Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 45 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,217,173
@previous (B)
There's nothing convenient about hiding a bunch of shit behind menu buttons when half the screen is completely empty and all that hidden shit could easily fit in the sidebar, like it did before they bowed down and adopted this cancerous mobile phone inspired web design bullshit that every god damn website uses today. Except Minichan, because Minichan is the superior website. I swear to god if Minichan ever hides the menu bar at the top behind a fucking hamburger button I will kill myself.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,217,174
@previous (A)
Are you fucking mad or something? Jesus Christ, I just gave you my opinion and you started fuming at the mouth. What the fuck is wrong with you, buddy?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,217,365
@1,217,242 (D) > I can see the table of contents no matter how far I scroll down
That part is an improvement.
> and they kept the real estate for the main content the same.
For many pages it is definitely less. Especially the main page.
And the stuff they hid should still be visible, by default, underneath the table of contents.
I have a 4k screen. If I wanted to use a mobile interface, I'd use a mobile phone.
There's literally no excuse for more than a third of my screen to be blank. If I find the line widths too long to read comfortably, I can resize the window, or better, the site can make better use of columns, dynamically even.
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,217,373
Just checked with some old tabs I have open. The article pages are definitely using way less of the width of my screen than they used to. The main page is the worst, but literally every page is now wasting screen real estate for no obvious reason.
> If you are going that far you might as well make copy over the old design, and set it as a custom stylesheet. > > Then you can make little tweaks over time, and have it perfect.
Can't be fucked, unless someone's already made the changes I want (putting the TOC on the side like the new design, but leaving the width and everything else the same).
> For most people, especially anyone used to modern interfaces, the new design is better.
I've yet to see any convincing argument about how this is better. Aside from the TOC remaining visible on the side.
> For most people, especially anyone used to modern interfaces, the new design is better.
Yes, most people love having to click twice for something they previously only had to click once, for no reason other than "muh hamburger button"
> > If you are going that far you might as well make copy over the old design, and set it as a custom stylesheet. > > > > Then you can make little tweaks over time, and have it perfect. > Can't be fucked, unless someone's already made the changes I want (putting the TOC on the side like the new design, but leaving the width and everything else the same).
It's copying + pasting the stylesheet that you linked, that way you don't have to add the "?useskin=vector" each time. It's easier if you need to change it.
> > For most people, especially anyone used to modern interfaces, the new design is better. > I've yet to see any convincing argument about how this is better. Aside from the TOC remaining visible on the side.
What else do you need it to do? You can read the article, you have access to a navigation tool no matter where you are in the article, and everything else is about the same.
It's a cleaner, less distracting interface. Why was the option of 100 languages on every page before? Does anyone need that there constantly?
You're resistant to change, and you should kill yourself so society can let go of old dumb habits, thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,647
@1,217,644 (G)
Regardless of whatever sort of pointing device you use, it's now TWO actions instead of ONE to do the same task. Which may be acceptable in some circumstances but not when a third of the page is entirely blank, unused real estate. It is objectively worse design, and you know it because you have made no attempt whatsoever at explaining how it's better.
> It's a cleaner, less distracting interface. Why was the option of 100 languages on every page before? Does anyone need that there constantly?
There's no harm in having extra stuff if it isn't the first thing that I see and in the way of more commonly used links. If you don't need to use various links, then don't.
You know what would be the least distracting design? Just remove everything and have a completely blank page. That, or maybe you should take your ADHD medicine instead of campaigning to lobotomize the experience of everyone else and force us to read using a 30 px wide mobile interface.
> You're resistant to change, and you should kill yourself so society can let go of old dumb habits, thanks.
You embrace change for the sake of it. Go log in to wikipedia with your retinal scans and blood sample three factor authentication. Do NOT remove the anal probe or even think of turning off "your" computer while it performs a full system update for the second time this minute.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,649
@1,217,646 (H)
I care about the ever increasing bloat of modern internet, in both size and design. As a result, web pages are slow, easily broken, bug riddled messes, with clunkier, objectively worse user experience.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,650
@1,217,648 (F)
Maybe we should add in a live ticker, some autoplay videos, a bonzai buddy, double up on the pleas for money, some more tabs, and some popups whenever your cursor hovers over a word for more than 2 seconds. Any leftover space can be filled with ads.
Everyone can just dig around for the actual content and ignore all that if they don't like it, right?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,652
@1,217,650 (G)
Maybe we shouldn't load the entire article at once. Load one screen worth at a time, and wait to load in the next chunk when the user scrolls down. Once they reach the bottom, load in another random article underneath it. While we're at it, let's remove the scroll bar and make the user click and drag -- sorry, tap and drag -- to scroll. Actually, let's just get rid of the webpage altogether and make users download a proprietary closed-source app to their device in order to browse wikipedia.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,653
@1,217,650 (G)
Just redirect all web pages to "about:blank". It's the only way to guarantee you won't see even one pixel of irrelevant content. If there's anything missing, you'll know it immediately and you can just write the html, css, and (most importantly) interactive self-updating javascript and self-compiling webasm yourself because you know exactly what you need before you see it. Or better yet, just imagine yourself doing all this. Because if you wrote the pages yourself, god forbid you press one additional key and see anything not absolutely necessary. Even better, kill yourself this very second. Then you won't risk living even one microsecond longer than absolutely needed or being distracted by anything.
LOL srsly did a webpage kill your family or something? The only reason you give this much of a shit is because unlike most normal people in our society, you spent your youth and early adulthood locked into the internet to block out your personal hatred of the outside world, the real world, the real world full of people. Due to your lack of outside contact and real friends to love, you developed an unnatural attachment to the internet and all things tech as a kind of comfort blankie.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,664
@1,217,654 (I)
With each passing day, more people are spending more time online. It is the way of the world today. So wouldn't it make more sense to make the internet MORE user friendly, rather than making everything slow, buggy, and bloated? Browsing the internet today is a worse experience than it was even just ten years ago.
> With each passing day, more people are spending more time online. It is the way of the world today. So wouldn't it make more sense to make the internet MORE user friendly, rather than making everything slow, buggy, and bloated? Browsing the internet today is a worse experience than it was even just ten years ago.
This is the same kind of argument that transphobes use to prevent gender reaffirming surgery.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,672
@1,217,665 (Fried Chicken)
People are mad because they are giving these surgeries to children who aren't mature enough to understand the long-term consequences.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,678
@previous (G)
Content is still needlessly constrained in width.
I hate icons in place of text. We already have symbols that denote specific meaning -- they're called words. Use them.
The TOC on the side is a good thing. Showing me more relevant information at once and better using the screen real estate is always a good thing.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,217,687
@1,217,685 (G)
Do you know of any stylesheets, addons, or ways that I can have multi-column text that has seamless text reflow? As in, I scroll down and text from the top right column moves "up" to the bottom left column?
> When I cast to my projector, the whole theater lights up but I still tap on my phone to select icons. > > Are you taking the time to hook up a mouse? What does that offer over using your phone?