Wikipedia:User experience feedback/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 14 May 2010

This page is a place for you to tell the User Experience Team what issues you encounter when using Wikipedia. We are already aware of many bugs and wishes, but we also want to provide an open forum for less formal storytelling.

We welcome your ideas, but please focus on the issues rather than on possible solutions. If you want to propose a solution or request a feature, please do so but also tell us what problem it would fix.

Tell us your stories, tell us your frustrations. We will read them carefully and try to remedy as much as possible.

→ Add your story

Changes outside of Vector

While I think vector is an enormous improvement over monobook, I'll be using modern until the day I die. One part of the annoucement in particular caught my eye - "These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features..." (emphasis my own). Maybe I haven't done my homework, but will the toolbar and other features change the other skins? They way they are mentioned outside of the vector rollout imply there might be some additions regardless of skin. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Amorymeltzer. The new features such as the new toolbar, dialogs for links and tables, built-in special characters, built-in cheatsheet, and collapsible left navigation bar will be released along with Vector. So non-Vector skins will not see the new features. Having said that, you can go to your preferences under "Edit" and enable the new toolbar for Monobook, for example, if you wish to try it out the new feature instead of opting into the default user interface.(Not all features are configurable by user preferences though.) We are sorry that we need to opt you in when we switch the default skin, even though you already know that you are going to continue using Monobook. The current MediaWiki architecture does not allow us to detect who opted out from the default setting, so the change will apply to all monobook users. It will be a one-step opt-out, just click, "Take me back" link when the switch happens. --Shuhari (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I use the modern skin, so no swap for me! Thanks for the note though - I've checked it out. Very cool! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say modern, not monobook. Sorry about that. --Shuhari (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

== logo-search bar LOGO SEARCH BAR

I dont like it this way yea watever

Printing tables

I'm fine with the default look, could you just change it back so that when you print an article with information in tabular form that the borders are printed too, like it used to be? For example, you print the wiki page on a musical album. The list of tracks look ridiculous without the border, why was this changed?

This sounds like a bug. What browser/os are you using? Howief (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IE and Firefox on Win XP and 7. Definitely not a client-side bug, someone changed it globally for Wikipedia...

Yes this is a bug: MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Missing_wikitable_styles_for_print. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is sometimes the problem.

I hope that Wikipedia will appoint a group of people who will verify the articles edited, because reliability is the problem in Wikipedia nowadays. But, Wikipedia still remains helpful. Keep up the good work.

There's a group of folks over on the strategic planning wiki addressing this issue. We'd love to have your input there! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Want

I do not want to be "forced" to have my skin changed to Vector. The clasic wikipedia style is monobook, which is why Wikipedia has created so many other wikis what use the same skin.

Vector should be optional where users can choose what skin they want.

I find Vector to hard to use, all of the bottons have moved, the sidebar is all different making it harder for me to use, not easier

Yes you can change back, but some pages still have vector skin on them, which is why I said it should be optional. Sophie (: 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is optional. When logged in, just click "My preferences" at the top-right corner, click the appearance tab on the page that appears and choose the "monobook" option. Afterward, follow instructions at WP:BYC.--moɳo 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The new outfit is etremely ugly and uncomfortable! It forces me to update my browser (which I dont want to do). The only "democratic" solution is, that technical freaks may click a button for this new style while the vast majority of "normal" users should not be pestered with such "progressive" stuff.

The theme may be optional, but it is not optional until you switch away from it. One of the great glories of Wikipedia is that people can come to it at various random times to make a search and then do something else; it is not necessary to log in. I would not want to have to stay logged in to keep Wikipedia acting as I wished it would. If you want to keep supporting the theme, please let that setting depend on a cookie that is separate from the login cookie. Regarding the comment just above this paragraph, I am a techie user, and I say this change was pushed out too quickly without asking the community. Please revert. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I love to switch languages !

help seems that you are losing the easy poibility to switch from one language to another (preceding comment added by unregistered user 213.96.169.120 on 11 May 2010 at 18:34 UTC)

Wherever above IP has the info from, I hope the interpretation is wrong. The ability to click to the "same" article in other languages is helpful in several ways, and I hope it doesn't disappear! Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interlanguage links in the left navigation bar will not go away. --Shuhari (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that, Shuhari? Looks like the links indeed have disappeared. I want 'em back, please! - Hordaland (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The language links remain, but they need another click. Even for a user who has no interest in looking at a version of the article in a different language, it is helpful to see at a glance how much interest the topic has around the world. These links should remain visible without having to make another click. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated by NoOneAsked, I also think that versions of the same article in other languages should be visible at startup, not only after clicking on "Languages". I do not think that new users will necessarily understand what is hidden under "Languages". BNutzer (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Beta

I have been using Beta for months now, and i have no problems with it, and prefer it to the standard layout. however, sometimes i wish i could read articles in a larger font, and i cannot find how to increase the size. is this an existing feature i cant find, or is it not possible? that would be the only thing i would add.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Either a) adjust your browser settings, e.g. using Ctrl++ or ⌘ Cmd++, or b) as a logged-in user, try going to Special:MyPage/vector.css (assuming you're using the new Vector skin) and adding the following line:

#bodyContent {font-size: 110%;}

Adjust the percentage there as desired. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikepedia Problums

My name is Stevie, and I am 8 years old. I use Wikepedia all the time for my skool work. Sometims, it doesnt work verie wel. I hop you can fixe it. I dont want the enturnet to be brokin. Thank you. -Writin by Stevie Johnson

Stevie Johnson 8 years old George W. Bush School, HI - Written by Lucy Johnson, Stevie's mom

I like wikipedia and I think that it is a great public service. Without it, everyone would have to be either experts in the given field they are working in or carry around heavy encyclopedias like the old days. Does anybody remember that?

Missing buttons

I've been using the beta for some time now, and it works great! It is a significant improvement over the monobook and old toolbar. It appears the new toolbar is missing the strikethrough, hidden comment, and math formula buttons (even clicking "Advanced" in the new toolbar doesn't show them). The search and replace feature is also very nice. I would just like the buttons I mentioned added. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure the usability team will address your comment better in the long run, in the short run, if you know some JavaScript there's some documentation on customizing the toolbar over on the Usability wiki. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I looked again at the usability wiki page, and there's code snippets you can add to your vector.js page over at usability:Toolbar customization/Library for all of the buttons you've asked for. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing folks to the documentation on customizing the buttons. The usability team employed click tracking on the toolbar to determine which functions were the most commonly used. The ones that received the most amount of usage (e.g., Bold, Italics, add link) were included in the main toolbar. Others were included under Advanced, and a few were removed. In the future, we'd like to have a more user friendly way of customizing the toolbar. In the meantime, please use the existing documentation. And if there are individual functions that enough people feel strongly should be available by default, let's discuss. Howief (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The snippets work, but is there any idea what font the letter A used in the toolbar? I would like to make some matching icons. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this page what you are looking for? --Shuhari (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, but unfortunately, the font costs money. Is there a close alternative? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia (typeface) will do. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading in edit box: refs in different font

When looking in edit box for the bit one wants to fix, it's often difficult to find that bit because of the long stretches of refs. I'd like to see them clearly marked somehow -- in boxes, in a new font or in color, for example. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting is something that user experience team had considered as a possible feature, but it is currently in the back-burner. We hope to develop easy-to-interact with reference tool. By the way, have you used refTool gadget? It is pretty amazing gadget. My preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing Gadgets -> refTools --Shuhari (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New look...

Questions:

Can we still use the old format even after the new look comes in?
Will there be downtime when the look is changed?
Will anything be removed?

And above all...

Just...just WHY?!

Answer me plz! S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Possibly (hopefully not), Not really, To make Wikipedia easier to use.--moɳo 00:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the Usability Initiative is to make Wikipedia easier to edit. The existing editing interface can be quite intimidating to new users, so we focused our efforts on improving the experience for the novice editor. Please refer to the Usability Wiki for more details.

You may check out the upcoming changes by clicking on the "Try Beta" link at the top of the page. This will take you into the beta experience, which includes all of the upcoming features. A brief summary of the upcoming changes can also be found here.

For users that would rather use the original features, we will have a "Take me back" link at the top of the page which will restore the original features. Howief (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, but not great.

Wikipedia is good, but they should have a rule that it HAS to be true. Some things on Wikipedia are fake. But I LOVE using Wikipedia as my online encyclopedia.

Although many things on Wikipedia should be removed due to nonsense, many things that may be untrue or nonexistent should remain. For example:

Pages on Religion/beliefs ( and other abstract nouns, if this is what you meant)
- Pages on the beliefs of groups of people. If one person decides on the existence of a holiday, it should probably not be written about on Wikipedia.
Pages on scientific theories
Example pages

-Nicky Nouse May 12, 2010 (not logged in)

I prefer the current format

I know you guys wanna put something new onto Wikipedia but IMO, I think this current format is more suited for me. If you're changing the format, can you give us the option to switch formats?--Hundred-Man (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there will be a "Take me back" link for users who prefer to keep the original features. Howief (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a "Bookmark" facility!

Hi, my suggestion is that a tab called "Bookmark" should be added so an article can be "marked" as being of interest to the user (as is done in a "paper" book with a "physical" bookmark), without the need to keep it under "watch" (ie: in the user's "watch list").
The rationale is that for a bookmarked article no track of its changes would be kept, so the "watch list" is used only to keep an eye on the atricles that a user wants to change-control.
I'm very frustrated that I have to "watch" articles that I'm not interested in verifying its latest changes! And it's not practical to mark the articles as "favorite" in the browser, as a user can access wikipedia from many different computers so the bookmark should be a function of Wikipedia and not of the computer/browser.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One way to accomplish what you (seem to) want is to make a list on your user page. - Hordaland (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Single sign-on for all the Wikimedia projects?

I found that if I want to login, say, to the Italian Wikipedia with the user I have it the English one, it doesn't work. Why should I re-define my user in each Wikipedia and in Commons?? If there is a way to have a unified login, can you please explain me how?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is. For more information, see WP:SUL. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gah... Twinkle, Friendly, and other javascript tools don't work.

Come on. Let's stick with the old WP. I can't even use Twinkle, and that will dramatically change how articles are reverted from vandalism.

If I'm wrong and all, please comment here. Thanks :) Jeremjay 24 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm running the new skin, and JavaScript tools appear to be working just fine. Try bypassing your cache. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have scripts in a /monobook.js subpage, you need to make a new /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy them into that. That should have been explained. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

lack of CUSTOMIZATION.

I am a dedicated user of wikipedia and i have gained immense amount of knowledge from it. It is a superb interface having information about almost everything in the world BUT it lacks in a great thing that is customisation according to users. it shou;d store kind of information user likes to view and help him giving more knowledge about the same. like the random article feature can be more useful if it could be customized according to my needs and the kind of information i am looking for . this can help wikipedia becoming more advanced .

Thanks Vaibhav khosla

Would you be willing to submit that as a proposal on the strategic planning wiki? There's been some discussion around features of that type for the future. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Its Fine

Oh Don't change wiki, whenever sites change it gets much to complicated. I mean, look at the wiki homepage!

Misleading front page information

For as long as I can remember, there is a certain sentence prominently displayed on Wikipedia front page. However, it's not readily apparent how untrue it is. I'm talking about the Wikipedia motto: 'Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. This is absurdly incorrect, as I will elaborate, and it should instead read: 'Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can attempt to edit'.

This is my personal experience with attempting to edit Wikipedia: I found a reference to a certain Derek Smart in credits of a video game. I got intrigued, searched for him on Wikipedia and saw that there is indeed an article about him and his eccentric personality. First, I thoroughly read the associated tips for editing on Wikipedia and I found a tip 'Don't bite the newcomers' funny, but only later will I realize how gravely serious the implications of it are. So, I went to the associated discussion page and mentioned what I found (note that I didn't just barge in and edit the article by myself) and the response I got actually took me aback, and it went something along the lines of: "The reference mentioned does not come from a valid source, since it is original research. Third-party source (such as an interview) is required to place it into appropriate context."

Wow! And then the discussion returned to whether or not an anecdote about Derek Smart punching a vending machine should be included into the article. Are you kidding me? Now, I may not necessarily remember that response verbatim, but if we take that as standards Wikipedia ultimately strives to, then we've opened a can of worms. What is 'valid source'? What is 'appropriate context'? Who determines these?

Now let's look at this quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi "Talk pages of blocked IP addresses that are being used for continued inappropriate editing, including repeated abuse of the [unblock] template, or continued uncivil or offensive remarks" Again, the same question - who is the ultimate authority for determining these? And who appointed this person if this is indeed 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'?

That same page: "As outlined at Wikipedia:Office actions, pages may be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright or libel. Such actions override community consensus." We've now stepped into the murky waters of censorship.

Can I be an administrator on Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users "Administrator rights are granted by the community to users requesting them"

Yippee! So there are no, you know, bureaucrats, determining who gets to be one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators "After seven days, a bureaucrat will determine if there is consensus to approve your request. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass and most of those below ~70% fail." D'oh! :D (if you've read this far, you deserve some humor on this otherwise pretty grim topic)

There is a shock-parody of Wikipedia, yet despite that, very sound ideas can be found there, such as: "With Wikipedia, everyone who contributes User Generated Content (UGC) there gets nothing, and loses a lot, whilst the organisation itself benefits. (...) Also those who provide user-generated content may also face legal threats for it, whilst the website it is submitted to may not (...)"

Whoever wrote that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, shrewdly realized that everyone wants to be a part of a group - any group. Thus the unrealistic promise Wikipedia makes with its 'you can edit it, too!' to attract newcomers. And what about the 'don't bite the newcomers' rule? If Wikipedians are such nice guys, why is there even a rule to not be hostile towards anonymous contributors? Because, in fact, they are not, it's quite the opposite - everybody new is considered a troll (if you don't know what a 'troll' is, it's synonymous with 'disruptive member')! And keep in mind that innocence cannot be proven and you have the current situation.

In conclusion, who owns Wikipedia? I don't know, but someone does, and the owner has rights (permanent and inherent) while the rest of us are limited-access users and we have privileges (temporary and granted) on Wikipedia. But is it 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'? Absolutely not!

P.S. I apologize - I tried to format my message to be less like a wall of text and I tried to break it up into paragraphs, but this site keeps resisting it; and why is a new line preceded by a space considered a quote? That simply makes no sense! 109.165.228.51 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your new improvements

Great job on your new User Experience, you managed to make Wikipedia useless to me. I no longer get the old search box. The new one on the top right doesn't work. I put in "Lili St. Cyr" and got "null" back as a response.

not better, just different

The vast majority of wikipedia users are not here to wiki into an article; they just use the site for casual research. Why change an interface with which we are already familiar? The "search" text-entry box is now in the upper right-hand corner. It takes a physical effort, not much of one, granted, but a physical effort nonetheless, to get the mouse cursor up there. The advantage to this is obscure. Asking me to create an "account" just to have the option of returning to the familiar interface feels a little like extortion; at very least it feels manipulative. Are you planning on making this a fee-based service? This is a new-Coke Wikipedia.

Loss of InterNational feel and ...

What become of language list on the left side? Loosing that feature seems like a significant drawback of the new design. That list served as a great support for open-mindedness of Wikipedia and cross-language comparison and validation tool for everyday user. Hope it returns soon.

The Balkanization of the world continues apace. Just this month, ICANN, in wanting to make web sites more accessible to users in different scripts, intended to make it so that people could see that even URL's would be in the user's own language—and at the same time made it easier for people to ignore the world outside of their own languages. Wikipedia now has sadly done something similar: in the interest of usability, made it easier to be unaware of other languages. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New position of the search box

While, an avid user and fan of Wikipedia, as I'm sure anyone conveying these words would agree ...

I have to congratulate you on the changes to the grander scheme but also suggest the improvement of minor improbabilities such as ...

The new location of the search bar is unexpected. As such it doesn't only serve any function any better than before but even more so it's closeness to the right hand perimeter of the screen means that the unfolding suggestions drop down menu is limited in its scope and therefore impaired. Even more so the once expected pattern does not repeat on subject matter pages once found but returns to its old and expected place.

I have to admit that, while, once again, applauding the implemented changes, I find myself in disagreement with this detail and would not regret seeing it return to its former place.

With best regards,

Dissapointed

The old look was indeed better and more user friendly.

Especially am I dissapointed where the search box is placed, as long words or sentences aren't show because it's placed on the right of the screen.

please put the search box back where it belongs

The new look is fine, I guess. I honestly don't care much one way or the other as long as the information and functionality remain unchanged. Which is why I'm disappointed with the search box moving up to the top right, away from all other menu controls.

Why couldn't the search box have kept it's old position among the options on the left?

Maybe you could just move it back to where it was?

Or even put it at the bottom of the new options menu on the left so it can keep it's new functionality without forcing users to change their habits.

Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion.

74.111.179.133 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit: In regards to having to create an account to get the old search position back...

That does seem like you're more interested in increasing the declining number of registered users than utilizing some advanced individual cookie technology, even though I doubt that's really your intention it looks bad. --???

In case Wikipedia is unaware, most people use Wikipedia to read, not to edit, so making people register would be working against Wikipedia's mission and vision. --124.180.45.189 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE. Why is search way in the corner? PUT IT BACK Joshua4 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I will get used to it, but search...

It looks a bit strange at the first look of it, but I will get over it. But a thing what should be looked at, is the search bar. With the older lay-out, it was with one tab on the search field. Now it is 6. For me that is a lot more, it is even to much. Especially when you want to quickly look something up, I don't have to be so long on the main page. It could even that if you load the page, that you can start directly typing in the search bar, like the search of http://thepiratebay.org/.

But if that will be fixed, it is a good looking page.

And what I would like too, but it has nothing to do with the lay-out, is a cookie installed, that knows wich languages you can read. And based on that you can click on the same subject/different language buttons. Now it is still that you can choose between 40 languages, while I can fluently read just 5 of them. So first you have to search, it is now not simply one click. You have to search to. So my idea is that by personal preferences you can reduce the languages list, what stand for a faster transition for same subject/different language pages.

--But as I read an earlier responce, it indeed gives an international grade, if you see how many languages there are for that article--

Search bar

Hey, I see you moved the search bar to the top right corner. I liked it where it was before. I think you should move it back :)

-- Zach

I AGREE. Why is search way in the corner? PUT IT BACK Joshua4 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

- Actually, I like having it in the upper-right corner (the same as most browsers, for example). However, it's too narrow. One of the nice parts about the old position is that the suggested search terms spanned a much wider distance, making it easier to distinguish between them. Maybe move the search bar to the left of the "read, edit, view history" tabs so that you can make it much wider. Or, alternately, have the search suggestions span out to the left (up to half the width of the window, perhaps?) beneath the search bar. The Crunchy Frog 5/13/2010

- It's fine at the top, but please, make it a bit larger and put it in that GIANT space in the middle. Thanks!

it sucks

that's all i habve to say

New Format as of May 13, 2010

The new format is not effective. It confuses browsing due to the radically changed placement of search tools and while the effort to create an "easier" use of wiki is present, the site does not require a revamp to imporove ease of use; this is wikipedia: billions use this site without problem. Please avoid trying to fix nonexistant problems. -Mike VanImschoot, Canada, vanimschootm@hotmail.com

Stream Lining

"As stream line as a six legged milking horse"

Whilst unable to give praise to anything, a big concern is stream lining. The idea being that all parts should be in easy reach of one another, without cluttering up the control system. The new layout seems to have taken the inverse of stream lining, with Search over here, menu over on the other side of the scream, and the tabs as far apart from one another as possible. Along side this issue of distance, the menu is cut up into drop down lists. While drop downs can be used to sort very large lists, with only 15 items, the current menu list would only be problematic for a screen size under 800x600, of which a computer with less of a screen size will unlikely be able to use the drop down list anyway. All the drop down list does is force users to navigate the list, require more clicks to get to follow certain links and overall cut down stream lining and Increasing navigation time. --124.180.45.189 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't like

I don't like where the search bar is, but that's a minor issue. My biggest complaint is that it takes too long to load these pages. Thankfully, it is possible to disable the new features. PLEASE, always let us have the option to disable the new features. I don't want to get stuck with the new features on my other computer. Maybe it's my processor speed, or something else. Some of us have legacy computers.

Text is too small (Watchlist comparisons)

Why make editing and tracking articles so difficult? Trying to compare the changes of texts which have been altered (looking at diff and curr) is now extremely difficult, since you have made the texts so microscopic. This is a terrible change. What's with that? I'm a responsible editor with numerous controversial articles on my watchlist to ensure against vandalism, and you have made it much more difficult to track what's going on. -US

"Read/Edit/View History" would better go into a line below "Page/Discussion"

If the "Read/Edit/View History" tabs were below the "Page/Discussion" it would make "Read/Edit/View History" look like a 'sub classification', which agrees more with the user interaction

A new LOOK for the Environment

To whom it may concern,

Recently I heard that dark backgrounds for one's screen saves more energy than Light backgrounds, this apparently is because using a white screen requires more energy. This is why Google has created a custom search known as Blackle (http://www.blackle.com/), where the screen is completely black. Now, I know that Wikipedia is a very well known source of information and many people around the world use it. So I was wondering If we could save energy together for our planet's sake and change the main color of Wikipedia to black. It may not be big but every bit counts..and we have come to a point where a change must be done. I thought that to save the environment, I might ask you to please make this change. I know maybe this might make the layout less pleasant But I find it important we do so!

Thank You and please do consider my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.3 (talk)

See the replies at Wikipedia:Help desk#a new look for the environment. Blackle is not by Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox section is unintuitive

I tried out the new features, and stopped using them because I couldn't figure out how to see a user's contributions from their user page. I've now figured out this link is in the 'Toolbox' section (along with What Links Here, Related Changes, etc). This was unintuitive - I think this box should be automatically expanded on all pages. Robofish (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand though, I really like the new editing toolbar. And when I just clicked to close a tab that was open on 'edit this page', a box came up asking if I was sure - that's a very nice feature. Robofish (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the placement of the search bar though. I'm still getting used to it, but that's because I've grown accustomed to it being on the left side of the screen. I wonder how easy a new user would find it to locate. Robofish (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interlanguage links in the left navigation bar is gone please bring it back

I, too, miss the language links down on the left. Where I do know more than one language, it is interesting to compare the two versions of an article. I can pick up points and refs in the one article and import them into the other.

The list also functions (functioned) as an international dictionary: How do you say SLEEP in Portuguese? Go to Sleep and click on Portuguese.

At the risk of offending, I'll also point out that English speakers, at least many of the Americans, need the reminder that there are more than one language in the world. And we all can be proud of working on a very international project.

Please bring back the language links! Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They're there, but they're folded away by default. Click "Languages" (bottom item) to expand the languages list. You only need to do this once, after that a cookie will be stored on your computer to remember the expanded state of the languages section. --Catrope (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Put the search box back on the left, please.

New Stuff Mostly Good, but...

Didn't like the look, so I put skin to MonoBook again. Disliked the new features, so I disabled 'em, wanna fight about it? :) Jk, Wikipedia is sweet. 2D Backfire Master ^{lovably sardonic} 11:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The NEW version of the site really SUCKS BIG TIME!

There are some of us that do not know anything about computers that have no clue how to use those things above in what you call a sandbox?

Search function as of this minute does not work - Whatever you put in there it changes it to null and then looks up null how stupid!

Your alpha listing is very very slow loading and cumbersome and worthless!

I also agree the search box on the far left side needs to return!

You sure wasted a lot of time and money trying to fix something that was not broke!

Please send me an email when the site is working again if it ever does? - jaguardog69@hotmail.com!

Searches now more difficult

Now that the search box has been moved to the other side of the screen, the "psychic" search suggestions are harder to read.

For example, last week, when I typed in "Chris Led", the system suggested: Chris Ledoux Chris LeDoux discography

Now when I type the same search, I get: Chris Ledoux Chris LeDo...iscography

So the result is that for longer items, they are now being "..." in the middle, making it harder to understand the choices.

No problem with the position of the box itself, just the way it now functions.

Ralph

That is a very good point, which I hadn't noticed yet. Of course the complete search term is more valuable than a truncated version. Let's have the search box at top left, right under the logo. Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop Cutting Off My Searches

I have only been using this new interface for a few minutes and have already had the following happen twice: I type a search term and immediately press Enter, and Wikipedia cuts off most of my search and takes me to the results for the first few letters. First I typed "Manchester" and got taken to a search page for the nonexistent word "Manches." Then I typed in "Northern England" and got taken to a disambiguation page for "Nor." I am using Firefox.

P.S. If I type a search and press Enter quickly enough, I get taken to a null results page. This is probably what happened to the person who commented under "Your new improvements" above. Some of us are quick typists and know exactly what we are looking for. Please give us back a search bar we can use.

This has been filed as bug 23498. --Catrope (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the new theme is plain

I think we're all going to miss the old theme. Anyway I have a few points:

The new search box is only for quick jump to a default article. Before I was able to jump directly or look for.
Why the 'in other language' is folded by default?
The new font size is smaller than before, even if you enlarge it from your browser.
You do waste a large space down there. I mean for copyright stuff and the others. :)

But still, I like Wikipedia!

forgot to sign.. ok here it is... A sanny (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SEARCH BOX

THE SEARCH BOX SHOULD BE ON THE UPPER LEFT LIKE IT USED TO BE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TYPE SIZE

ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE TYPEFACE SIZE IS soooooooooooooooo SMALL, THAT IT IS EFFECTIVELY ILLEGIBLE. I HAVE LOOKED AT WIKIPEDIA 100'S OF TIMES, BUT WILL NOT ANY LONGER, BECAUSE IF IT MEANS THAT I HAVE TO USE A

M A G N I F Y I N G G L A S S TO READ THE TYPE, THEN IT IS NOT WORTH THE BOTHER. I WILL NEED TO SEEK OTHER SOURCES

I DO NOT SEE (LITERALLY CANNOT) A WAY TO INCREASE THE FONT SIZE, MAKING THIS SITE NO LONGER USABLE.

TOO BAD.

yo wiki. u need som enew info on the nam!!

Wikipedia in the "new look" is actually more difficult to use

I agree with all those contributors who want the search field back in the old place, and who want it to show the full titles of articles where there are multiple matches. Furthermore, if there are articles in other languages, the links to them should be plainly visible, and not only after selecting a menu. I have also noticed that pages in the new layout take considerably longer to load than in the old. I propose therefore that provisions are made for users, even without logging into an account, to be able to switch between "themes", at least until the issues with the "vector" layout are resolved in a satisfactory manner. Schlosser67 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar

Can you put the search bar to where is was before the change, I don't think its convenient to be located at top right

Globe Disappears in Firefox.

With this new format: In Firefox / tools / options / content /colors (button)/background / un-check "allow pages to choose their own colors..." Voila! Your globe disappears. If you figure that out, I'd like to know--- I have same problem with another site.

The new style actually hurts my eyes

3 complaints that make using the new wiki really unpleasant.

All of the features of the interface are smooooooth to the point of being blurry and hard to focus on. And I think I have reasonably good eyesight.

The interface has far too much light-blue on white in the side bar and the tab-bar at the top. Higher contrast, please.

The new tab/button things at the top of articles that fade away... What can I say? I hate them with a burning passion. They take up about twice as much screen space as the old tabs, and the way they fade out towards the top makes their boundaries a little vague, making them seem to bleed into that white space at the top of the page.

Those are my actual complaints. I also think the new style is just plain ugly. But there's no accounting for taste...

Fonts too small to read

I am a long time supporter and user of Wikipedia. The new font size is too small to read. Please return to the larger font size or make it possible for us more easily to change the font size as it appears to readers. Thank you.

No

Why the hell are you changing something that works? I do not want to have to learn a new interface. I do not want to hae to create an account just to look something up. I just want it to keep working the way I am used to it. There was nothing needing improvement. All you did was screw it up. What is your problem?

Search Bar Cuts Off Searches

For example, typing in "Kawasaki Syndrome" searches for "Kawasaki Syn;" or "Thor" for "TH."

I can get used to the search bar being outside its rightful place as long as it works, and it currently doesn't.

I am confident you will fix this - you have always preached the importance of the user experience.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this isn't intended behavior. It's been filed as bug 23498. --Catrope (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Searchbar

Just please put the search bar back on the left.

Don't like the new layout

Sorry guys that your hardwork did not payoff this time. But the new layout is not very good (IMHO). I enjoyed having the search on the left side for one. When I did try to use the search it took about 4 clicks more just to get it to go. I know it's only 4 clicks but is bothered me. Also the font size changed on me. I have to now view it with a medium text size instead of the smaller text size. I for the most part view all my websites with the smaller text size.

So once again sorry that I can't say that I enjoy the new setup after the hardwork that was put in to create it. I just wanted to share my feedback.

Default Cursor to be in the Search Box.

I've always wanted the cursor to start in the search box when you arrive at the homepage. Personally, I immediately search for an article 99% of the time when I arrive at the page; I'd be very surprised if this isn't the most common activity among all users on the homepage. Making the search box as prominent as possible, and defaulting the cursor there (as well as remedying the search-related problems mentioned above) ought to be a top priority in the design of the page.

"Null"

I've been a frequent user of this site for years now, and what bugs me the most about the new look is that you can't type something in the "search" field without getting the message "null", leading to the Wiki-site for "Null". I hope I'm not the only one quite unhappy with this new look.

Thomas Weiling

I like it!!! Clean look.

The old look was getting, well, old. Very sleek.

BTW, before Wikipedia, saying "I saw it on the internet" was not helpful. But these days Wikipedia adds some heft to an argument, though once in a while one must be careful.

Search box

I am having problems with the search box under the new look - it keeps truncating the text I type. For example, I recently typed "Northern Ireland" into the box and hit return. At the moment of hitting return, the text got truncated to "Northern I" and that was what was then searched for, yielding a search page informing me there were no exact results for that term. I am using Firefox 3.6 on Windows Vista. Thanks, and any ideas as to why this is happening would be appreciated! SteveRwanda (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback.

Nothing huge here that hasn't been said. I took would very much prefer the search function back on the left. Perhaps above or below "Main Page". Even if it's a hidden option I have to drop down. I really hate it on the top right.

Besides that I think there is too much white space on the top of the pages.

Nothing else at this point. I think the editing changes are nice. The logo looks "weird" to me, but I'll get used to it and forget it was changed.

By the way, you can use http://wikipedia.org if you want to have search in a more convenient spot.

Edit: Drop down box works for me (Firefox), and I realize this is likely why the search box was moved, but I think it's okay to drop over the rest of the options on the left. When you are searching, you aren't worried about Contents or Interaction usually. You just want to search.

Thanks for working so hard to evaluate and publish improvements!

---{Added comment by Zephyr Zephyrus}---

Steve Rwanda is exactly correct. I regard the overall changes as very good except for the unintended problem with truncated text in the Search function Drop-Down field. We all know that something already very good can usually still be improved.

The cause of the problem is that the search input form field is right justified and positioned on the extreme right side of the screen in any browser. When the form field is at the extreme right side of the page, the browser cannot place text past the right-side limit of the screen/display on the local machine, at least not if the active window is Full Screen, as is often the case. The browser would be better able to render the text without truncation if the search input form field were positioned either centered or left justified, In any case, whenever the search input form field is positioned at the extreme right, then text truncation must occur for strings longer than the allowed width of the drop down field.

The proper solution has already been suggested by others -- namely -- move the search function input form field and its associated drop-down text field to be more toward the left. The best place in my view is that the search function input form field should be on the same line but placed to the right of the Discussion tab where there will be ample space for longer text strings.

redo the FONT SIZE

hey wiki can you please put back the regular font size for wiki search on anything that i look for because all the wording are too big to read please redo the font on the whole wiki thank you

ABOUT NEW APPEREANCE

Not all the nations has the same "improved and nice" appereance. Today may 13, 2010 I was looking for some info about a pseudocyst, and my surprise was that i found out something different, a few different things that to be honest at first i didn't liked much, so i tought that maybe wikipedia has been hacked or something so i decided to make a world tour, i started visiting google india, russia, australia, mexico, argentina, japan, canada, guatemala, polan, us, and chile, and then go to the "local wikipedia" of those places, and the worst surprise was that wikipedia in all nations doesn´t has the same appereance wich means to me sometihng unbalaneced, like somekind of clasification, i was suppoused that this site was totally international, with open boards, so why to do this? why make this kind of differences in between nations if anyways this site share information about "everything", from all places of this planet, and also this site is visited by citizen from all over the world, seems like somekind of preference for some nations like us, mexico, canada , australia (for example) to have this new and apparentely improved appereance,i dont like this, and also i know will be others in some other place of this planet won´t like either and also will notice. The old version it´s better and unique, helps to identify quickly where you are, and this new appereance, o got confused, o thought this site has been hacked. Thank you.

The new skin will be enabled on all the other wikis soon as well. --Catrope (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The New "Improved" Look

I don't like the new "improved" look for a variety of reasons, a few of which I'll mention here.

1) I tend to use Wikipedia from my mobile device and the new format shows up in a MUCH smaller font than before. I enlarged the font size on my phone to the largest size available and am still having trouble reading the screen.

2) The easy-to-find box to insert search terms is not appearing on my mobile device. Now, every time I want to change articles, I have to return to the main Wikipedia page to enter the new search term. That is very frustrating.

3) The language alternatives have disappeared. I can understand adding new features or reformatting for a better layout, but why remove features?

There are other reasons, but I see no point in throwing everything at you at once. I am used to Facebook changing their look/layout every few HOURS, but one thing I have always enjoyed about Wikipedia is that its format didn't ever change dramatically.

I am disappointed.

Search box on left please

I really don't care about your tired attempt at looking flash and more modern, just for gods sake put the search box back on the left where on would expect it. Thanks.

Otherwise I will use your site a lot less and rate it poorly to others. Not exactly something you need really considering the bad press you have had lately on pornography?

Painfully slow

The new style of Wikipedia appears to be considerably slower to load than the old one. Pages which used to load within 2 or 3 seconds now take 20 to 30. The text and images will appear on screen, but the screen will then freeze for another 15 seconds, with no indication as to what is still loading.

What once was a fast and effective information database is now slower than crossing the room to grab a dictionary to thumb through.

This was probably a result of the skin switch being stressful for the servers. I'm not experiencing this slowness myself. --Catrope (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SEARCH: Top, Right-Handed Corner? Are you kidding?

Sorry, but this is not an improvement.

I loved the "Search" field where it was!

Altering the Search box

The search box no longer offers suggestions when words are typed in. It worked better the way it was before.

Agreed... I do not mind the location of the search box (although why change it if it worked) but it was very annoying to not be able to get a suggestion for the article I was looking for, and it was not on the disambiguation page.

The New Search Box is very poor and Inefficient.

Hi, The new search box is really very disappointing. It has various problems. Please repair it, It is ruining the amazing reputation of Wikipedia.

Improvements

The new layout is NOT an improvement. It is a DETRIMENT. Put the search box back where it was, either eliminate the interaction box's down arrow or allow it to function, and close or open the box as I choose, and turn on the toolbox and language arrows, so that they me used by the person logging onto wikipedia, not just look like they can be used.

New skin on Playstation 3 web browser

I frequently use the PS3 browser, and often go to Wikipedia because it's a nice easy way to get information about a subject. However, the new skin has made reading the articles impossible, because two collumns now cover half the page. I tried to log in to Wikipedia in order to change to the old skin, but the "log in" button was unresponsive.

I realize that PS3 users probably make up a very tiny percentage of your userbase, but if you could fix this issue I would be extremely grateful. 76.105.253.3 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Box works when clicked, but not when you press enter

Please fix this:

1. Search Box works when clicked, but NOT when you press enter -- just takes you to blank search page. In particular, if you paste text into the field and hit enter -- which I think many people may do -- it does not work. Please fix.

Also, please fix this:

2. With all that room there, the search box should be much wider. You can't see all of what you type half the time.

3. Search box in the top right corner makes sense for a lot of sites, but not here. Wikipedia is not any site, it is more akin to google, bing, yahoo -- the search box should be front and center, big and bold. Having a search box in the top right treats it like it was an after-thought. Think about how useful and appropriate Google's simple design is (and I mean the home page, not some toolbar). -- This is what you should be trying to emulate.

Unreadable web page

Hello, I was researching WPXA TV station. All the text on the page is unreadable because it is too small. Other web pages I visit are fine. I have not made any changes to my PC and previous visits to your website have been fine (and very helpful). I am running Windows ME with a display resolution of 1024X768. Could you look into this for me please?

Thanx, Don,

Search Box Needs Big Help

I agree with a lot of the other posters, the changes made to the search box are by far the biggest problems with the redesign. If you want to keep it at the top right of the page, then you should greatly expand the size of the box so that search results are not truncated. I consider the search box to be the main entrance into Wikipedia, & you have truly spoiled it.

Too much change

Change, change, change. Everything has to change these days. Everything gets praised as "NEW! INTUITIVE! BETTER!" but sometimes it's only better in the creator's opinion. Take a look at how google.com introduced its sidebar, most of it isn't actually needed. Please move at least the search bar where it belongs! Thank you!

Search box should get the focus

The Wikipedia website anchors to the top-left corner of your browser. Also, all text starts at the top and is left-justified.

The focus is thus the top-left.

Why then is the search box aligned to the top-right?

Has the design even been tested on a large desktop?

Terrible

Seriosuly... it's horrible... everyone loved the old wiki, these changes were UN NEEDED and UN WANTED

More on search boxes

Funnily enough, the Usability group's own wiki site [1] has a much better looking Search box, with the Go and Search buttons retained as they were on the old Wikipedia and without the problems of truncation (as far as I can see). It would be much better if that look was used here as well. SteveRwanda (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial view

I would love it if you would, when I open Wikipedia, place the cursor in the search box by default rather than having to click on the search box before I can enter a search term.

Very frustrating.

Thanks.

This is not done by default because, on arriving at the Main Page, users expect to be able to scroll with the arrow buttons, which doesn't work if the cursor is focused on the search box. I certainly would find it quite annoying were the cursor to be focused that way, since I rarely use the search box. If you register a user account and log in, you can add a Gadget in your user preferences that will change this for you personally (while you're logged-in). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Went Back to old look

The new look was unusable. On 99.9% of web pages, fonts are just fine. Today I opened Wikipedia and somebody had whacked the look to painfully small fonts. It was done with no warning, no staged rollout, and no opt-in; opt-out only. I opted out. Now Wikipedia is usable again ... with the old look. Hu (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes are not an improvement

The recent changes to wikipedia has only done one thing successfully, that is to alienate and disappoint its users. These changes make wikipedia UNUSABLE on the PS3's web browser, you cant read any info pages and you cant click on any links. The only way i can possibly see to rectify this problem (and get the egg off your face) is to revert back to the original layout. Wikipedia is priceless resource that millions of people use every day, after this change all i can feel is that you people at wikipedia do not respect your user base. Wikipedia needs to be changed back to its old format.

search box wrong placement

please put the search box where it was "to the left"

Another Searchbar at the bottom of the page.

Can Wikipedia put another searchbar at the bottom of the page. It gets a little frustrating scrolling all the way up or pressing home everytime, specially in the cases of long articles. - Vin Mehr.

forced to log in

i'm exceptionally unhappy at being forced to log in since i cannot use the new layout that you have forced on us (it seems unfinished and the colour tone of the page is unpleasant) i will probably be stopped from using wikipedia

i refuse to stay signed in to ANY site and i will not make exceptions for any sites including wikipedia

the new layout should occur when i choose and if i sign in, and NOT be thrust upon any users

Perhaps a solution could be a "oldpedia" startpage and a "newpedia" startpage so i can bookmark and use the former and those who wish can bookmark the latter

i should not have to sign in to use the version of wiki that i like and find comfortable to use

Teknotiss

RefToolbar

The new look seems to have removed and disabled the RefToolbar, which I use frequently. It is one of the most useful gadgets available. I have returned to Monoscript, and will not use this new look until full functionality is restored. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Too Impressed

The new search function is a step backwards. Previously it would show other close alternatives, not just ... for the omitted words. Sometimes to does not even give a aletrnative list. You need to move the field to the left and enlarge the box for alternatives, or at least have an option to scroll it horizontally (even maybe vertically).

My MS Internet Explorer / View / Text Size / Medium is too small and

                       / View / Text Size / Larger is too large!

On Wikipedia concept and content I vote Yes!, but on the supposed improvements I Vote No!

New look

I will check back weekly but until it goes back the way it was, I'M done with wikipedia. look up new coke see how that worked out.

Please put the search box back where it was. Pages are normally read left to right - what was wrong with the old layout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Auto-suggest searchbar behaviour

Like the old search box, the new one will auto suggest destinations as you type. However, the behaviour when you mouse over the suggested destinations is poorly designed. The following example shows how it goes wrong

I click on the search box.
I move my mouse away from the search bar, so the box is clean and has no distracting cursor.
I type in my query - Wikipedia.
I press enter - and expect to be at the article on Wikipedia.
However, because my mouse was hovering over the Wikipedia Foundation suggestion, I go there instead.

I did not move the mouse at any point after I began typing. As soon as I begin typing, I'm using keyboard input only. I do not expect the search box to respond to my idle mouse, just because it is hovering idle over a suggestion. If I want to go to that suggestion, I will click. Typing enter at the end of my query should not jump to a suggestion. - hahnch e n 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

brief remark on search function in new Wikipedia

I think the search box should be much larger and more prominent on the Wikipedia homepage. It's basically the whole point of Wikipedia (the other stuff, featured article and news and whatnot, is just window-dressing) and yet in the new design it's tiny and hidden away in the top corner and you can hardly see it. Put it front and centre!

new look for wikipedia

i preferred the old version. you page is to wide. the eye likes to travel shorter distances horizontally. moira

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME HATE WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia has always been the perfect tool for quick-on-the-screen information. This new version is terribly slow and depending on how detailed the article is the screen freezes altogether. If you decide to give up and click the mouse button while the page is still downloading, the "not responding" error message shows up. Please remember that things don't have to change just for the sake of it. Please get Wikipedia back to its former self.

If it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

Just like Yahoo, you've decided to "better" your website when all it does is turn people off. People like what they are comfortable with. There was no NEED for this but I'm sure somebody convinced the big wigs there that it was..... and probably got paid a shitload of money for something that wasn't needed or wanted.

New does not equal better

Please put Wikipedia back the way it was. Having the search field in the upper right, away from all of the other navigation tools, is a very poor ergonomics choice. The layout is less delineated and more cluttered. Text is easily lost on the eye. And the color palette and interface layout design all make this "user experience" look unfinished and weak. Just go back to the way it was.

Text Size, Font and Search Box

I agree with the others. The search box needs to GO BACK TO THE LEFT and the text size should be changed back to what it was. This new microscopic text size alters and frustrates the readability of this wonderfully free encyclopedia. Inputting information, facts and data into the mind is HARDER now and when the inputs into the mind become harder then analysis, retention, outputting, creative thinking and mind mapping also suffers.

Sure I agree. Editing Wikipedia is a priority and should be made easier, but we also want to READ Wikipedia.

I am only asking for two things: 1. Go back the old text size and font type. 2. Move the search box back to the LEFT so that the auto suggested text generated by your server software can be readable at a GREATER LENGTH. A greater length that would eliminate the unreadable triple dots '...' from which a researcher/end user is forced to decipher vital/key header/title information in finding the right article.

One of the great benefits of Wikipedia that sets this encyclopedia above many others is the depth of your articles and the vast branching to related topics. These features make browsing Wikipedia more fun and enjoyable. Moving the search box to the LEFT, (You can still have it ON THE TOP. It does not have to be halfway down the page as before) makes better sense for browsing Wikipedia's vast library of articles.

Page is taking more time to get open

As compare to earlier version , this version is not speed friendly taking more time to get open, please check it out..

Why entirely move the search form object to right top ? I liked it on the left.. but see no option available to activate instead !? which easily could have been done ?

Eddy, webdesigner

If it's not broken, don't redesign it.

Wikipedia worked fine. Simple and very user-friendly. Now, wit the redesign... not so much. Change is good, but change for the sake of change... not so good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.13.254 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2010

I am usually a big believer in that philosophy. The Monobook to Vector change was fairly well thought out and planned. It will eventually be an improvement, especially once the annoying bugs are ironed out. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that, and I don't like to criticise unduly, but they've had six months to get this right in beta. And it's not just small irritations we're talking about - the Search box is almost unusable at the moment, and if true about the Toolbox not working in Opera that's also a fundamental flaw. Surely tests have been carried out with a range of browsers and common situations? It's quite incredible. SteveRwanda (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User toolbar should not use capitalization for "My talk", "My preferences", "My watchlist", etc.

I have gotten this fixed at the Wikipedia Commons. I thought Commons was the testing grounds for Vector but I guess the change never got merged. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with opera 9.27

I cannot see the languages anymore or what is under "interaction" , "toolbox" or " languages" anymore. When I click on them nothing happens.

--Merijn2 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BROWSING

It is taking ages to search, scroll down a page or even load a page, you need to have this at same resolution as previously. Tony

Welcome to Weakpedia...

So this is what you call improvements: it takes an eternity to switch pages, letters are like bugs floating adrift on a shuffled white screen, and I can't switch from my mother tongue to English and vice-versa with just a click. Please make a "Take me back!" link available so we can revert to the usual Wikipedia, the sooner the better. I'm developing an aversion to this new version.

Too slow.

Don't like this new look, the old version is better in visual and functionality. Please revert.

It was good the way it used to be.

I don't believe there were complaints about the old version. You don't have to improve something that is already good enough. Will you make it available for us a button to switch to the old version, plese?

Leave the old layout as the "not logged in" default.

Many of us are set in our ways because we have equipment or needs that work well the old way. Why not leave the old layout as the default and let the logged in users select what ever new way they like?

This is a poor idea because it is equivalent to saying to leave Wikipedia in a static state. The goal is to provide the best interface possible, not just to logged in users but to all users. The question still remains if the new version is better or not. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate the new format

I cannot understand changes made just for the sake of making changes. Once you get used to certain features you will want to stay with it. The only reason behind this could be only that there are some guys out there which are paid to to SOMETHING.

It was much better before the recent changes

I dislike the new features. Immunize (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

please, please change tab order...make the search box first on the list.

Please put the search box back where it was or change the new tab order. Previously I was able to click the wikipedia bookmarks toolbar link I have added in Firefox and Safari and then hit tab ONCE to get to the search box. Now it requires 6 (SIX) tabs to get to it (OK, only FIVE tabs in FF, 6 in Safari). This is absurd. I come to do research not to read the front page (it can be a pleasant distraction, but it’s not why I have wikipedia as a primary item in my browsers’ menus). Once I’ve loaded Wikipedia it stays open in a browser tab, previously this meant no mousing required to reposition the cursor to the search box (I switch back to Wikipedia’s browser tab by control-tabbing; switched to the search box by a single tab).

Not a fan of the new look. I prefer the old wikipedia.

Tab issue

In the old design, I can press tab and the first thing the text or selection cursor goes to is the "search" box. Now, I have to press multiple tabs before getting to the search box or I could slow even further down and use my trackpad. In the past, I liked to search Wikipedia because my hands never needed to leave the keyboard. Please make it such that the first tab in your webpage hits the sarch textbox and not the links. Thanks!

Don't fix what aint broken

Why change something that works so good. Put it back the way it was, I don't like the new look.

Search Bar

Bring it back to the left...if possible put it so that the it stays in the same spot on the screen (lower left) even when scrolling through the article. (Something similar to Google with it's search function)

new search feature - worse than before. you can't see the search result

Yeah, search field is broken. Type something, hit enter, it "forgets" the last few letters you typed. Every time. You have to stop and wait and let it think about it and catch up to your typing - even though what you typed displays fine immediately.

This is insane. Text entry fields on webpages are a known technology. How the hell do you screw it up?

Search box on the left

Since a lot of menu is on the left it just felt naturally to have a search box on the left under the text. Thought the search box on the right is nice to have as a padding filler...Perhaps have two search boxes?

Needs to have mobile version

It looks wonderful but will not work on my blackberry any more.

Search box eats my keystrokes

Like at least one other person, I find the search box to be particularly voracious for my keystrokes. Just now, I wanted to know the land area of Africa, so I type "africa" into the search box quickly, then hit Enter. I ended up on the article for Afric Simone. Thinking I may have missed the "a", I did it again, and got the same results. Then I did it again while watching the box closely, and saw the complete word "africa" typed out, followed by the "a" getting lopped off between when I finished typing and when I hit the enter key.

Only bad things happen when you try to make the interface more clever than the user. The contents of the search box must be read-only to everything but the person doing the typing. Anything else will result in nothing but frustration.

This is a bug that needs to be fixed. It happens because your keystrokes exceed the pace at which the javascript suggest box can search. When you press enter, you expect it to take the input you have given it, not whatever the search box is doing. - hahnch e n 22:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I want my old Wikipedia design back!

The new search feature is crap, and the search box itself must go back to where it was. Pages are normally read left to right, plus I like my buttons where they are. I feel frustrated because I contributed to this project for quite a while and now, suddenly, there are changes which aren't necassary at all. Give us the old design back! ViennaUK (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Text size is HUUUUUGE. WTF! Unreadable because of this

terrible, don't you test things beforehand? Words overlapping each other makes it unreadable

Ramdom article

I did enjoy the Random Article navigation link. Can you put it back?

Search box should be at the left of the main page

I got used to the search box at the top left of the Wikipedia main page. It should be relocated there. Whenever people go to Wikipedia, the first thing they do is entering a search term. Things that are most important on a page should appear at the top left - just a matter of 'intuitive' logic - alternatively, a Google-style minimalistic start page with the search box prominently placed in the center might also be worth a try.

"no free image"

In the circumstances where you don't have a public domain photo to use for a article, why not put a link for a Google Image search for the article's subject?

search bar on the upper right? Nah.

search bar on the upper right? pfft! no, no, no, and NO!

new wikipedia problem

new wikipedia is very slow. It is not an improvement.

Please please don't fool with the formatting

Everytime you screw around like this it imposes a $10 million tax on your users. Figure

   2 million users * 15 minutes confusion time * $20/hour = $10 million

And this assigns most peoples time valued at zero!

In fact here's a fund raising idea for you. Threaten that if your pledge goals aren't reached by a specified date, you'll make ... random changes to the screen layout and formatting.

Wikipedia now totally unusable on PS3

This is totally frustrating! The new design of the site has made the entire site completely unusable on the PlayStation3. You cannot read any article as two white horizontal bars run over the entire page and also make all internal article links unusable too. We are supposed to be able to turn these useless new features off, but to do so we have to log in, which we also cannot do because the 'Log In' button simply doesn't work on the PS3!

To say this new feature is disappointing for me would be a huge understatement. I used to access Wikipedia almost exclusively through my PS3 because of its location in my house and now I simply can't.

I hope you will soon fix this bug, or simply remove the new layout. Why was it implemented anyway??!

The new look is definitely a slicker look, and I like being able to hit the TAB button to get right to the Search field.

Kostad (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CITIZINS ON THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO AND I MEAN NO!!!!!! LEAGLE RIGHTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT AND I SAY AGAIN CITIZINS OF THE GOOD OLD USA. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE CRIMINALS AS FAR AS THE USA IS CONCERNED. ANYONE WHO HAS OR IS NOT A US CITIZIN IS A CRIMINAL AND HAS NO AND I MEAN NO LEGAL RIGHTS. IF YOU DECIDE TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO THEN YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO FACE THE LAW OF THE LAND. I AGREE WITH ARIZONA NEW LAW ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I THINK THEY SHOULD ALL BE SENT BACK. I AM TIRED OF PAYING FOR THEM AND I CAN'T GET THE SAME INSURANCE, WELFARE, FOOD, AND A ROOF OVER MY HEAD. THEY ALSO CAN GET LOANS WHICH I CAN'T GET. WHY? THEY DON'T BELONG HERE. I AM AN AMERICAN AND I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE FREE OF ALL THESE DRUG PEOPLE AND GANGS. I KNOW ABOUT GANGS. I WON'T GO INTO THAT NOW. MY HAT IS OFF TO ARIZONA AND THE LAW MAKERS. I WILL DO MY BEST TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO ALL . THANK YOU R. JOAN RAMSBOTTOM BARTLESVILLE OK.

the ?improved wikipedia?

I prefer the old format - much easier to use - couldn't get the search box to work and could not get rid of the drop down box, which I always find annoying..find the look too stark.

Search Bar on Other Side of the World

I have mixed feelings about the new appearance and layout of the site, but I simply can't stand the search bar being in the upper right corner. The new appearance might be okay if it was put back to the left side, where I'm used to searching on most websites.

New design is slick but please ...

Hey guys,

The only problem I have and some of my colleagues and friends as well is : "Where is the search ?". It takes 3 to 5 seconds to find where it is. I understand that it can be a smart move because in Firefox the search is not to far from the 'firefox search' but still humans have habits that are hard to change. So maybe you should duplicate it and add a search in the left menu. It's maybe not best to duplicate from an ergonomics point of view but it's either :

Move "Search" back to the left panel
Duplicate "Search" inputs
Keep like that... even if not a la of people likes it, they just have to cope with it

I reckon solution 1 or 2 is probably the better :)

Thanks guys for your work and efforts anyway. Wikipedia is one of the best human creation in the world. Knowledge is priceless!. Thomas

old wiki was interlingual, new version is simply stupid

the fact that in previous version you have the possibility to read information about one topic in different languages at a click was a very good and powerful thing. Please restore the language bar.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE INSTRUCTIONS

I have tried numerous times to set up a page on here with references and have found the instructions absolutely convoluted, complex and impossible to follow. If this is supposed to be an encylopedia for the people, that anyone can edit, then it has miserably failed. Clearly one has to be a computer geek to understand the technical language and code required to contribute to this system. It's time someone sensible, who can write instructions in plain concise English, stepped in and simplified things in order to make this a user-friendly platform for non-technical specialists.