show me what my edits would look like in the default layout for most users, even if I want to have my own personal default set to something different.

Empty space to the left and to the right of articles is really annoying. And this max-width is less than half the width of my 1920x1080 screen, thus text looks overly compressed and fused together to me which makes my reading experience in new vector theme mostly uncomfortable. Perhaps making line width a bit smaller than the default one would be good, but forcing it to take only as much as half of the screen is... Ugh. And I don't really want any elements that live in that excessively huge margin as I usually tend to remove such in text editors. So, I hope there will be some easy way to opt-out from this uninvited care of my reading experience and adjust custom width as I like.

@Adamant.pwn thanks for your feedback. The recommended line-length is not dependent on the size of your screen. So yes, the larger your screen is the more white space you will see. Eventually we will be experimenting with adding a table of contents and/or page tools to that area. You can opt-out of the entire experience simply by turning on Legacy Vector in your preferences. You can also opt-out of the max-width by using this gadget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdlrobson/vector-max-width-toggle.js. I hope those options are helpful to you.

What happens when I enlarge my font to make the screen readable?

Does the WMF assume that everyone has the same visual acuity? DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, gadget makes it better, but it's not persistent and has to be toggled on every time I change pages...

The script has been updated to be persistent.

I confirm, the margins are superannoying. And if you think the full HD is bad, I can send you a print screen from a WQGA monitor. :D I am having it hard to imagine how bad it is on some modern, 4K display.

I am having an impression that designers' aim would be much better achieved with some proper adaptive scaling.

This looks awful. I see "just use widgets" as a potential solution for users who don't like the new reading experience. Anonymous users don't have this luxury. This feels backwards, there should be a widget that allows users to turn 50% of their screen into whitespace if they want to. Please don't go make this garbage the default design that unregistered readers will be stuck with