Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/VPR

Proposal: Switch back to the old skin as default
I am not aware of any consensus in favor of the recent skin change, and it has led to numerous criticisms and complaints. Could someone please point me to the on-wiki discussion where it was decided to make this alteration? If there was no such discussion, I propose that it be changed back. *** Crotalus *** 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Usability Team was paid to produce the new skin to make Wikimedia easier to use. Or something. I doubt the WMF would allow the default to be switched back after paying people to create it. We're still allowed to use monobook, for whatever it's worth. Killiondude (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed: the WMF paid good money for the new skin, it should be made the default whether it is better or not. – xeno talk 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like the new skin, mainly because I'm very used to Monobook, but I oppose changing the default back to Monobook. To the best of my knowledge, this change was not done as a result of on-wiki discussion, but by the Wikimedia foundation, which is basically the only way to have any Wikimedia-wide change. (The rest if Wikimedia is switching to Vector by default in two weeks, AFAIK.) While it probably could be changed back if the community consensus was for it, getting everyone arguing about which skin they like more (especially when this was done mainly for non-Wikimedians, and any users can change back their own skin at any time), doesn't seem like the best use of time, hm? --Yair rand (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At first, I found the colour of internal links too similar to those of external ones, but I'm surprised that I'm already attuning to it. ― _ _ _ A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one like the new skin. It felt a bit confusing at first, but that's just a matter of getting used to it (it's a good thing they launched it on commons earlier). The only thing I do not understand is why the rotating starlet gadget instead of a decent "watch" link.—Emil J. 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the WMF paid for this skin was too much. It's obnoxious to have to expand the toolbox before it becomes available.  It's obnoxious to have the admin buttons not show up until you hover.  The teal border looks out of place.  The unfinished tabs look like a page load problem, not like someone actually meant to do it that way.  I do like the new logo, though. --B (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the star is out-of-place and confusing. One could almost think it's a way to rate/leave feedback on the article the way you do on iTunes, eBay, etc., except that a scale going from 0 to 1 would be way too crude to be useful. A. di M. (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, you only have to expand the toolbox once. Then it stays expanded on all articles.—Emil J. 17:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Usability Team"? I figured it was something like that. Whenever I go to a website I've been successfully using for years, and find that everything has been turned upside-down and inside-out and I now can't do anything without taking five minutes, it's always "usability professionals" that are behind it. The same is true of newer (post-XP) versions of Windows. The best thing for "usability" would be to fire all these "professionals" and go back to doing things the way that long-time users are used to. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And unless WMF explicitly forbids us from setting the skin back to the old default, there is nothing stopping us from doing so via the usual consensus process. And if they do, we can take this into account during the next boardvote. *** Crotalus *** 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Only a developer with shell access can change the default skin. I doubt any of them would do so without WMF approval irrespective of any consensus one might form here.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as usability is concerned, relocating the search bar to the top right was a big improvement, and one that is likely to be noticed by all visitors (unlike, say, where the admin functions are). By the way, the collapsible menus can be easily disabled via Preferences >> Appearance >> Advanced Options >> Enable collapsible left navigation menu. I really enjoy the new skin both aesthetically and functionally, having switched to it as soon as the beta became available and never looked back ever since. Of course we can discuss further improvements, but there is no reason to make a drama out of the change. --Duplode (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it is a more natural place, but can someone tell me I'm not the only person to accidentally try to search for something in WP by putting the search term in th e Google search box just above it?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol! You're not alone in that :) Though I finally managed to alleviate the problem by making a distinction between the two search bars. I extended the length of the WP search bar via CSS, so I'm no longer mistaking the two, not to mention the other obvious searching advantages this brings. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)The skin was in opt-in, public Beta for about half a year with a satisfaction survey if you switched back. There may not be a specific discussion that addresses consensus, but I do think that there was an attempt to get people to use the skin and give input.  However, I will note that even though the skin is not forced, if many editors do not switch, it can cause a disconnect between what readers and editors see—though gadgets do this, too. —Ost (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me ask a silly question - how do I get my monobook.js back? --B (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind ... I found in on VPT ... you have to copy it to vector.js. --B (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of the changes made were based on user testing, and newbies find the new skin clearer. This alone justifies the new skin as default in my view, because experienced users who object can simply modify their preferences to use Monobook. I do object to the star icon for watching pages, and I've personally disabled that part as one of the tweaks I apply using my nothingthree.js script. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some features, like the extremely annoying change in the positioning of admin action tabs, clearly shouldn't be motivated by newbie preferences, however. I agree with the point above that it's a long-term negative to have a skin so unhelpful to actual editors that they largely switch to a different skin and don't experience the encyclopedia in the way readers do. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However, it's also a long-term negative to have a skin that newbie editors find hard to use. Probably a bigger negative imo. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try (possibly not objectively) to summarise some pros and cons of the vector skin:
 * Pros of vector:
 * The drop-down menus in the edit box may be very helpful for users with really small screens, especially mobile devices like PDAs, mobile phones, iPhones.
 * The drop-down menus in the edit box may become the standard for personal computers if the number of options increases - but IMO only when the number of options increases. Even then, it should be an option that editors can switch easily, for example an editor with a wide screen at full width may prefer monobook, with a row of buttons along the top of the edit box.
 * The only feature I really like is the new layout of special and foreign-language characters - but IMO that's too little to justify switching to vector, and I'd like too see the special and foreign characters laid out as usably in monobook.
 * Cons of vector:
 * It breaks refTools, a tool that makes formatting a citation a very simple task well over 90% of the time. I about there other tools, but these need a separate tab. I'm told that refTools can be enabled in vector, if you insert some bit of JavaScript in some other bit of JavaScript - but most editors are not developers, and should not'' required any more than the form in the Gadgets tab of their Preferences.
 * This is an example of a Web usability principle that has been known since the late 1990s (!), see the useit.com essays of Jakob Nielsen, especially one where he had his "fingers slapped hard" for making users change their methods. IMO proposed changes should be discussed at the Village Pump, and return to the drawing board if editors do not support the proposal - "if it ain't broke,don't fix it".
 * And behind that is another issue - the refTools problem shows that vector did not have enough regression testing. If this did not discover something visible like the refTools problem, how many less visible problems are lurking under the surface?
 * IMO vector should be reverted until the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of editors. --Philcha (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By "numerous criticisms and complaints" you mean a three people at the village pump, two at the help desk, and five on Talk:Main Page—out of a total of tens of millions of users? I think you'll have to try a bit harder to convince the WMF that the consensus is against the change.  When Facebook makes a minor cosmetic improvement, they're able to get tens of thousands of people to whine about it.  24.68.50.170 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "return to the drawing board if editors do not support the proposal" means that if there only a few comments, the proposal returns to the drawing board. And I think I can get 10-20 to comment, without WP:CANVASS. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a stupidly low threshold for something that affects the entire encyclopaedia. I could get 10-20 editors to agree to replace all of en.wikipedia.org with a Rick Roll video.  When they made the change, they knew that there would be some complaints.  Any time anything changes you'll have 10-20 people whine because things aren't how they're use to.  No matter how much better the new version is, some people hate change.  If we listened to people like you, every website would look exactly how it did when it first went online.  24.68.50.170 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The most annoying thing from my point of view (beyond the annoyance at vector generally) is that there is no obvious forum for raising issues with the new skin and suggesting improvements. As an editor (rather than just a reader) I find the lack of easy access to certain features very annoying, and the Search box is possibly the worst feature - I can get used to the position, but it's now too small for the 'predictive' results to be useful. If there is a more sensible way of submitting feedback and suggestions than having to apply vector then go back to get a feedback page (that goes where?), maybe someone could point us to it so that we can raise issues there and get Vector improved. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Michig, the place to raise issues is this page - it's a sort of Talk page in all but name. I know places where I can other editors to raise their views here, taking care not to influence my contact's views. A few of will comments, and few will contact others - so only a few direct contacts, but the 2nd-order, etc. make a good number. Then we enough for a RFC (about an issue, not about the conduct of an editor) and that gets attention :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important to draft and check the proposition to be put for an RFC. --Philcha (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If there's a proposal to switch default back to MonoBook then this is probably the place, but there should be some central forum for discussing issues with vector specifically.--Michig (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a central forum now. I personally support switching back until all the major issues are resolved, because this is just grossly unprofessional, if anything. Let alone the fact that it currently seems to be making Wikipedia less usable than before, especially on browsers for portable devices. Of course, consensus is probably useless against the suits. -- .: Alex  :.  22:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Michig, you can enlarge the search box via CSS so "predictive results will be useful". See the code in my vector.css file. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support: The new skin is certainly better for some experienced editors, and those who like tabs. But the old default skin, with its whitespace, enlargeable font, use of links instead of tabs, and other simpler features, is far easier to work with, especially for Web newcomers and disabled users who use screenreaders and other text-based interfaces for accessibility. I am an experienced editor, yet I use the previous default skin with addition simplification via CSS. David Spector (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WMF paid for this?
The Vector skin has always been there. I tried out every skin a long time ago. What do you mean they "paid good money to change it"? MonoBook is much better and its even prettier. Vector is a solid 2nd best to all the other skins, but Commons had it as its default since a few months ago and I switched back to MonoBook because Vector was not easy to get used to. MonoBook is better, and there is a reason it has been the default for all these years. People were always able to use Vector though. Why the change now? Feed back  ☎ 21:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, the vector skin has not "always been there". It was put up at the same time as the "Try Beta" link, to the best of my knowledge. Whether it is "better" or "prettier" is entirely subjective. --Yair rand (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you completely miss the discussion about it? It's been covered by the Signpost several times over a good period of time. Not that I like it either. --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This skin is as much for the readers as the editors. The editors, I hope, have the competence to change the skin back if they so desire, but the goal is that the skin will improve non-editor/newbie experience. Tim  1357  talk  21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats the thing, I don't think Vector is easier to use at all. And yes, its been there for a looong time; probably more than a year. Feed  back  ☎ 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since July of 2009, according to this Wikipedia Signpost article, so not quite a year (it's been in "beta testing" all that time).
 * You said "The Vector skin has always been there", but Wikipedia has been around since 2001. Hence everyone is correcting you, rather than replying to your specific complaints. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "always there", it was a hyperbole for stating it has been there for a long time; not even monobook has always been there. Anyway, what about the actual issue; Vector is not easier to use than Monobook. Feed  back  ☎ 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone point to where the feedback for vector is located and whether it was separated out by function? My impression is that much of what was done was based simply on how many tried out vector and then switched, which is a very gross analysis method when it bundled a number of editing and usability features as well as looks all together. The editing interface is a great improvement, but that has been placed in monobook as well, yet the impression given when one "tried the beta" was that the editing interface was one of the changes of the skin. So for me, the only changes are to the look, which are horrible. All the left hand boxes are not separated by boxes, losing delineation, and the way its set up, the clear differentiation between the editing interface and what part of the page is the article is lost. Hate it.--162.83.134.154 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move Search Box back to left sidebar
I think the Search Box should be moved back to the sidebar in this now default skin. Why? Well, because the top of the page isn't for navigation, it's for interacting with the current set of pages. The sidebar, on the other hand, is for finding one's way around Wikipedia. So that's where the Search Box should be. It's completely illogical to have a bunch of options for getting around Wikipedia in one place, a bunch of options for editing and viewing the current page and its talk page in another place, and then to pop the search box in the latter place. The search box is not only a tool for finding one's way around, it's the main such tool. So it should be in the same place as the rest of those tools. Plus the Search Box has been in the left sidebar since Wikipedia was launched, and its position was changed for no good reason just for the heck of it. Every single site I have ever viewed that had a similar left sidebar to Wikipedia had the Search Box in the left sidebar.

So please, put it back there. I love the new vector skin apart from that.--92.251.173.172 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the search box was originally on the bottom of the page. I'm not sure when that was changed. Mr.Z-man 15:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the top ten websites which incorporate search bars into their content, every single one has it at the top of the page. Notwithstanding the presence of "similar left sidebars to Wikipedia" on sites like Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo.  Your assertion that this placing is either unique or unusual is simply wrong.  Happy ‑ melon  16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet not one of them had a tiny searchbar that is actually hard to find. Make it bigger and centre it if it staying at the top. WHatever happens, it can't stay as it is, it's horrible.--92.251.173.172 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, they did usability research and found that having the search bar at the top was easier / more intuitive / something good for new users and people relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (Now how they ever found people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I don't know, but that's what is claimed anyway.)  Dragons flight (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Top doesn't bother me. Top right is a royal pain, because it prevents the suggestions from being full-length.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think the change results in a more intuitive interface. Making it top-center, though, might be an improvement (although I don't know if extra tabs only available in special circumstances could cause too much clutter in that case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duplode (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is now useless to have suggestions since they stop halfway through all of them. Top right may be where people will look for it, but it is time-saving when I don't have to navigate through a disamb page because the text stops. Angryapathy (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with moving it back to the left sidebar, but I do agree with moving it further left. As already said, not seeing the whole article name makes the feature near useless. Consider moving it to the left of the read/edit/etc tabs and move those all the way to the far right of the page.—NMajdan •talk 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Intuitive" is effectively whatever you're currently used to. After six months the current arrangement will likely be "intuitive", lacking any other general usage or paradigm. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While the location of the box may become intuitive, the suggestions given as you type will never be. As an example, go type "2010 NC" into the box and look at the results. It is impossible to distinguish many of the results.» NMajdan · talk 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the search box at top. Lets me lengthen it. kcylsnavS {screech} 13:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the shortening or abbreviation of the drop-down suggestions makes the search box a lot less helpful than it was before. While many web sites do have the search in the upper right, it's not worth it in this case. I'd be in favor of putting it back where it was before, or perhaps higher up but still on the left hand side, to allow the drop-down suggestions to be displayed at their full length. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be moved in the currently empty space between "Discussion" and "Read". To address both ‘accessibility’ concerns and what the OP said, it could be in the left sidebar but immediately under the logo, as it is on it.wiki. A. di M. (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it won't help anonymous users much, but for registered users, lengthening the search bar is as simple as adding one line to your vector.css, so I don't know what all the fuss is about search results being too short. See the code in my User:OlEnglish/vector.css. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)