[HN Gopher] Show HN: I made a modern web UI for Wikipedia
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: I made a modern web UI for Wikipedia
Author : sjdz
Score : 595 points
Date : 2021-12-06 16:28 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.modernwiki.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.modernwiki.app)
| [deleted]
| cmauniada wrote:
| Its funny I was actually looking for a wiki extension that
| allowed more readability on desktop a couple of days ago.
|
| I tried out Readable Wikipedia [0]. Which I really liked (kind of
| turns it into mobile, which is good enough for me) But it seems
| to have been abandoned, since images didn't load for me.
|
| I then tried out WikiWand [1]. Although I've been using it and
| its been ok for the most part, it seemed over the top, and the UI
| was still a bit dated. Also, didn't like how it would load images
| in a banner view at the top...
|
| I look forward to trying this out, looks very promising. Thanks
| for spending the time to make it!!
|
| [0] - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/readable-
| wikipedia... [1] - https://www.wikiwand.com/
| nguyenkien wrote:
| Why you need this permission "Read your browsing history"? I
| think you only need access to: "*://*.wikipedia.org/*"
| sjdz wrote:
| I've just looked into this, it seems Chrome displays that
| because of the "tabs" permission:
|
| > "Technically this permission allows observing the history via
| chrome.tabs.onUpdated, but not read the previously existing
| history, so the phrasing is not entirely correct, strictly
| speaking."
|
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64063754/chrome-extensio...
|
| To be clear, the extension doesn't access your browsing history
| at all. The "tabs" permission is just used to find Wikipedia
| tabs and enable/disable the new design when using the toggle
| from the browser popup.
|
| The permissions requested (in the manifest.json file) are:
| "permissions": [ "tabs", "storage",
| "*://*.wikipedia.org/*" ]
|
| I will change that to "activeTab" in the next update which
| should fix it.
| tonymet wrote:
| thanks for responding here and reducing permissions.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Note that you could also make it a bookmarklet which requires
| no permissions and only accesses the current tab when the
| user clicks it. Would be nice for trying out how it looks,
| given how little it changes I was expecting this would be a
| little bookmarklet and was a bit disappointed I had to add an
| extension to my browser for trying the look.
| marcoslozada wrote:
| Amazing this!!
| w0mbat wrote:
| Stop using low contrast gray text. I can barely read it. Real
| designers use different weights, not colors.
| optimuspaul wrote:
| I agree with the low contrast comment, but the gatekeeping is
| not constructive
| sjdz wrote:
| Font settings, colors, custom themes etc are on the TODO for a
| future version.
| petargyurov wrote:
| Looks pretty nice! I installed it and gave it a go. It definitely
| looks neater on the landing page demo than it does on my monitor;
| I suspect it's because my monitor is running at 1440p.
|
| Also, it appears a little broken on maths-heavy pages. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series.
|
| Multi-line equations get displaced by the pictures on the side,
| some even appearing with a horizontal scroll bar. Lots of strange
| white-space in some equations.
| epivosism wrote:
| I installed an extension that auto-redirects me from Wikipedia
| pages to Wikiwand and I love it.
|
| Things I like about it: * always-visible TOC * it's much easier
| to parse visually - smaller footnote numbers and many similar
| small adjustments to font, alignment, etc.
|
| Things I don't mind actually * fixed (smaller) width
|
| Either way, this is the spirit of the web - everyone can remix
| and format as they like.
|
| compare: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hacker_News
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News?oldformat=true
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wikiwand-wiki...
| thunderbong wrote:
| I recently discovered that if you're logged into Wikipedia, you
| can customize the UI completely.
|
| You can, of course, choose different themes.
|
| But you can also upload custom CSS and Javascript!
|
| Link to image of preferences page - https://ibb.co/Kbfh1QQ
| greggsy wrote:
| Yeah I'm not actually sure why more people don't know this.
| primitivesuave wrote:
| Some Wikipedia pages use CSS classes to allow people to self-
| censor what they see - for example, this is the remedy
| provided to people who do not want to see images of Muhammad.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q4
| Arnavion wrote:
| Because most people don't have a Wikipedia account, nor would
| they benefit from having one these days.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| Now all I need is a web extension that helps me stop hating
| contributing to Wikipedia.
| dirtyid wrote:
| I just want an app/mobile UI that makes tables legible and not a
| pain in the ass to scroll.
| notRobot wrote:
| Reminder that the mobile Wikipedia page is accessible on desktop
| and looks pretty neat: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Another reminder that you can get the "mobile" version for
| Wikipedia on desktop. Just add "?useskin=minerva" (sans double
| quotes) to the end of the URL. Since my browser can't have
| extensions, I did a dirty userscript for doing that with
| JavaScript.
| jtvjan wrote:
| Conversely, the old desktop skin has been updated to work well
| on mobile. I really like how they carried the "pixel art" icon
| aesthetic over to retina displays. (When you zoom in, you'll
| see that they're actually vectors with smooth gradients.) And
| when you turn your phone to landscape, the familiar desktop
| interface comes back.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=monobook
| anon-686876876 wrote:
| If you are are reading this far you probably care a lot about
| Wikipedia. Give generously if you can.
| https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/
| chayleaf wrote:
| Or don't
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
| kleer001 wrote:
| holy smokes, that's grim
|
| I guess *everything* is subject to corruption
| genewitch wrote:
| Is there a way to verify that WMF has over a hundred million
| in reserves?
|
| Also, why is bandwidth costing them over a million dollars a
| year? Is it because of edge locations or something?
| phkahler wrote:
| IMHO the things that OP wanted should not be part of the website:
|
| Narrower columns? Adjust the width of your browser window. Nicer
| Fonts? Those should be a user preference, not served by website -
| I see the OP agrees with this... Dark Mode? That should be a
| function of the DE, or maybe the browser, but not the web site.
|
| Everything about this work says "I want to control the look of
| web pages on my end."
| hmr wrote:
| It's awesome, thank you.
|
| Can I suggest a specific font for Persian language? At the moment
| there is a single font for all languages, but Wikipedia manages
| it very well, and it has a different font for different
| languages.
|
| https://ibb.co/rpCm9zF
| McElodeon wrote:
| Looking clean. One thing that bothers me when the width slider is
| adjusted to the highest two settings - content in the main
| #content element runs right against the navigation scrollbar
| (#wiki_contents). #content needs at least an extra 20px of
| padding (to 340px or 360px) on the left at the second highest
| width setting (5) to give it some separation, and 40px (to 360px)
| at highest width setting (6) to match the alternative right-side
| padding introduced at that level.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| From the screenshot:
|
| I absolutely adore the positioning of the table of contents. The
| design looks clean, utilitarian, and overall well executed.
|
| That being said - and this is more a critique of modern design -
| I absolutely hate the suffocating roundness of the element
| corners. It's an aesthetic that drips with overfamiliarity and a
| patronizing attitude. It's the visual equivalent of being put in
| a padded room, or having a distant relative who you have nothing
| in common with and have not seen in years trying to relate to you
| with anecdotes about your childhood that you can scarcely
| remember.
| munificent wrote:
| That's, uh, a pretty intense reaction to some curves.
|
| There is a long history of rounded corners in graphic design.
| In the real world, perfectly sharp edges do not exist. Even on
| the printed page, ink bleed tends to gently round all corners.
|
| This is a good thing, because sharp corners interact poorly
| with some parts of our visual system. Sharp corners in a design
| can be as jarring as extremely high contrast or saturated
| colors, which are also best avoided in designs where the intent
| is to let the viewer focus on the content and not the form.
|
| A slight amount of corner rounding in digital graphic design
| can lead to a look that is easier on the eyes, less
| distracting, and more approachable. (The design here uses more
| rounding than necessary, but I think it's driven largely by
| fashion and the above principles and not some dystopian desire
| to infantilize you.)
|
| See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_illusion
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_glare
|
| http://people.sunyit.edu/~lepres/thesis/principles/63_pdfsam...
|
| http://macknik.neuralcorrelate.com/pdf/articles/troncoso_et_...
| crocodiletears wrote:
| I'm absolutely an advocate for corners that are rounded to a
| reasonable degree. As you stated, perfectly sharp corners can
| produce a harsh, inorganic aesthetic that can be distracting
| to users.
|
| Even very round corners can be contextually appropriate.
|
| There's a world of difference between a few pixels of
| roundness, and making your entire website look like a fisher-
| price toy.
|
| Round, organic designs can be complex and visually pleasing.
| They take a lot of work to execute well, and are rarely
| confined to the simple rectangles that dominate modern
| interface design.
|
| The large border radius on modern UIs doesn't contribute
| anything interesting to previous UX other than the novelty of
| round corners. It hasn't been motivated, or motivated any
| meaningful new design approaches. All it's accomplished is
| that it's turned UI elements into rectangular pills that
| function almost exactly as they did before.
|
| I see it as an aesthetic reflection of the modern
| technologist's attitude towards their user-bases.
|
| Edit:some grammar
| keyb0ardninja wrote:
| I agree with you on this 100%.
|
| Have you seen Android 12's new fisher-price UI? I would
| really love to hear your thoughts on this video:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xLgXIhebxA
| elliottinvent wrote:
| This reads like a Guardian album review, very colourful -
| thanks!
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| As a person who designs web applications to look somewhat
| modern because that's what is now-days expected, whenever
| critics go to such extreme similes about modern web design and
| their hatred for it... it's such an extreme opinion I tune them
| out entirely. You can't cater to radicals.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Most people don't particularly care how things look, so long
| as they're reasonably familiar, well-ordered, visually
| inoffensive, and functional. After that, it's optimizing for
| performance metrics and ensuring that the client is happy
| with the aesthetic of the final product.
|
| Client usually wants to emulate some elements of the latest
| aesthetic trend. Can't blame designers for what's ultimately
| a fashion trend. Especially when breaking from the trends and
| convention put you at risk of looking dated or driving away
| consumers.
|
| Edit: some grammar
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It's more that, I've read critics of modern web design. And
| while I can understand that some people don't like it
| (myself included for some things), the visceral hatred that
| some people have in their rants against it is so great, I
| can't possibly send that to a client with a straight face.
| It's so extreme it's absolutely useless.
|
| Edit: At some point, while you can agree with some of the
| critics' points, they become completely out-of-touch with
| reality and the typical user.
| [deleted]
| mrweasel wrote:
| The table of content is the bit I like the least. The
| observation is correct, then entire left hand sidebar of the
| standard Wikipedia layout isn't actually that useful. Putting
| the table of content in the sidebar might be an idea, but why
| the big bulk font? Just take the normal TOC and move it to the
| sidebar.
|
| One big thing many could learn from, from the standard
| Wikipedia, and where this "modern" alternative fails, is the
| use of icons. Wikipedia mainly use text labels, not icons,
| which mean that I don't have to guess what the three dots mean.
| When going to Wikipedia, it very clearly states that I am in
| fact "Not logged in", this modern UI just have the person icon,
| but am I logged in? Similarly there's a small clock with an
| arrow, if I don't understand that Wikipedia is versioned, I
| have no idea what that does. The "view history" is much more
| clear, even if "View page history" would be even better.
|
| It's pretty fun to play around with alternative designs for
| pages like Wikipedia, but actual updates should be done because
| it improved usability, not because it fails to follow trends
| that will change in a few years anyway.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| I honestly love the design, thank you! One design criticism I
| have is that you've completely eliminated any visual distinction
| around images and their captions, eg. in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#The_Ali_B...
| you have multiple images & captions below each other where it's
| not immediately obvious which image a caption belongs to:
| https://postimg.cc/18cPJXPt
|
| Humble suggestion: add some background shading to visually group
| an image with its caption, mock eg: https://postimg.cc/hJLrJF9N
| siver_john wrote:
| This kind of reminds me of a short project from a guy I knew in
| college:
|
| https://github.com/AndrewBelt/WiTeX
| andrew_ wrote:
| Beautiful. Thank you for sharing.
| svisser wrote:
| Wikipedia itself is also working on a new UI:
|
| https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improveme...
|
| The English Wikipedia isn't one of the "early adopter wikis" but
| if you visit, say, the French-language Wikipedia you can see the
| changes (e.g., different width to improve readability).
| ciphol wrote:
| Wow, that is shockingly bad. Different objects just floating in
| space without lines between them to visually differentiate
| them.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Every time I get to a French article somehow, I'm reminded that
| I should be dreading the day this gets merged into master. It's
| like this half-baked cards feature: whenever you search on the
| page and hit a link, that card will stay open indefinitely. You
| can't hit escape to close it, you can't hit tab to move off the
| link because then you'll just get another card for the next
| link, you _have_ to go for the mouse. It was supposed to be an
| onhover feature for when you 're using the mouse in the first
| place, instead it obscures text all the time. Luckily, cards
| are something you can turn off; with the narrow new style I
| doubt we'll have such luck. Language switching also became a
| mouse-requiring operation in the new design (or much more
| involved), other than that and the squished text I don't
| actually see any attempt at making it look modern.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Wow, it's much more readable (though a bit disjointed):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing#History
|
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatique#Histoire
| lostgame wrote:
| It's a lot of what m.wikipedia.com looks like, actually. Just
| hitting m. on any given Wiki article on a Desktop makes it so
| much easier to read in my experience. YMMV. :)
| BoumTAC wrote:
| Thanks the UI is great.
|
| I don't know why but since at least a year we have a new design
| on the french version of wikipedia (you can check by yourself on
| any wikipedia page in french).
|
| But the english UI is bad it's hard to read on large screen. With
| your extension is really nice.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| If you're logged in, you might get the new design on English
| Wikipedia too. It can be turned on or off if you so prefer:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Preferenc...
| BoumTAC wrote:
| If I unchecked "Use Legacy Vector" I still got the old UI(the
| one which is too large on large screen) on the english
| version
|
| edit: I do need to uncheck the "Use Legacy Vector" to have
| the new design. I don't know why, maybe it was a cache issue
| but now it works.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| I don't get this. If you want it to be narrower, make your
| browser window narrower. And by the way, you don't need an
| extension for the rest of the stuff, either. Wikipedia already
| supports per-user custom styling.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style
| readme wrote:
| it's an off the shelf one click solution that gets me a more
| readable wikipedia
|
| i have a huge 4k monitor and always open many browser tabs at
| once, some tabs I don't want the window to be narrow on, and
| others might be wikipedia
|
| with this when I switch to my wikipedia tab i can just read it
| and it's very pleasing to the eye
| mzkply wrote:
| I was also confused, but it's actually a setting in the top-
| right menu, you can make it full width. Not sure why it's not
| the default.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| Are you working on a Safari extension?
| cosmotic wrote:
| Nothing is wrong with the existing wikipedia interface. In this
| case, in the course of making it 'modern', it was made worse
| (like most 'modern' things).
|
| Please remember from design 101 that line and shape have meaning
| and can help the user understand the interface.
| Tomte wrote:
| The Wikipedia app is actually quite beautiful, and with access to
| location services it's fun to discover stuff around you.
| fnord77 wrote:
| I dislike getting the search results in a pulldown. makes it
| harder to open them in their own tabs, also doesn't work so well
| if your connection is slow.
|
| Confluence does this and it drives me nuts.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Gorgeous. How can I buy you a coffee?
| cmstoken wrote:
| Coffee sounds good actually.
| redleader55 wrote:
| The design is interesting, but I can't help wonder why the design
| insists on keeping a specific page width instead of using the
| whole browser window. Even worse, for really wide pages, it just
| shows a column in the middle.
| sjdz wrote:
| If you set the width slider to maximum, it goes to 100% browser
| width, which gives you the current Wikipedia style :)
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| There's a point where long line lengths start negatively
| impacting reading speed, so a lot of designers incorporate that
| idea as a hard limit in their layouts.
|
| It might be better to leave it up to users, because it's a very
| common complaint on many sites where text width is limited.
| leodriesch wrote:
| Text becomes less readable at large widths. I sometimes use the
| mobile Wikipedia on desktop for that reason, especially on
| ultrawide monitors.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Just... don't make the browser window 34 inches across?
| finger wrote:
| In my case this is an annoying fix because then I have to
| resize the browser window all the time. As well as the
| default window manager on Windows not having features to
| center a window or shrinking/expanding window size to fit
| the desired max line width. I also find the desktop behind
| the browser window distracting.
|
| Having said that; Reader mode solves most of the above
| issues.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| Looks great, doesn't work for me:
|
| * It seems to constrain the width to something even smaller than
| usual (800px?). I have 6000px of horizontal real estate, and
| while it would be mad to let text run to that length, the optimum
| is not what a phone can do. (I've tried to find out what "native"
| width is here, but I'm getting full-width no-constraint layouts
| with Firefox (no plugin, not logged in), 800px with the plugin
| (Chrome, logged in) and something in between (Safari, logged in).
|
| * It hides links I regularly use behind menus (to the discussion
| page and version history).
|
| I guess 9x% of people never edit Wikipedia and it might make
| sense to cater to them. But, then again, I'm not sure if it's the
| best idea to actively hide the fact that they _could_ contribute.
| I also don 't see as much of a difference to the mobile layout
| that is planned to slowly become default on desktop as well.
|
| Edit: I found the slider to adjust page width. That's thoughtful!
| adwi wrote:
| Very nice. I think a bit more spacing between text body
| paragraphs could help legibility.
| jsturges wrote:
| Thanks OP! I'll go against the grain and say I like this a lot.
| smoldesu wrote:
| There's also Wike[0], a fantastic little native Wikipedia browser
| for everyone out there on Linux.
|
| [0] https://github.com/hugolabe/Wike
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| I like it! I'm not one of those people who fetishizes 90's to
| mid-00's design. Something like Hacker News has its charm but
| let's not pretend all sites from that era were usable. One thing
| that drives me mad in default Wikipedia is the line length. On a
| large monitor it makes text way less readable. Also having access
| to the table of contents on the side is way better than having to
| scroll back up.
| gkkirilov wrote:
| Love it I edited the main content width so I have to scroll less
| maximedupre wrote:
| I'm always blown away by the effort some of us put into random
| passion projects.
|
| This looks amazing!
|
| I personally wouldn't install it. I don't like cluttering my
| browser with too many extensions and I don't use Wikipedia enough
| for it to be worth it.
|
| But well done.
| zestyping wrote:
| Wow, this is beautiful! Thanks for doing this. I would almost use
| this daily, except that there are a few things I noticed that
| would be good to improve (just one person's opinion -- hope these
| are received in the intended spirit):
|
| - If the browser window is narrower than about 1024px, there are
| no margins around the body text and the text width slider has no
| effect.
|
| - As the browser window becomes narrower, the body shrinks but
| the contents sidebar doesn't shrink.
|
| - The measure feels a bit small to me. It looks like the body
| text width is limited to 660px -- having a limit is good, but it
| feels tight, especially when there are embedded figures and
| infoboxes. You could try making the measure a bit larger, or
| perhaps letting the figures extend or sit outside the main column
| of text when the window is wide enough.
|
| - When you turn off the sidebar by clicking the three-bar icon,
| the sidebar just leaves an empty space instead of providing more
| space for the body text.
|
| - As the window becomes narrow enough, the search box becomes
| unusable.
|
| - The page indicators like the "featured article" star, the
| protection icon, and the Spoken Wikipedia button are missing.
|
| - The home page, talk page, history page, etc. don't respect the
| typography settings.
|
| - The menu option "View history" is inconsistent with the other
| options; next to "Talk", "Edit", "Watch", simply "History" would
| work better.
|
| - When you scroll down, the page title scrolls off the main body,
| but remains at the top of the table of contents. Somehow this
| feels backwards to me, and it's not immediately obvious that you
| have to click the title in the table of contents if you want to
| see the intro section. Perhaps the page title could be sticky,
| and the first section could appear as "Introduction" in the
| contents? Something like this? https://imgur.com/a/kqaNbWo -- I'm
| not sure where to suggest that the page title should go; you
| might have to try a few options to find one that looks right.
|
| Sorry that turned out to be a long list, but overall the page
| does look a lot nicer and easier to read and navigate. Hope these
| ideas are helpful!
| C-x_C-f wrote:
| Also it breaks IPA rendering for some reason. For example here
| [0] many of the diacritic marks (especially most of the less
| common ones) are off to the right.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe
| ...
| Findecanor wrote:
| Some criticism:
|
| It is fine for reading, but by hiding the tabs for "edit this
| page", "history" etc. it does not invite editing as much as the
| current Wikipedia/MediaWiki does.
|
| And in this particular case, I don't see much purpose of having
| the toolbar being a fixed element that does not scroll with the
| rest of the page. Apart from the Font size/Dark mode controls,
| the links there are for _leaving_ the page, and if I want to
| leave the page, there is nothing stopping me from first scrolling
| to the top of the page. Most keyboards have a Home key that does
| that. There is also the "Scroll to the top" arrow button that
| pops up in the lower right corner (obscuring the text beneath it,
| BTW).
|
| Something I do think would be useful, in terms of scrolling on
| Wikipedia/MediaWiki would be to go between Editing, Preview and
| Changes and keep about the same position on the page when doing
| so. As it is now, long articles could be disorienting and I would
| have to spend some time looking for the editing position when
| previewing my edits.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| This is what I like about chrome extensions, you can modify
| things, store your own stuff, etc...
|
| I am curious I don't think Wikipedia does it/would do it but I
| have seen some sites break if you modify their DOM.
|
| I think including CSS overrides would be different but YT is an
| example where injecting something into their DOM has an error
| show up in console.
|
| Wondering if that was a concern for you.
| abbe98 wrote:
| MediaWiki actually got policies to ensure breaking changes to
| the DOM isn't introduced.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The best encyclopedia was the Compton Interactice Encyclopedia in
| CD-ROM with Patrick Stewart.
| sabujp wrote:
| looks great for mobile, doesn't stretch to fill larger monitors,
| maybe set the viewport percentages properly? Also the existing
| mobile interface for wiki imho looks better, but of course
| doesn't have the dark mode options, that's easily changeable.
| camgunz wrote:
| Oh I like this, downloaded. Thanks and props!
| muhammadusman wrote:
| I've been looking for something like this. My only feedback is
| that the default style looks a bit too narrow (width and line-
| height wise). Also, the scale/range for changing the width jumps
| a lot between the middle and to the right, I wish there was a bit
| more control over that. Why not attach the value of the slider to
| the width percentage?
| nomemory wrote:
| I am one of those people who actually like Wikipedia the way it
| is. It's what I hoped the web to become.
|
| But i am sure there are people who will appreciate your effort.
| Thank you for your work.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I usually shy away from "modern redesign" but this one feels
| rapidly valuable both in legibility and usability.
|
| The chasing left side TOC is really useful. The typography is
| slightly fancy without trying to be in your face.
|
| The search (kbd /) is nice too.
|
| I'd motivate the author to experiment with more stuff around
| accessing categories and hyperlinks in the page.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| Agreed with most of this stuff, but search on / (and even
| ctrl-f on some websites!) is horrible because it overrides
| the browser's shortcuts. When I press / I expect the Firefox
| quick find bar to come up, complete with highlighting and
| markers in the scrollbar and ctrl-{shift}-g to move between
| results and esc to exit search. Not some half baked JS search
| implementation or an unrelated search like in this extension
| - it searches for wiki pages, not text within the current
| page.
|
| Fortunately this is pretty simple to disable with
| Greasemonkey (also 's' on github, though the userscript
| doesn't seem to work on Gitlab...).
| GordonS wrote:
| Yeah, I actually like the existing Wikipedia design, but I
| like what the author has done here - I see it more as a minor
| UI evolution, with some additional conveniences.
|
| I like it!
| agumonkey wrote:
| I too like wikipedia current status a lot, and i like basic
| static content too.
| surajs wrote:
| Yeah this is great but I'd rather stick with the tightly wound
| tools at Wikimedia, they probably know what they're doing more
| than this anemic blasphemy
| jitix wrote:
| I agree with you except the one pain point that Wikipedia still
| continues to use "m.*" sub-domains for displaying mobile
| content. I know most people exclusively use mobile these days
| but I use desktop browsers for reading more than 60% of the
| time and its really annoying to click on a Wikipedia link on
| HN/Reddit and having it open the mobile site on desktop. It's
| OK to use m.* subdomains instead of reactive design but there
| should at least be redirects to the correct subdomains.
|
| edit: formatting
| rdubz wrote:
| semi-OT but Twitter seems to have recently started putting
| "mobile.twitter.com" in my URL bar (on mobile), as well as
| adding a UUID in a "t" query param when you use their "copy
| link" flow, which is all annoying cruft to have to delete
| when sharing links.
|
| They used to just put "?s=19" through "?s=22" or so, which
| enumerated clients (desktop, mobile, Android, etc), which was
| better than the junk most other services stuff in (like
| utm_source and friends...)
| tshaddox wrote:
| > It's OK to use m.* subdomains instead of reactive design
| but there should at least be redirects to the correct
| subdomains.
|
| I agree, although in the case of Wikipedia the "mobile"
| design is actually the one that is responsive. I want the
| "mobile" design on all browsers including my desktop. I
| believe you can actually set your default theme if you're
| logged into Wikipedia, but I don't know if their cookies
| eventually expire or what, but I often end up clicking on
| Wikipedia links and getting the awful "desktop" design.
|
| All of this is just to say that, yes, they shouldn't use
| separate "m." URLs, but it's just as wrong to get upset at
| mobile users sharing "m." URLs as it is to get upset at
| desktop users sharing URLs without the "m." Arguably if you
| expect all users to always share the most versatile URL, you
| should expect them to always share the "m." URL since it has
| a responsive design.
| stormbrew wrote:
| I might be ok with "the mobile reactive version everywhere"
| if it didn't also lack a bunch of features. Not being able
| to easily get to the talk page to contextualize what you're
| reading makes the mobile site very frustrating.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Note that a link to the talk page has recently been added
| to the top of the mobile page.
| judge2020 wrote:
| If it pinned the headings/outline to the left side of the
| article (like the extension showcased does) it'd be that
| much better for a responsive design on Desktop.
| Arnavion wrote:
| Yes, I only use Wikipedia on a desktop and I exclusively
| use the m. site.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Counterpoint to this:
|
| I'm career military and the fact that Wikipedia (and
| Facebook) have low bandwidth m.* redirects made life
| immensely easier on the limited internet in far off places.
| We really appreciated it being available.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > its really annoying to click on a Wikipedia link on
| HN/Reddit and having it open the mobile site on desktop.
|
| Yes, this is a gigantic pain. But I would say that it's the
| HN commenters being incredibly obnoxious, not wikipedia being
| wrong for giving you the mobile site when you specifically
| ask for it.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| It's kinda strange that you think someone who is on a phone
| copying a link and sharing it with someone who is not on a
| phone, is the latter person "specifically ask[ing]" for the
| mobile page.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| It's strange that when you ask for en.m.wikipedia.org,
| Wikipedia responds by giving you what you wanted?
|
| There is no way to interpret requesting a dedicated
| mobile URL other than as specifically asking for the
| mobile version of the page.
|
| Or are you saying Wikipedia should be aware that you got
| the link from your obnoxious friend? HTTP doesn't really
| allow for that.
| namdnay wrote:
| You need to take a step back. The end user is not asking
| for https whatever, they're asking to see the same
| Wikipedia page their friend saw, adapted to their screen.
| Whatever gets in the way of that is bad UX
|
| I guess the best way to do it would be to redirect the
| user to the correct domain based on agent, if they
| haven't already chosen an override?
| tshaddox wrote:
| > But I would say that it's the HN commenters being
| incredibly obnoxious, not wikipedia being wrong for giving
| you the mobile site when you specifically ask for it.
|
| But it's kinda crazy that if I'm on my phone I can't just
| share a URL to a page with someone who happens to be using
| a desktop. While I'm not sure if this is made explicit in
| any of the RFCs or standard docs, in my view a URL should
| be a locator for a resource that is agnostic of the user
| agent.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > But it's kinda crazy that if I'm on my phone I can't
| just share a URL to a page with someone who happens to be
| using a desktop.
|
| > in my view a URL should be a locator for a resource
| that is agnostic of the user agent.
|
| You're not making sense. The mobile page has a dedicated
| URL. If you're browsing it, then sharing the URL will
| send anyone else to the same resource you're browsing,
| regardless of their user agent. Everyone agrees that this
| is a bad thing for you to do. Don't do it.
|
| The _standard page_ will redirect mobile user-agents to
| the mobile page. It is a better URL to give out in every
| possible way. But note that this is the opposite of what
| you 're saying; the URL that behaves the way you say you
| want is the bad one that you should avoid sharing.
|
| I am sympathetic to the view that the URL should just
| point wherever it points. This would require a change to
| Wikipedia's standard page so that it would display when
| requested on mobile instead of redirecting. That's fine.
| But sharing mobile links would still be awful behavior.
| Link to the standard page. That's what makes it the
| standard page.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You're mistaken. Wikipedia automatically redirects you to
| the m. website if you type "en.wikipedia.org" into your
| phone browser. The same is true even if you explicitly
| type an article's URL into your phone browser, like
| "en.wikipedia.org/London". Google and Bing will also show
| mobile URLs in search results (although DuckDuckGo does
| not). The only way to see the actual desktop version is
| to click on the "Desktop" link at the very bottom of a
| mobile page, and even that just sets a cookie to prevent
| redirection back to the mobile site, so it doesn't work
| across multiple devices or private browsing sessions.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > You're mistaken. Wikipedia automatically redirects you
| to the m. website if you type "en.wikipedia.org" into
| your phone browser. The same is true even if you
| explicitly type an article's URL into your phone browser,
| like "en.wikipedia.org/London".
|
| What am I mistaken about? This is exactly what I said
| happens. I focused this information pretty heavily:
|
| >> The _standard page_ will redirect mobile user-agents
| to the mobile page.
|
| >> I am sympathetic to the view that the URL should just
| point wherever it points. This would require a change to
| Wikipedia's standard page so that it would display when
| requested on mobile instead of redirecting.
| tshaddox wrote:
| You're mistaken that being on the "m." subdomain
| indicates that you have made some decision to do so, and
| that sharing that URL ought to send anyone to the mobile
| design. On the contrary, the entire point of a URL is for
| sharing a resource, and if a URL to a public resources is
| not shareable that is a mistake on the part of the web
| site, not a mistake on the part of the visitor. It's
| certainly not the case that "Everyone agrees that this is
| a bad thing for you to do." It's not a bad thing for you
| to do, it is precisely what you ought to do. As I
| explained elsewhere on the thread, one could just as
| easily argue that sharing the "desktop" URL is also
| inappropriate, because some people might want to see the
| "mobile" design even if they're on a desktop computer
| (because the "mobile" design is in fact responsive).
| seppel wrote:
| > You're not making sense.
|
| The use case is: I go to the standard wikipedia page,
| browse a bit, and then I want to give out links to the
| standard wikipedia page of a specifig article.
|
| This is currently not possible without editing the URL if
| you are on mobile. And I dont understand why wikipedia is
| refusing to fix this.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Correct, and my claim is that there should be no such
| concept as "giving out a link to the _standard_ Wikipedia
| page. " Regardless of what type of device I'm using, I
| should be able to share the URL for that page to someone
| else regardless of what type of device they're using. The
| URL should literally be the uniform locator of that
| resource and shouldn't contain any semantics about any
| particular user agent's device.
|
| This is pretty obvious in the general case, where it
| would be impossible for me to know if the URL I am
| visiting contains information about my particular user
| agent and is thus inappropriate to share with people with
| other user agents. When my user agent requests
| "en.wikipedia.org" and receives a redirect to
| "en.m.wikipedia.org" there's simply no way to know
| whether this resource has actually moved to a new URL
| (which is the semantics of the HTTP response) or whether
| this is simply a _special_ URL that I shouldn 't share.
| Yes, some people might be familiar with the "m."
| subdomain for mobile-specific websites, but in general
| this sort of thing is (in my opinion) an abuse of HTTP
| redirects.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Regardless of what type of device I'm using, I should
| be able to share the URL for that page to someone else
| regardless of what type of device they're using. The URL
| should literally be the uniform locator of that resource
| and shouldn't contain any semantics about any particular
| user agent's device.
|
| As I just pointed out, and you somehow misunderstood,
| this is the exact behavior of the mobile page. It is not
| the behavior of the standard page. But sharing a link to
| the mobile page is bad, and sharing a link to the
| standard page is good. Keep this in mind when you're
| deciding how URLs should behave.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I haven't misunderstood. I simply disagree. If I am on a
| public web page of a particular resource I should be able
| to share the URL to anyone else. Neither my user agent
| nor the other party's user agent should matter. It is
| ludicrous (and in fact essentially impossible) to check
| how a URL behaves in _every possible user agent_ before
| sharing that URL with someone. If I 'm on the Wikipedia
| page for London, I ought to be able to share that URL
| with anyone using any user agent. If I cannot do that,
| that is the responsibility of the web site
| administrators.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > If I am on a public web page of a particular resource I
| should be able to share the URL to anyone else. Neither
| my user agent nor the other party's user agent should
| matter.
|
| This is how mobile wikipedia pages behave. What part of
| that do you disagree with?
|
| Share a mobile page's URL and the person following your
| link will see the same page you do, no matter what your
| user-agent is, no matter what their user-agent is, no
| matter what device you're using, no matter what device
| they're using.
|
| _This is the problem._ The behavior you are looking for,
| of different people seeing different content according to
| their user-agent, is also provided, and it 's provided by
| the standard page.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Again, the point is that the non-mobile URL redirects to
| the mobile URL. You're not "sharing a mobile page's URL,"
| you're just sharing the URL for the page you're on. You
| didn't _choose_ to be on a mobile-specific page. And
| again, your user agent _does_ matter, because that 's how
| you got to the mobile URL in the first place. Returning
| HTTP redirects is not supposed to mean "here's a new URL
| that's different from the one you requested, oh any by
| the way you can't share this new URL." An HTTP redirect
| is supposed to mean "the resource you requested is now at
| a new URL."
| grishka wrote:
| I got annoyed at this enough to write this tiny userscript:
| // ==UserScript== // @name Redirect from
| mobile wiki to desktop // @namespace
| http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1
| // @description try to take over the world! //
| @author You // @match
| https://*.m.wikipedia.org/* // @grant none
| // @run-at document-start // ==/UserScript==
| window.location.hostname=window.location.hostname.split(".")[
| 0]+".wikipedia.org";
| pc86 wrote:
| What bothers me most about this is that if you go to www on a
| mobile device, it redirects you to m - that's great, and
| probably the "right" thing to do. There is probably a "View
| Desktop Version" link on the mobile page, somewhere. But if
| you go to the m subdomain on a desktop device, there's no
| easy way to get to the desktop version without manually
| changing the URL. If you can redirect from www to m, surely
| you can redirect from m to www when appropriate.
| maximedupre wrote:
| I feel like there's the issue on Reddit
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| I feel like this is the least of the issues of Reddit('s
| mobile version, social ones excluded for lack of
| knowledge).
| zamadatix wrote:
| > But if you go to the m subdomain on a desktop device,
| there's no easy way to get to the desktop version without
| manually changing the URL.
|
| You may find humour in the comically small "desktop" link
| at the very end of the page, next to the privacy policy.
| aembleton wrote:
| I use the No More Mobile plugin to fix that:
| https://github.com/spixy/NoMoreMobile
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| I'm sure there is JS that will redirect you to non mobile,
| pretty sure I installed something like that and never had
| that issue.
| teddyh wrote:
| Firefox plugin: _Skip Mobile Wikipedia_
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-
| mobile-w...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I dunno. Maybe it is different on a phone but on a tablet the
| desktop Wikipedia is better than the mobile Wikipedia.
| Swizec wrote:
| +1 to this. My iPad is plenty big enough please show me the
| real Wikipedia. The redirect is incredibly frustrating.
|
| On a phone, the mobile Wikipedia is perfect tho.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Down the bottom there is a link to the desktop version of the
| site.
| kingcharles wrote:
| TIL!
| MawKKe wrote:
| Whoa, thanks.
|
| However, that link is totally in the wrong place, no wonder
| I could not find it. I just assumed there was no such
| link/button and always angrily removed the 'm.' from each
| URL.
| t-writescode wrote:
| Equally, I don't like it when websites try to guess what kind
| of browser I'm in and force me into the mobile experience
| when I have a window take up half the screen on a 1080p
| monitor, ... so I guess there's really no easy win for this
| :(
| dorianmariefr wrote:
| I think proper media queries breakpoints solve this
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| No, it won't. There is no clear distinction between
| mobile and tablet first of all.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| Orientation and width not enough?
| coldacid wrote:
| When I pin a browser to the left or right side of one of
| my monitors, these sites will often go into mobile mode
| despite the fact that the browser is still wide enough
| that desktop mode works fine, merely because the window
| is now taller than it is wide. And I find that incredibly
| annoying.
| mattnewton wrote:
| This is hard and often done wrong- mobile phones are
| usually high dpi and have gotten quite large, so it can
| be hard to distinguish between a large phone and half a
| desktop screen. Some people get quite annoyed by being
| bumped into a mobile experience when you resize your
| window from fullscreen on a laptop.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I don't understand those people at all. If my browser
| window is the width of a mobile phone's screen, than a
| version of the website designed for that screen size is
| _exactly_ what I want!
| iggldiggl wrote:
| > This is hard and often done wrong- mobile phones are
| usually high dpi and have gotten quite large, so it can
| be hard to distinguish between a large phone and half a
| desktop screen.
|
| A tablet could be easily confused, or a phone in
| landscape mode, too, but for a phone in portrait mode
| this seems a bit hard to imagine, because DPI _is_ taken
| into account when converting the display width into CSS
| pixels, so even a phone cramming 1080 or 1440 or whatever
| amount of physical screen pixels into its display width
| should still come in at something like 300 to 400ish CSS
| pixels. Or am I misunderstanding something?
| mattnewton wrote:
| You're right, and it's certainly a solvable problem but
| one that often is not solved correctly is my point. You
| may have to also introduce a (nonstandard) viewport tag
| to prevent mobile browsers from laying out the page at a
| much higher resolution and then zooming/shrinking on you
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/HTML/Viewport_m... If you don't, you may
| falsely conclude from manual testing that you need large
| breakpoints for mobile.
|
| Also, many times mobile breakpoints don't look at the
| device orientation and pick numbers like 800px, to
| capture landscape orientation on medium sized phones or
| something (I'm not sure where this number comes from to
| be honest). This obviously breaks the two windows side by
| side case on laptops but is a top result for me if you
| google the arcane syntax for how to target mobile
| browsers with a media query.
|
| I am not 100% sure what all the pitfalls are with the
| current interface, but they exist often enough for me to
| run into them semi-frequently on smaller laptops.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| You have it right.
| [deleted]
| dpifke wrote:
| https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T214998
| Taywee wrote:
| Install Firefox Redirector: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/redirector/ Add a rule to redirect
| (https?://)?(\w+\\.)m\\.wikipedia.org(.*) to
| $1$2wikipedia.org$3 Then you never have to deal with mobile
| Wikipedia on desktop again. You can use this for other sites
| too, like forcing all uses of Reddit to always open in
| old.reddit.com.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| As one of the people who uses a mobile device only if I have
| no other choice (which is never), I definitely feel the pain
| of this.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| This isn't so bad but consider new Reddit vs. old Reddit.
|
| If "new" were to become the only way to access Reddit, I would
| probably abandon it.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| They don't need to force you to migrate, the new site pushes
| people into mindless meme sharing only, and completely
| altered the contents of the site already.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I've had to banish a good 40+ subreddits off my feed
| manually using RES to just deal with the politics spam.
|
| And even then, browsing /r/popular is just awful.
| Elimination games. People blatantly asking for personal
| information from teenagers. "Tell me your favorite X and we
| will judge you" Dumb NSFW 'questions'. Repost bots for
| content from years ago. Misinformative titles. "Unpopular
| opinion" threads.
|
| It's a mountain of trash to wade through to get any decent
| content.
| inykt wrote:
| I agree, and I have already left using reddit. What's the
| alternative to some random content consumption (like
| reddit)? Like hacker news but for non-technology topics.
|
| I can suggest wiby.me 's random button to discover new
| sites with modern opinions.
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| It is really annoying to be shown the new site so I just use
| mobile apps to read it now.
| jyrkesh wrote:
| I love my mobile app as well (RIF), but do you know about
| old.reddit.com? Still works great with RES, I couldn't
| imagine Reddit on the desktop any other way
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| Yup still do that on desktop, I have it automatically
| redirect me, I would hate to lose it!
| dheera wrote:
| > so I just use mobile apps
|
| That might have been their goal?
|
| Although I detest having to use apps for every site. The
| Reddit app is also super buggy.
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| I use Sync for Reddit on Android and Apollo on iOS.
| dheera wrote:
| On another note given that Wikipedia's content is in the open,
| maybe this new UI could be hosted at another domain e.g.
| pickypedia.org or itchypedia.org or something else funny
| instead of being a Chrome plugin.
|
| Chrome plugins add more unwelcome startup bloat to the web
| browser, and while they are super useful to fix the UI issues
| of commercial, copyrighted websites, Wikipedia can totally
| legally be replicated at another domain.
| pkdpic wrote:
| Agreed, still love the untouched UI but work like this seems
| like it will only help reinforce the accessibility and long-
| term health of the project.
| spicybright wrote:
| Same here, we're fortunate it hasn't gone down the road of
| typical webdev anti-patterns. (at least besides the donation
| banners, which is understandable ;) )
| johnchristopher wrote:
| That extension doesn't change how the web is. The web is still
| the same whether you use client side CSS override or not.
|
| This is exactly how CSS and HTML were intended to operate and
| the kind of results to be expected.
|
| > But i am sure there are people who will appreciate your
| effort. Thank you for your work.
|
| How is that called ? A complimentsult ?
| nomemory wrote:
| Not at all a complimensult. I can appreciate the work of
| someone, if even I won't use it. I don't know how to put it
| otherwise.
| seumars wrote:
| You just say thanks for sharing and drop the other bit.
| nomemory wrote:
| Well, I don't consider I've insulted someone by saying I
| like the way Wikipedia is.
| noja wrote:
| Great! I like that you have made the table of contents useful!
| dorianmariefr wrote:
| Quite nice, what do the wikipedians think?
| freediver wrote:
| Well done, it looks easier to read. Make font and background
| adjustable (like reader mode in Safari).
| reflexe wrote:
| I'm too scared to install extensions, any other way to see your
| design? Looks cool, in any case.
| appel wrote:
| I love this OP, thank you for making it! I did have to turn off a
| custom theme I had set in my Wikipedia settings, perhaps that's
| something you can detect and warn for?
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Isn't that what WikiWand is?
| pc86 wrote:
| Any plans to open source this?
| [deleted]
| aeon10 wrote:
| OP, This looks great! Having the index on the left is a huge
| improvement and limiting the text length is definitely helpful.
| Now I don't have to resize my window to a smaller size every time
| I open it.
|
| A lot of HN tends to dislike anything "new", please don't let it
| get to you :)
| jokoon wrote:
| I wish wikipedia would be better compartmentalized, with articles
| tagged for their academic importance, because it makes it very
| difficult to download and/or host wikipedia when it includes a
| lot of noise, like celebrities, tv shows, local events, etc.
|
| I guess that's what wikipedia portals are for?
|
| For example I would love to be able to download a wikipedia
| archive just for math, computer science or history, etc, just
| like subject are found in an university, library or the dewey or
| congress classification.
|
| Of course it's a lot of work, but I really feels it's important
| and it would make wikipedia more accessible and attractive, and
| also cheaper to distribute.
| kingcharles wrote:
| One man's noise is another man's treasure.
| FpUser wrote:
| I did not try the theme but from what I see you just lowered
| contrast (this famous grey on white). You are reducing usability
| for the sake of questionable aesthetics. From there I am
| uninterested to explore any further. Thanks for your efforts but
| I like my Wikipedia to stay the way it is now. Works fine.
| outloudvi wrote:
| Seems like the MobileFrontend brought to the PC.
|
| I think I would prefer rhe current Vector theme (or maybe
| Monobook, but definitely not thr Fandom one), but it would be
| fairly great to have a dark mode.
|
| Thank you for your work!
| matt123456789 wrote:
| I was ready to hate it like a grumpy old codger but it looks
| really nice and keeps the content front and center. If I can make
| a suggestion - I hate it when the search suggests "trending"
| things. Of course I find them interesting, but it interrupts my
| attention. Maybe make that a separate button or something.
| depaulagu wrote:
| Is it open-source?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Aren't they constantly working on this tho? Maybe you should talk
| to/help https://design.wikimedia.org/ instead of extensions.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Or just use en.m.wikipedia.org instead? From the preview they
| look very similar.
| tyingq wrote:
| The images look nice. You might consider a demo page that mimics
| the output of the extension though, with some amount of
| interaction. It's difficult to tell what it's really like from an
| image.
| jagger27 wrote:
| It's a bit rough[0] at ultrawide resolutions, but then again what
| isn't?
|
| There's also a small padding issue[1] next to the sidebar when
| the column width is set high.
|
| Otherwise it looks pretty good.
|
| [0]: https://jagger.co/downloads/modern-wiki-wide.png [1]:
| https://jagger.co/downloads/modern-wiki-padding.png
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| css columns to the rescue, maybe with a media query.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Came to report these same two issues. The second one seems like
| a simple bug; I'd expect the text column to be centered in all
| cases. Not sure what the solution is for the first problem.
| Even in a normal width window the text box feels too narrow.
| Multi-column layout is too hard.
|
| I really like this though!
| ravenstine wrote:
| I think having the sidebar on the right would be better design.
| Because the article should be the main focus, and we read from
| left-to-right, putting the sidebar on the left makes it harder
| for the eye to track back to the following line of the main
| article content.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Why is it that so many useful extensions like this snub Safari?
| alt227 wrote:
| Firefox works on everything, and so creating a single extension
| guarantees maximum exposure. Safari is locked to MacOS.
| Creating an extension for it requires that you develop using
| Mac hardware, and then only other Mac users can use your
| program.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Safari is abandonware, it's about time to realize
| jules wrote:
| I like having the table of contents on the left. I often have to
| scroll back to the top to look at the table of contents again.
| The font size is rather large though: for many pages you have to
| scroll to see the full table of contents. Seeing the full table
| of contents at a glance is a critical feature for me. I would use
| this extension if you could scale the table of contents like you
| can for the main text.
| aarondf wrote:
| This looks very cool. Looking forward to giving it a go!
|
| One request right away: can you add a setting to add phantom
| space at the bottom of the page? I don't know if it has a proper
| name, but editors sometimes have a "virtual space" setting so you
| can scroll the last bit of the content to the top of your screen.
|
| It's super helpful when you want to click on one of the last on-
| page heading anchors and it doesn't really scroll to that part of
| the page because there's not enough room to scroll it. If that
| makes sense...
|
| Nice work!
| azinman2 wrote:
| I want to use this. Looks really nice. I know there are people
| here who are crying for information density, but I'm not one of
| them. The majority of people will be happier when there's room
| for content to breathe.
|
| My one sadness-- no Safari support! Safari has gotten better with
| its extensions API support.. is it just the the store that's
| preventing you?
| krjt wrote:
| If you want safari support, wikipedia.rehash [1] has the option
| to install as a per-user custom css on wikipedia, so the style
| can be automatically applied when you log into wikipedia. Hence
| it works on tablets as well. Its redesign is not as extensive
| as this project, but the goals are quite similar.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/Krasjet/wikipedia.rehash#user-content-
| opt...
| y0st wrote:
| I think you're missing the mark a bit with the `density` and
| `room for content to breath` space. While I generally prefer to
| not hide (common) actions behind menus, and have some (imho)
| better design to surface these types of things I can accept it.
| The current trend with giving content all the room and shoving
| every little action into a pop-out is getting a bit much. We
| all have massive displays, even on our phones, and we _can_
| show the more common actions (in this case, history, edit, etc)
| instead of hiding everything behind a `...` or a hamburger
| menu.
| sjdz wrote:
| Yeah Safari support is definitely on the TODO, but the
| requirement for an App Store account made me put that on the
| backburner for now.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Please never ever use system-ui in your CSS.
|
| A classic article about why:
| https://infinnie.github.io/blog/2017/systemui.html
|
| In this particular case, it totally ruined the fonts of Wikipedia
| for East-Asian (CJK) Windows users.
|
| Just in case the article itself isn't convincing enough, below is
| a list of some websites that have tried "system-ui" and then
| reverted it semi-immediately:
|
| Facebook/bootstrap, GitHub, Twitter, Stack Overflow...
| thex10 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! I love system-ui and this is my first time
| hearing of this -- will definitely reconsider.
| sjdz wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for that. I was under the impression that
| using "system-ui" was the way to go! I do plan to add font
| choice as a setting in a future version, so that will solve
| this.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Just to note, you can achieve having "system font" for all
| the major OSs without using "system-ui" keyword.
|
| Actually, "system-ui" doesn't even do anything in Firefox on
| Windows right now (and it behaves exactly like -apple-system
| on MacOS), so you shouldn't rely on it anyway.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This is great info, thank you. I'm going to set up some VMs so
| I can test East-Asian locales in future to make sure I've not
| fucked anything up.
| arcbyte wrote:
| Isnt the right answer for Microsoft or users to fix their
| system font? Why would east Asian users have a crappy system
| font selected in their OS?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| This feels like a failing on Microsoft's part, at least for
| current versions of Windows. The bar for a viable system font
| has been raised and it's their responsibility as an OS vendor
| to ensure the bar is met across localizations.
|
| As for old versions of Windows... well, one should probably
| look at their target market/user base. If your demographic is
| firmly Roman western use of system-ui is probably fine -- as
| far as I'm aware, the bulk of remaining users of XP/7 are in
| East Asia, chiefly China.
| Spivak wrote:
| You can call it a failing on MS's part up until you have
| real users that are impacted because then it really doesn't
| matter who's fault it is when users can't use your site.
|
| So MS should fix this and until then you shouldn't use
| system-ui.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Why does a clumsy font mean you can't use the site? And
| why is the solution not to upgrade your 15-year-old
| dangerously-insecure EOL OS?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Those releases have been EOL for 10+ and 5+ years
| respectively. There are a number of free options.
|
| I don't see any reason to make any effort to support those
| folks, especially when the font is merely ugly in a
| cosmetic sense, and not unreadable.
| kingcharles wrote:
| My counter-argument would be that even if a platform is
| EOL, if it represents a serious chunk of your audience
| then you should probably do what you can to accommodate
| them. Especially if, as here, you might be able to fix it
| with a very simple change.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| This problem isn't limited to Windows 7/2008 or XP. It
| affects Win10 too.
|
| >especially when the font is merely ugly in a cosmetic
| sense, and not unreadable
|
| Eh, you won't go very far with this attitude in any
| design team.
|
| Also, anyone who tried to manually craft font-family
| fallback path are already _making effort_. You can
| literally choose to not assign any font. Actually, it
| probably works better: most of browsers have sensible
| default (which often times _is_ system font) already.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Win 10 is a different story, what an embarrassment.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Peak Wikipedia reading experience, for me, is using the Android
| app on a tablet. It already gives the "modern" experience that
| this extension seems to be going for, and is an absolute joy to
| use.
| diveanon wrote:
| This looks great, going to play around with it when I get home.
|
| Does it still present the fundraising banners?
| jmkd wrote:
| You even improved the homepage of Wikipedia!
|
| The original version has got to be one of the most dreadful pages
| on the internet, designed by committee and looks like it...
| 0des wrote:
| OP, thanks for making this, I bet it was fun to build.
|
| That being said, I want someone to do the _opposite_ of what this
| does. Less chrome, less bytes over the wire, less predictive
| search, less "flatness?", less timely, _more timeless_.
| disconcision wrote:
| not totally obvious to me what you mean here? at first glance
| this seems to have less chrome than the standard ui, and to be
| more timeless in the specific sense that it has a closer
| resemblance to a paper encyclopedia layout versus mid-00s web
| styling.
| bawolff wrote:
| > less timely, more timeless.
|
| I'm not sure if this is a subtle reference,but one of the major
| competing skins for wikipedia is named timeless:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=timeless (its
| often quite popular among people using phones who find the
| official mobile website frustrating)
| SilasX wrote:
| This. What's with the fixed floating headers? Like my screen
| real estate isn't scarce enough? And even if not, I don't like
| sites treating my desktop like a phone but blown up really big.
| anonu wrote:
| Isn't this solution exactly same number of bytes over the wire?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Got you, fam.
|
| https://encyclopedia.marginalia.nu/wiki-start.html
|
| (I built this mostly for myself, because I find it incredibly
| difficult to read text that has hyperlinks and images in the
| text)
| ciphol wrote:
| That is very nice looking. But I want the hyperlinks because
| the information I want is often spread out over more than one
| page (often Wikipedia achieves more concision than a
| traditional encyclopedia by hyperlinking rather than defining
| the terms it uses). And I want references because otherwise
| the information is unreliable. And I often want images
| because they sometimes convey information better than any
| text ("an image is worth a thousand words").
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Regular wikipedia is still there if those are your
| preferences. I don't know, I've never check a single
| reference in over a decade of using Wikipedia. I don't have
| access to those references. Maybe you do, if so that's
| cool.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Thanks, bestie!
| 0des wrote:
| You complete me <3
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I should say it's a bit janky in some places, but for most
| articles it works reasonably well.
| fallat wrote:
| This is kind of incredible.
|
| Have you considered images just take up full width?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Half of cutting the images is a space saving thing.
|
| Wikipedia is a pretty big website, and (like the rest of my
| web presence) I'm hosting the mirror on a single small
| consumer hardware server. I'm keeping all the wikipedia
| pages as compressed HTML, and if you look at the sources
| you'll see it's very bare bones, most pages are like 50 Kb,
| yet the total is still 21 Gb. I don't think I have the
| space or bandwidth for selfhosting all of wikipedia's
| images.
|
| Part of this experiment is to illustrate just how
| ridiculously large page loads on a lot of pages. Even text-
| heavy ones like Wikipedia.
|
| If you compare the HTML payload alone of these two
| renditions of largely the same text, it's a 50x difference.
| The full Wikipedia page load exceeds 1 Mb, mine isn't even
| 10 Kb.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scamander
|
| https://encyclopedia.marginalia.nu/wiki/Scamander
|
| That's kinda ridiculous.
| dsizzle wrote:
| I'm with you on links being distracting, but it seems you...
| nuked them entirely, which maybe goes too far haha? I guess
| you can always go back to source if you want that.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I just moved them to the bottom of the article.
|
| In part this is because I feel inline links on wikipedia
| often lets you overestimate how well you comprehend a
| subject. It's as though the fact that there is a link over
| a word makes you think you _could_ go check what that is,
| and therefore that you probably understand the word.
|
| Actually looking up some term mid sentence is also probably
| not particularly helpful for understanding the text either.
|
| I concede that this is a somewhat unusual decision, but I
| designed the pages for the singular purpose of reading and
| comprehending the article. Everything else is secondary.
| It's a bit of a design experiment, but I think it's worked
| out pretty well. I don't fall into skim-reading these
| articles like I must admit I often do with regular
| Wikipedia articles.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I love what you've done with the links, and will use
| this, I think. Thank you for your excellent work!
| dsizzle wrote:
| Oh, ha, I didn't even notice that. Ok, I like that!
|
| I was actually looking at the footnote links, and those
| do indeed seem to be missing entirely -- as well as the
| whole references section. Arguably that's more important
| than links to "definition" wiki pages, so it forms the
| basis for the knowledge (vs mostly just definitions).
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Yeah, I removed those entirely, as I very rarely use
| those. More often than not the links are pay walled and
| the references are books that may or may not even be in
| print. Maybe it's useful if you have a university library
| at hand but I don't so I simply live with the fact that
| some of the things I've read may be wrong.
|
| If you want to look up sources it's better to use the
| live wikipedia at any rate, since it will be more up to
| date than this snapshot.
| dsizzle wrote:
| Ehh, I would say it's useful to see the reference even if
| you don't follow the link, but I'm sure it also depends
| on the nature of the topic. Seems easy to just preserve
| that section, but, hey, it's your site. Maybe there's a
| cost aspect you're considering? On that note, I'm curious
| how much it costs to basically mirror all of Wikipedia,
| if you wouldn't mind sharing?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I do a lot of these design experiments. I have an idea
| such as "what if wikipedia was designed _only_ with
| reading comprehension in mind " and then I see what
| taking it to the most ridiculous extreme does. Sometimes
| it pans out, like I'm fairly happy with this wikipedia
| mirror, sometimes it doesn't--like I have no logos or
| branding anywhere on my sites, that turned out to be a
| bit confusing.
|
| My mirror clocks in at 21 Gb. I'm self hosting so there's
| no real money cost besides the one-time investment in
| hardware. A really chap person could probably host this
| off a raspberry pi attached to something like a Corsair
| Voyager and serve multiple requests per second.
|
| There's some technical trickiness in actually storing the
| files in a file system, since most filesystems don't deal
| well with having millions of files in the same folder. So
| I've had to build a four-tier directory structure based
| on the hash of the file name to be able to store the
| files. They're stored in a structure like
| 31/444/781/225/foobar.gz.
|
| I did some experiments storing them as BLOBs in a
| database, but I couldn't get it to work.
| dsizzle wrote:
| Interesting. What are the bandwidth considerations for
| this? I had the impression that many ISPs make self-
| hosting impractical on normal household plans, but then
| I've never looked into it seriously.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Dunno, I have unlimited uploads and downloads @ 100 mbit,
| and I host both this Wikipedia mirror as well as a search
| engine and some other stuff.
|
| The bandwidth usage is pretty inconsequential since most
| of my pages clock in at just a few kilobytes.
| jbreitbart wrote:
| https://wikiless.org/ is probably what you are looking for.
| There are also extensions that automatically redirect Wikipedia
| links
| [deleted]
| animal_spirits wrote:
| The only difference I notice between this and Wikipedia is
| that I can't hover over a link and get a pop-up description
| of the page. Is that all or is there more to it?
| thih9 wrote:
| > https://wikiless.org - a free open source alternative
| Wikipedia front-end focused on privacy. No JavaScript or
| ads. All requests go through the backend, client never
| talks to Wikipedia. Prevents Wikipedia getting your IP
| address. Self-hostable. Anyone can setup a private or
| public instance.
|
| From: https://codeberg.org/orenom/Wikiless
| TheNorthman wrote:
| From the README [0] and code, I'd wager that the only thing
| happening is that JS has been filtered out, that the CSP
| rules are significantly stricter and that a dark mode has
| been added.
|
| [0]: https://codeberg.org/orenom/wikiless
| umvi wrote:
| Hear hear. I wish more sites were like HN - more
| text/information density, less CSS magic, less JS.
| greggsy wrote:
| If you create an account, you can change the appearance to look
| a lot like OP's, but a lot lighter and without the plugin.
|
| To be honest, while this looks pretty, it's really just
| Wikiwand 2.0.
| myself248 wrote:
| Oh dang, yeah. An extension that makes the whole web look and
| work like the default Mediawiki skin would be glorious. And
| _fast_.
|
| I miss windows having borders. Just dug up a registry hack
| (obscene that such a thing was needed) to force win10 to have
| window borders again, because I keep ending up in situations
| where I honestly couldn't tell where one ends and the other
| begins.
|
| They spent decades researching and building interfaces with
| visual cues, and we spent decades tuning our reflexes to them.
| Then some whim of fashion decided that hiding all those cues
| was "smoother", and I want to choke someone.
| shoto_io wrote:
| Why not use Reader Mode? I love it and use it as often as I
| can
| HellsMaddy wrote:
| Reader mode is nice when it works, but since it's
| hueristics-based I find it often either misses important
| content like images and code blocks that should be included
| with the article, or includes text that shouldn't be there.
|
| Even if it selects all the right elements, syntax
| highlighting doesn't work which is an issue for me since a
| lot of the articles I read involve code.
|
| These are issues with every reader mode I've tried - iOS
| Safari, iOS/desktop Firefox, desktop Chrome.
|
| I wish there were a standard CSS media type that sites
| could implement, like `@media reader`, to help specify
| which elements should be included and to support things
| like syntax highlighting.
| framecowbird wrote:
| I love reader mode! It's saved the internet for me
| grishka wrote:
| That, and the density. I like desktop UIs to be dense. They
| don't _have_ to be sparse with ample padding like on mobile
| devices since you don 't poke your fingers into your monitor.
| Yet somehow, people keep designing desktop UIs as if there's
| a touchscreen or something.
| duderific wrote:
| It's basic typographic design philosophy around whitespace
| - your eye needs somewhere to rest, and narrow columns of
| text are just easier to read. I personally like ample
| padding and whitespace, and don't want wall to wall content
| that just looks like a jumbled mess.
| busymom0 wrote:
| > people keep designing desktop UIs as if there's a
| touchscreen or something
|
| I think that also has to do with "more white space = more
| scrolling = more ads".
|
| Reddit is a perfect example of this. When they "updated"
| their UI to the current one, they added a ton of extra
| white space which forced people to scroll longer, thus
| spending more time on the site and viewing more ads. They
| also use a ton of other dark patterns.
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| I just used win+ arrow keys, never missed the resizing.
| amatecha wrote:
| Whoa, I had no clue about these key-combos. So handy!
| Thanks!!
|
| For anyone curious, MS has a useful summary of how this
| works here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/snap-your-window...
| GhettoComputers wrote:
| No problem, I did it by accident, and you can also drag
| the windows to the corners and overshoot to have them,
| top is full, left and right is half that side, the link
| you posted mentions that, I am actually surprised you
| never accidentally discovered either. I have that in KDE
| as well.
| RyanGoosling wrote:
| why does a different set of CSS make it _fast_?
| bawolff wrote:
| It probably doesn't in this case, but there are cases where
| css can have significant performance implications.
| Different selectors take different amounts of time, various
| things can force re-laying out the page etc. Not to mention
| pointless animation.
| greggsy wrote:
| The default MediaWiki theme is available, along with a
| handful of others, if you create an account.
| bawolff wrote:
| The default mediawiki theme (vector) is also the default
| wikipedia theme (on desktop).
|
| If you don't have an account you can add ?useskin=skinname
| to end of url to trigger different skins.
|
| E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&u
| seskin... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma
| in_Page&useskin...
| jpatel3 wrote:
| It looks really neat. would love to learn more about how you
| approached it without missing or compromising any functionality.
| readme wrote:
| wikipedia should jack this and make it default
| divbzero wrote:
| Is there a way for this to be implemented as a Mediawiki skin [1]
| instead of as a browser extension? Is installation of skins by
| users one of the challenges?
|
| [1]:
| https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:How_to_make_a_MediaWik...
| tim-- wrote:
| I don't think you can install random skins on the official
| Wikipedia site. I run a mediawiki install for a local tech
| group, and it would be fantastic to replace monobook with this
| layout.
|
| sjdz, the work you have done putting this layout together is
| awesome!
| aerovistae wrote:
| I hate to be the contrarian, but I'm confused by the positive
| remarks here. I find the interface looks like it was trying to
| force mobile design principles onto a desktop view. A lot of
| space seems wasted here and I can view less content at once. I
| don't find this useful personally.
| matsemann wrote:
| > A lot of space seems wasted here and I can view less content
| at once.
|
| More space makes thing easier to read, though. You could have
| font size 8 and a couple hundred chars long lines on your 4k
| monitor. Would see lots of content, but would be unreadable.
| umvi wrote:
| You can find it not useful personally but still leave a
| positive comment for the creator who is sharing something they
| made with the community. "Subsidize what you want more of, tax
| what you want less of". If you want people to share their
| creations, be more encouraging/positive. If you don't want
| people to share their creations, be more critical/negative.
| [deleted]
| chris_wot wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with expressing any opinion.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| One unique UI feature of Wikipedia is that it has tons of
| tables that are super wide. They look fine on a monitor with
| 1080p+ resolution, but reading such articles on mobile has
| always been horrible experience.
|
| Unfortunately, this "modern" UI (larger font, narrow width)
| causes the exactly same problem on desktop.
| carabiner wrote:
| God yes this is annoying. TV episode summaries are in wide
| tables too and it's excruciating to read on mobile. These are
| mostly freeflowing text, not statistics, and there's no
| benefit to being put in a table. What is with the over-
| tabulation on Wikipedia?
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I in general prefer tables but yeah having summary of TV
| episodes makes no sense and has been one of my pet peeve of
| Wikipedia formatting for a while.
| ciphol wrote:
| Sometimes when this happens, I rotate my phone 90 degrees so
| that the whole width of the table can be easily seen.
| haolez wrote:
| Looks good, but I think the adjective "modern" to be overly
| aggressive towards other design trends. From what I saw, the
| design trend here is for a flat and rounded interface with
| dynamic searches.
| sjdz wrote:
| Thanks, glad you like it :) With the name, I was just thinking
| more in terms of "modernized"... as in, something more modern
| than the current Wikipedia design... but I get your point! I'll
| have a think about it.
| mattl wrote:
| The name should reflect Wikipedia, not all wikis.
| haolez wrote:
| Maybe slim or slick :)
| KarlKemp wrote:
| I keep thinking of modern as the 1930s-style minimalism.
| Following that, isn't/wasn't "modern" the default Wordpress
| theme?
| klntsky wrote:
| Can we have this but in a form of a userstyle, without all the
| features that require JS?
| KarlKemp wrote:
| You can add custom javascript to User:YourUsername/common.js on
| Wikipedia, so this wouldn't be much of a problem.
| jdeaton wrote:
| Can you make a chrome extension that does the reverse of this?
| Make "modern" webpages on rest of the web look like wikipeidia?
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| @sjdz Were you inspired to do this based on the Wikiwand site and
| extension from a few years back? It seems very similar.
| ndom91 wrote:
| Any chance you'd like to open source this? I'm really enjoying
| this as well so far, but there are a few small nits I'd like to
| address with a little PR :)
|
| 1. Left menu scroll bar defaults to the hideous browser default
| scroll bar. 2. When increasing the width of the content just a
| bit, it becomes left adjusted all of a sudden, hugging the left
| menu and leaving tons of room on the right.
| kofesmolotkom wrote:
| Looks amazing! Although I wish there were a TTS. It's a lacking
| feature for wiki nowadays.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Nice work! Now, by any chance, can you make a pre-modern web UI
| for other sites? Because that's actually what I am looking for...
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I discovered the other day that the mobile version of Wikipedia
| _while on desktop_ is AMAZING.
|
| Check this out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Yeager
|
| It's nicely justified for reading. Superfluous interface is
| almost entirely eliminated compared to desktop view. It's just
| such a clean, elegant view for reading a Wikipedia page.
| rollinDyno wrote:
| What they need to do is put the TOC on the collapsible sidebar.
| thamer wrote:
| I totally agree!
|
| This came up in a recent HN post so I published a user script I
| had written to automatically switch to the mobile version. You
| can also switch manually between mobile and desktop with [?] +
| M or ctrl-M. If you've switched to desktop and click on a link,
| it stays in desktop mode (it would be jarring otherwise if it
| kept flipping between modes). You can also edit the page with
| [?] + E or ctrl-E (opens in desktop mode since the mobile
| editor is pretty limited).
|
| Install it here:
| https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/431384-switch-to-mobile-wi...
| ravenstine wrote:
| I was skeptical but I just tried that and, yeah, it's actually
| pretty good on desktop.
| kreeben wrote:
| one of the worst things about the current WP GUI is that when you
| hover over a hyperlinked word with the expectation that your
| anxious yearning for the definition of that word be fulfilled
| you're often forced to click through to the actual page, because
| the popup lacks a concise enough representation of that word,
| because the definition could not be contained within that small a
| space, or, the definition of the word succeeds some initial
| ramblings about the origins of the word, or of its inventors,
| which does not lead to me understanding the word and makes my WP
| deep dives less pleasurable.
|
| I want WP to solve this with NLP.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| I believe those texts are specifically set either on Wikidata,
| or via the template "short description" at the start of the
| article. Only where those are missing should it fall back to
| the beginning of the article text.
| jll29 wrote:
| Certainly NLP could help here. In particular, there are two
| sub-areas concerned with document summarization and text
| simplification (e.g. remove relative clauses, split
| long/complex sentences), respectively, that could be useful in
| this case.
| animal_spirits wrote:
| Looks good, thanks!
| amjd wrote:
| I'm usually skeptical of these kind of attempts and dismiss them
| automatically, but this very nicely done! I'm keeping the
| extension. :)
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| Looks clean and nice on first glance!
|
| > Modern for Wikipedia only works on desktop or laptop computers
|
| Urgh. Mobile probably represents 90% of Wikipedia traffic. I am
| on mobile now, of course. I am sad.
| bighoss97 wrote:
| This solves my biggest problem with Wikipedia, which is the index
| being placed in a box at the top of the page. You moved the index
| to the side. Nice work!
| Conlectus wrote:
| You may be interested to know that Wikipedia has a page dedicated
| to such redesigns[1]. Perhaps there are some to draw inspiration
| from. Regardless, maybe it would be worth contributing to the
| list.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesign...
| sjdz wrote:
| Thanks for that, I did actually come across that page during
| development when I was searching for redesign concepts. There's
| a few dead links there, but it seems redesigning Wikipedia is a
| very popular pursuit for designers as there are tons of designs
| out there (on dribbble etc). I've tried to incorporate all the
| best ideas from these into this extension, but I'm open to any
| suggestions for improvements! I will also try adding this one
| to the list.
| nice_byte wrote:
| wikipedia UI for browsing is already perfect and needs no further
| improvement.
| sjdz wrote:
| Hey HN,
|
| I made this free browser extension that modernizes the Wikipedia
| design. I started making this for myself just because I wanted
| more of a "reader mode" like experience (narrower column, nicer
| fonts, dark mode etc). Then I got a bit carried away and
| implemented everything I could think of for a modern redesign of
| Wikipedia. Hope you like it!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-06 23:00 UTC)