Vector 2022 skin

[Vigilant]

It's a conundrum!

Perhaps, just perhaps, they could work on shit that people are calling for?

If they INSIST on working on cosmetic issues without an ask from their customer base, then they should preview these changes on a test server and ask for comments/critiques PRIOR to trying to deploy it on a live community...

[Lurking]

If they INSIST on working on cosmetic issues without an ask from their customer base, then they should preview these changes on a test server and ask for comments/critiques PRIOR to trying to deploy it on a live community...

Nah, wouldn't work. Lemme pretend to be WMF for a moment:

* if someone disagrees with our interpretation of a particular philosophy/vision, or the resulting output of that interpretation, that must mean these people disagree with the underlying philosophy/vision (e.g. "making the website more accessible"). Let's ignore those, 'cause obviously accessibility is a good thing. (What do you mean, our interpretation is not the be all, end all on that philosophy, and folks can disagree with our rendition without being anti-accessibility?)

* If someone questions whether our interpretation of said Good Thing is actually backed-up by data, just point towards this nifty pile of sources. Of course it doesn't matter that half of these cherry-picked sources date to an era when monitors were still of the cathode-ray tube kind and people had little familiarity and experience with the internet; that none of these sources are specific to our Sea o' Whitespace interpretation and only back up the more general notion that surrounding text with whitespace is beneficial, if that; that they all disagree on what the actual benefits are; and that one or two sources lack any of the actual science and just present conclusions without any way to see how those conclusions were arrived at. (What do you mean, [failed verification]?)

* if someone disagrees with the actual underlying philosophy/vision, we can just ignore them wholesale. Obviously accessibility is a Good Thing and ableism is not. So we don't need the opinions of ableists. (What do you mean, the bug didn't resolve itself simply because the person who pointed it out happens to be a bigot?)

* if someone agrees with the actual underlying philosophy/vision and agrees with the concept of our project, but has a lot of pesky feedback on the actual whats and hows of the current rendition of it, that counts as "supports roll-out".

* Those specific issues? Just call them "bugs" or say it's still "in progress". No one remembers we're notoriously bad about getting around to fixing those bugs and finishing our in-progress stuff, I'm sure.

* Those other issues? Just call them "deliberate design choices". Clearly it can't be a bug if we chose to put it there. (What do you mean, this is general feedback and not just "use unpaid volunteers to find our bugs for us"? We don't do general feedback around here)

* Folks still harping on about that specific thing? Just point out that there either are or will be third-party extensions for it if it's really such a big issue, they'll quiet down. (No, making folks rely on third-party providers totally doesn't run counter to our expressed accessibility goals because it's not like it's a real issue anyway)

* Jeez, this particular point just doesn't go away? Passively-aggressively ask people how long they've actually tried the feature, imply they're just resistant to change in general. ("Survivor bias"? What's that?) If that doesn't work, just make lots of comments about how folks on smaller wikis largely didn't opt out after we forced this on them. Still no good? Guess it's back to the good old "heavy editors aren't really the main crowd this is aimed towards, y'all can just change settings and this absolutely is gonna go over great with all our conveniently-silent readers, so they don't need to be able to opt-out or anything".

[No Ledge]

Just took a look at a French Wiki article and noticed something I hadn't before. The Tools have moved to the right side, so the right side isn't wasted space, and the tools aren't fighting with the Table of Contents for left-margin real estate.

It's a winner of an idea with me. Haven't checked in on the 2022 skin on the English wiki to see whether they've made this move there yet. I switched back to legacy after a few implementation glitches annoyed me, and am still open-minded about moving back to 2022 after they get more details ironed out.

[Konveyor Belt]

Vector 2022 has now landed at ArbCom.

[AndyTheGrump]

Vector 2022 has now landed at ArbCom.

[Konveyor Belt]

ArbCom risks becoming the new Jimbotalk where people think they can just bring any complaint there.

[Vigilant]

The people are revolting.

If en.wp wants to send a message, they should remove all advanced permissions from all WMF affiliated accounts.

[ArmasRebane]

The situation isn't in ArbCom's remit. If people actually want to make a change, they've got to actually do it as a community action.

[casualdejekyll]

The people are revolting.

If en.wp wants to send a message, they should remove all advanced permissions from all WMF affiliated accounts.

Do you *want* to see FramBan 2: 2 Fram 2 Ban?

(Don't answer that.)

[Vigilant]

The people are revolting.

If en.wp wants to send a message, they should remove all advanced permissions from all WMF affiliated accounts.

Do you *want* to see FramBan 2: 2 Fram 2 Ban?

(Don't answer that.)

I want to see them try.

[orangepi]

The pleas for a close continue, but none is forthcoming.

Presumably because, while there certainly isn't consensus for a rollback, there are quite a few people who will merciless harangue whomever steps forward to declare the obvious.

[Beeblebrox]

The pleas for a close continue, but none is forthcoming.

Presumably because, while there certainly isn't consensus for a rollback, there are quite a few people who will merciless harangue whomever steps forward to declare the obvious.

I glanced at it yesterday, I can take the haranguing, it comes with the job, but I didn't even think about closing it for two reasons: one is that this may end up at arbcom somehow, the other is that I didn't feel like reading something like 600+ comments on this issue.

I suppose one could simply look at the raw numbers and declare it as no consensus, by closing a discussion is supposed to start with reading the entire thing at least once.

[Ritchie333]

I've noticed that AHollender (WMF) (T-C-L) (Alex Hollender), the user interface designer who participated in the RfC trying to address concerns, quit the WMF a few days back.

[Vigilant]

I've noticed that User:AHollender (WMF) (T-C-L) (Alex Hollender), the user interface designer who participated in the RfC trying to address concerns, quit the WMF a few days back.

It's gotta suck when you produce something nobody asked for and nobody likes and they repeatedly tell you that they don't like it as the WMF jams it down their throats.

[Wampyre1990]

Finally closed as no consensus to rollback by Isabelle Belato (T-C-L) and Ingenuity (T-C-L).

It's important to preface this close by reminding all participants that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that we follow a policy of consensus. This means that the closers should take into account more than just the amount of yeas and nays, but also the strength of the argument put forward by each editor. The same argument will often be repeated by multiple editors, as to show they agree with each other, and in cases like that !votes may be counted to help assert which side raised the most compelling points.
While most experienced editors are already familiar with what makes for a strong argument, this RfC saw a large influx of new editors, most of whom are readers who wanted to make their voices heard. Many of these readers are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy of consensus. The strongest arguments are those based on our policies and guidelines, while the weakest are those based on subjective opinion, and here is where we should start our discussion. This request for comment came soon after the change of the default skin, and many !votes were based on personal opinions about how Vector 2022 was better or worse than Vector 2010. While these are usually considered weaker arguments, they were not entirely discarded but were not given as much weight as other points.

There was an extensive discussion of the surveys and research presented by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to support the proposed changes. While some participants believe the surveys organized by the WMF were skewed positively toward the new skin (such as by removing answers containing foul language), others saw the surveys as a reason to support the deployment of the skin. Those in favor of maintaining Vector 2022 also commented on the fact that the skin has been active on a number of smaller Wikipedias with varying degrees of acceptance.

As some participants noted, it's likely that very few of those commenting in this RfC have any experience with UI design and, as such, the opinions presented here are only that, opinions. The only concrete facts we have are the studies presented by some, which, for the most part, agreed with the changes brought by the new Vector.

Another point of contention was the fact that, while it is trivial for registered users to change back to the old skin if they dislike the changes, unregistered users do not enjoy that option. Many of those supporting the rollback were sympathetic editors who saw this as problematic. The only refutation offered to this was that the new skin was shown to be, according to the aforementioned studies and surveys, an improvement for readers, especially due to the reduced text width.

One of the most common points raised by those supporting the rollback to Vector 2010 was related to all the problems, bugs, and other issues that showed up when the new skin was deployed. Some of these problems were known since the previous RfC, which happened late last year, with the closing statement making it clear that the deployment of Vector 2022 depended on some of these problems being fixed beforehand. Many participants saw this as a failure by the WMF to follow our procedures.

Throughout the discussion, users posted links to Phabricator tickets showing that many of the problems being complained about were being worked on. During the time the RfC remained open, WMF employees also posted several replies, which included a list of concerns they had addressed and would be addressing in the future. Not only did these fixes mean the WMF eventually managed to comply with the conditions of the previous RfC's close, but it also raised the question of how strong each of the !votes focused exclusively on these issues were.

That is not to say that those opposing the rollback presented solely strong arguments. Besides the "I like it" style !votes, there were also fait accompli (or sunk cost fallacy) arguments, meaning that, since the change has already happened, there is no point in going back. Some also argued that choices like this are outside the community’s hands, per WP:CONEXCEPT.

At first glance, we have a clear numerical advantage for those supporting the rollback to the old skin, but many of these !votes were based exclusively on specific issues with Vector 2022, such as fixed text width, the large amount of whitespace, and the overuse of icons, as well as some accessibility issues. Others commented on bugs they encountered while using the skin. The WMF has fixed several of these issues–for example, the fixed width toggle not persisting–and more changes are likely to come.

Taking into account all that has been discussed above, we see no consensus to rollback the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector 2010. While those in support of rolling back had a numerical majority, their arguments were relatively weak and the WMF's changes to Vector 2022 since its deployment has addressed the concerns of many. Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands.

With regards to the second question presented in this RfC, arguments presented by both sides were very similar to the first question, in that some like the new limited width and others do not. Some of those supporting an unlimited width noted that many articles contain galleries, tables, etc., and were negatively affected by the new width. There was a lot of discussion on whether scientific papers reached any form of consensus on the best width, with both sides presenting studies with opposing views on the issue. The large amount of whitespace was one of the main concerns of those who supported the rollback of Vector 2022. Since the arguments are equal in strength, there is rough consensus to make unlimited width the default.

As we well know, consensus can change, and one of the suggestions made during this discussion was to open a new RfC in six months' time, after readers and editors have had time to adjust to the new skin. Editors interested should try and work alongside the WMF to acquire statistics, such as additional surveys, that could be used as the basis for the new RfC. This would also allow for more focused questions to be asked to participants, such as how to present the table of contents, one of the more contentious changes to the design, or if the default width should remain as is or be changed back to fixed-width.

Signed,
Isabelle Belato 🏳‍ 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

[Giraffe Stapler]

I've noticed that User:AHollender (WMF) (T-C-L) (Alex Hollender), the user interface designer who participated in the RfC trying to address concerns, quit the WMF a few days back.

It's gotta suck when you produce something nobody asked for and nobody likes and they repeatedly tell you that they don't like it as the WMF jams it down their throats.

I hope Alex lands on his feet. On a completely unrelated note, Jeffery Hollender's Wikipedia article lacks the requisite "personal life" section about his wife, Sheila, and their children, Meika, Alexander, and Chiara.

[orangepi]

BilledMammal tried to get the RFC close overturned at [[WP:AN]], which went nowhere quickly.

If this isn't the last of it, the next round of overturning should come with explicit threats of sanctions for the dead-enders who feel nothing is unreasonable when it comes to opposing the WMF.

[casualdejekyll]

Reflecting on this a bit. I always thought it was weird that people continued to use Monobook. But now, as I continue to use legacy Vector, I think I finally get it. It was never about whether the change was good or bad at all. It was just that it was change.

And why the fuck did they kill Timeless for this shit?

[The Garbage Scow]

I hate Vector. Monobook is what I learned on in the mid 2000s and what I was comfortable with.

It's like when you open up Acrobat or some Microsoft office program and they've moved stuff all around. I just want my stuff to work and be where I'm used to it being instead of having to go find it all again.

[eppur si muove]

I hate Vector. Monobook is what I learned on in the mid 2000s and what I was comfortable with.

It's like when you open up Acrobat or some Microsoft office program and they've moved stuff all around. I just want my stuff to work and be where I'm used to it being instead of having to go find it all again.

AT least supermarkets have the rationale that their changing layouts means that customers walk past shelves of things they don't normally buy and there is a chance they'll see something they could use. Software layout changes lack that excuse.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Six months

[casualdejekyll]

Most people want to get off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride at this point