It was clearly designed with mobile users in mind, despite the fact that, afaik, the overwhelming majority of editors prefer desktop I say this as someone who does mobile edits from time to time. Jacob Agar ( talk) 21:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply I actually came here to say the same thing the new UI isn't just ugly, but it's genuinely painful to use on desktop, to the point of being borderline-unusable. Why is there so much white space on the left side? Is wikipedia for Zoomers on iPhones now, like TikTok or some other garbage? This is the worst website redesign I've ever seen, including that one that Digg did like 12 years ago that made literally everyone leave the site for Reddit. It's looks like garbage on a widescreen laptop monitor. Forresthopkinsa ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply I've been using Wikipedia since day 1 and I had to create my first account today just so I can change the layout to the old format. Interlacing ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply Agree. Telltemmne ( talk) 18:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply Certainly, the new layout looks utterly dreadful, good thing we can change back to either vector legacy or monobook. Gevorg89 ( talk) 17:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply I agree, the new-look looks extremely unorganized, but at least you can switch back to the old one. IMDb) when old version is working just fine. Some websites tend to change themselves radically (e.h. The web is a visual experience and Wikipedia has just died. The aesthetics have been trashed along with the functionality. It looks fine on a phone, but is utterly unusable on a computer screen. All the illustrations have been reduced to postage stamps. The entire Web seems to be going through a phase of ugly and stark being considered design statements. P3rttiz ( talk) 14:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Reply I agree, but it's not just here. why do you even need to log in for that? makes no sense. Wiki joedirt ( talk) 23:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply Same! I haven't logged in for 7 years, but now had to, just to change the layout. Sslukt ( talk) 15:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply Small correction, they did test it before release (and I hated it then too), but couldn't figure out how to put it into words. A shame on them, a shame! How come they have not tested it before release. I haven't been logged to wikipedia for more than a decade, but had to, to choose some older variant of visual style, to even usefully read an article. This is shameful.- 2A02:908:966:63E0:E94E:DAB1:D3A:483 12:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply I totally agree with your comment! I have no idea how someone may break so much the user experience as they did. Get education experts when designing the UI next time. It isn't just that there aren't any visible borders anymore, there also is no contrast whatsoever and the text flickers while scrolling! It horrid and counterintuitive as fuck, because it makes your eye get lost and is utterly immemorable and thus fails to fulfill the basic criteria of visual educational material. There no longer seems to be any visual (like actually visuable) organization of a page beyond the paragraphs. What used to look like an encyclopaedia now looks like a white wall of simply nothing. Why the fuck do UI designers think removing borders and cramping everything into togglers actually makes things better? Like who the fuck sparked that trend? Apple? I study education and am in deep shock about the new wikipedia layout.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |