[HN Gopher] The Rise of Mobile Wikipedia
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Rise of Mobile Wikipedia
        
       Author : luu
       Score  : 51 points
       Date   : 2021-08-24 04:17 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (yuri.is)
 (TXT) w3m dump (yuri.is)
        
       | vernie wrote:
       | Is there a workaround for the unsearchable collapsed default view
       | for mobile Wikipedia pages?
        
         | nightpool wrote:
         | If I need to search, I get around this by just scrolling to the
         | bottom of the article and uncollapsing each section from the
         | bottom to the top. This ends up being very fast for most
         | articles, because uncollapsing the lowest section won't move
         | any of the previous sections, so you can tap through them
         | quickly.
        
         | forgotmypw17 wrote:
         | I don't think so, because the sections are lazy-loaded, and
         | also discarded when the page is instantiated.
         | 
         | This also means that when you press the Back button, the
         | sections are collapsed, and you lose the place where you just
         | were.
         | 
         | All-around a terrible design and implementation from usability
         | perspective, in my opinion.
        
           | iggldiggl wrote:
           | The text itself isn't lazy-loaded - I can load any Wikipedia
           | article, go offline, and still successfully expand all
           | sections. Images _are_ lazy-loaded, though, and while this
           | has some merits, for the offline use-case this is equally
           | somewhat annoying.
           | 
           | Also yes about the scroll position - while at least
           | occasionally (possibly within the same session, but not if
           | you're closing and later re-opening the whole browser) it
           | seems like Wikipedia tries remembering which sections were
           | opens and which were collapsed, it happens too late in
           | comparison to the browser attempting the restore your scroll
           | position. So if you had scrolled farther than you can scroll
           | in the completely unepxanded state of the stage, your scroll
           | position will be lost.
        
         | carlinmack wrote:
         | The app allows you to search within the article. Normally apps
         | are a hard sell, but it's genuinely good
        
           | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
           | I like that it lets me save pages for offline reading
        
         | bawolff wrote:
         | The desktop view!
         | 
         | Some people on mobile phones like the desktop view with
         | timeless skin (add ?useskin=timeless to end of url).
         | 
         | E.g.
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_between_Quebec_and_Newf...
         | (assuming you arent autoredirected to mobile)
        
       | ranger207 wrote:
       | My biggest gripes with the mobile versions, app and website, are
       | the lack of categories at the bottom of the page. It seems that
       | there's been a de-emphasis of categories in general on Wikipedia.
       | I hope they don't get rid of it though, because it's a fantastic
       | way to organize related content. The contents of a category box
       | often show relations between subjects better than the article
       | itself
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | clipradiowallet wrote:
       | Does anyone use the actual mobile app? If so, why do you prefer
       | it over the mobile web version? (I have not tried it and am
       | curious)
        
         | gpas wrote:
         | I use it, it's very well made. It's easy to search in different
         | languages from the same field, it has tabs, favourites,
         | themes...everything works.
        
         | meibo wrote:
         | The official app is genuinely well made and has nice features
         | like selecting your favorite languages, saving entries in
         | lists, tabs, and offline reading.
         | 
         | I think it's one of the few things on my phone that I actually
         | prefer the app version of.
        
         | chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
         | I use it so I can read wikipedia in dark mode
        
         | franga2000 wrote:
         | I don't have it anymore but I used to (like 2 years ago). It
         | was genuinely one of the most well-made apps I've used.
         | Everything was just so smooth and well-optimised for touch
         | control.
         | 
         | One of my favourite features were the summaries (like ther
         | hover cards that sometimes appear on desktop now) and reading
         | lists, which are basically bookmarks but hyper-optimised for
         | Wikipedia articles. All of it was something you could already
         | do with a browser, but it was just way more streamlined.
        
         | sdumi wrote:
         | I use it because I like to have all my wiki tabs in one place.
         | I can also save tabs for offline reading. The app is very nice
         | to use and it feels faster than the browser: one of the few
         | cases where I like the app more than the web equivalent.
        
         | Tomte wrote:
         | Not anymore, the website suffices for me, but what stood out in
         | my opinion is that a) the app is beautiful and b) it shows
         | articles of places/features nearby.
        
           | lacksconfidence wrote:
           | > it shows articles of places/features nearby
           | 
           | That functionality is likely the same data as
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Nearby but with a
           | better interface
        
             | Tomte wrote:
             | Yes, probably. I never noticed that. In the app it's in
             | your face (first start asks for location services with
             | explanation what for).
        
         | kitsunesoba wrote:
         | I do. As others have said, it's built well and feels smoother
         | to use than the site does.
         | 
         | Note that this is not an issue of speed, wikipedia in the
         | browser is plenty fast. It's smoothness -- the app's navigation
         | model is better adapted to the use case, it's themed to match
         | the OS perfectly, and there's no extraneous browser chrome or
         | other little browserisms dragging down the experience.
         | 
         | If the iPad version got a Mac Catalyst port I'd probably use
         | that on the desktop too.
        
         | occz wrote:
         | I do. Given that it's a native app, it behaves a bit better on
         | mobile than its web-counterpart. Links to Wikipedia open in the
         | app, so the experience is not that disrupted when switching
         | from web (or other apps) to the app.
        
       | hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
       | Anyone has an idea why the Germans use the mobile app so much?
        
         | minikites wrote:
         | The German edition of Wikipedia is notable in many ways, it's
         | arguably the second largest after English:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Characteristi...
        
           | antasvara wrote:
           | Those characteristics don't explain why it has the largest
           | relative view share in the Wikipedia mobile app.
        
       | thaumasiotes wrote:
       | Mobile wikipedia is one of the biggest scourges of the HN
       | comments. People just won't stop linking to it, because they know
       | better than me which version of wikipedia I'd prefer to view.
       | 
       | Stop posting en.m.wikipedia.org links!
        
         | mypastself wrote:
         | At this point the majority of web browsing is done from mobile
         | devices, around 60% (at least in the U.S.):
         | 
         | https://www.perficient.com/insights/research-hub/mobile-vs-d...
         | 
         | I suspect the number is lower on HN, but it's still a losing
         | battle. It's also fairly easy to miss the "m." when you're
         | copying a URL.
        
         | paxys wrote:
         | It isn't done out of malice. People simply copy paste whatever
         | is in their browser.
         | 
         | "m." subdomains are just a totally outdated concept and I wish
         | they would disappear entirely. It is trivial for the web server
         | to detect what device type, OS, screen size etc. the user is on
         | and serve content accordingly.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | handrous wrote:
           | I use the "m." subdomain on some sites on purpose, when on
           | the desktop--though not on Wikipedia, as they cut _so much_
           | content out of the  "m" site, it's awful, I don't even like
           | it on mobile, though if it actually had all the content I'd
           | probably prefer it everywhere.
           | 
           | That's more convenient than having to change my user agent or
           | simply having mobile versions unavailable unless I shrink my
           | browser window down to phone-sized.
        
             | grlass wrote:
             | I prefer m.xkcd.com because the alt-text is easier to
             | access
        
           | dspillett wrote:
           | _> "m." subdomains are just a totally outdated concept_
           | 
           | Yes. Some might argue otherwise, but I'm with you there
           | _except_ ...
           | 
           | ... sometimes the mobile version of a page is preferable as
           | it cuts out a load of crap including adverts and other
           | distractions, just giving you the information actually being
           | linked to. So "m." type links or other "force mobile view"
           | options can be accidentally useful for a purpose beyond what
           | their designer intended.
           | 
           |  _> It is trivial for the web server to detect what device
           | [properties]_
           | 
           | No, it is not trivial to do this _reliably_ server-side with
           | no client-side assistance. It is much better where possible
           | to do it client-side with well-designed CSS (maybe, but not
           | necessarily, making use of media queries and such).
           | 
           | There is an exception here too: if you want to send less data
           | to the mobile client, instead of sending everything you would
           | send to others and adjusting styles to alter the display for
           | small screens and finger-based input, then you need to either
           | try detect the UA's properties or given the user an explicit
           | "full or minimal" option (which may put you back to offering
           | an "m." URL or equivalent so a user can jump direct to the
           | minimal version).
        
             | marcosdumay wrote:
             | If your site is not responsible and you have a mobile
             | version, please, place a mobile selector on the header of
             | your pages, and a cookie on the client with the option.
        
           | onkoe wrote:
           | It is out of malice. And I have the same malice https://en.m.
           | wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AEnable_mobile_ve...
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | I think wikipedia would be smart to add a quick switch button
         | at the top. both versions have value IMO
        
         | LeifCarrotson wrote:
         | They're linking to the mobile version because they're entering
         | the comment with a mobile phone that makes it far easier to
         | copy the full URL and makes it, well, not difficult, but harder
         | than with a full keyboard to edit out the subdomain.
         | 
         | If I'm on a desktop, have a moment, and see one that's
         | particularly egregious, I often respond with a comment to the
         | full version linking to the appropriate table of contents
         | anchor.
        
         | tshaddox wrote:
         | Well, the "mobile" Wikipedia design is vastly better on desktop
         | than the default desktop design, but I suppose that's a matter
         | of personal preference.
         | 
         | The only sense in which a mobile link "forces" you to see a
         | specific design is that en.wikipedia will redirect to
         | en.m.wikipedia on mobile devices, but the inverse is not the
         | case: en.m.wikipedia will _not_ redirect to en.wikipedia on a
         | desktop computer.
         | 
         | But here's the thing: the only way for me to ensure that all
         | Wikipedia pages will use the mobile design on my desktop is to
         | either 1. create an account to change my theme preference and
         | always be logged in on all devices, or 2. use some browser
         | extension. Both of those options are roughly as difficult, and
         | option 2 is also available for you to ensure that you always
         | see the desktop design!
        
         | rjsw wrote:
         | It would be good if HN could automatically change
         | en.m.wikipedia.org links to en.wikipedia.org ones when a post
         | is submitted.
         | 
         | And change any Reddit ones to point to old.reddit.com.
        
           | Arnavion wrote:
           | Why does your preference for en.wikipedia.org and
           | old.reddit.com take precedence over my preference for
           | en.m.wikipedia.org and old.reddit.com ?
        
         | riffic wrote:
         | I'm in full agreement with you. Perhaps sites could
         | automatically convert en.m.wikipedia.org into en.wikipedia.org.
         | 
         | or you can do this client-side with an extension or
         | tampermonkey sort of fix.
         | 
         | To anyone pasting in wp links: be kind, take the m out of the
         | url when sharing links.
        
           | thamer wrote:
           | Interesting to see that people dislike the mobile version so
           | much! I only use the mobile version, it's so much more
           | readable.
           | 
           | I literally wrote a script that does the exact opposite of
           | what you suggest!
           | 
           | I have one script that runs on all pages and converts all
           | Wikipedia links to the mobile version, while another that
           | runs on Wikipedia only and automatically redirects to the
           | mobile version if I somehow land on a non-mobile Wikipedia
           | page. It also has a shortcut to switch between mobile and
           | desktop, and takes the referrer into account so that once
           | I've switched to the desktop version links aren't pointing to
           | the mobile version again. It has a couple more features like
           | a shortcut to edit the page, since I often contribute.
        
             | Arnavion wrote:
             | >I only use the mobile version, it's so much more readable.
             | 
             | Same. Once I discovered that, and that the mobile site
             | didn't have the random stalls from loading
             | login.wikimedia.org, I started using it exclusively. The
             | hardest part was retraining my muscle memory to type !wm
             | instead of !wiki when searching for something.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | It seems like we're rapidly converging on the idea
             | "websites could be dumb content, and the browsers should
             | decide how it should be laid out." Perhaps we can have
             | something like this, maybe in the far distant future of 25
             | years ago...
        
             | thamer wrote:
             | I can't edit the original post, but here's the script if
             | anyone's interested:
             | https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/431384-switch-to-mobile-
             | wi...
             | 
             | The one to rewrite all WP links on all pages is part of a
             | larger script which I haven't cleaned up yet, but this
             | already provides an automatic switch to mobile if you
             | happen to load a desktop version of the page.
        
           | crazygringo wrote:
           | There already is a Chrome extension:
           | 
           | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mobile2desktop-
           | wik...
           | 
           | I stopped using it a while ago because it wound up breaking
           | something else, I don't remember what it was exactly though.
           | 
           | But honestly this is just something _Wikipedia itself_ should
           | handle -- if I 'm logged in to Wikipedia, give me a setting
           | to "always redirect mobile to desktop".
           | 
           | Wikipedia _created_ the problem with the  "m" subdomain, they
           | ought to be the ones fixing it too.
        
       | sharikone wrote:
       | Perhaps it's me but I like to be able to edit articles and see
       | discussions, and I haven't figured out how to do that from the
       | mobile version.
       | 
       | So I find myself constantly fighting the website to access the
       | Desktop version
        
         | nmstoker wrote:
         | I also like the section menus for pages that the mobile version
         | dispenses with (which is annoying when you want to share a
         | specific section with someone, all the more important as
         | finding text on a page for the minimised sections that mobile
         | uses is v. awkward). Plus it hides other content at the end of
         | articles (eg primarily the categories section but also other
         | boxes/details too)
         | 
         | The version you get served when using an m. URL but forcing the
         | mobile browser to view Desktop pages is something of a
         | compromise - it has a sharper design than the proper desktop
         | mode but it still lacks the categories.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-25 23:01 UTC)