First of all, thanks to everyone for providing feedback on the recent changes to Wikipedia. We really appreciate the time everyone's taken to let us know their thoughts on the changes.

Rather than to respond to each post individually, we've consolidated our feedback to address the recurring issues:

BlackBerry

• Update: BlackBerry users should now be redirected to the mobile site by default. This should also address issues with older BlackBerries that could not display the new site layout. Please report if you are still experiencing BlackBerry issues.--Eloquence* 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search

• Update: We've published a more detailed explanation regarding the new location of the search box.--Eloquence* 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The search fixes have been deployed. You may need to bypass the browser cache by doing a shift-refresh. We hope the fix addresses the major concerns about search functionality. Howief (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: We're staging a fix of the search functionality here (one of the prototype sites). In addition to the increased width, this fix includes the allocation of more space to the auto-suggestions and the restoration of "Go" and "Search" functionality within the new interface. Howief (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The width of the search box has been increased by approximately 56%, which also increases the width allocated for the auto-suggestions. We're still working on some different treatments of the auto-suggestions to better handle very long article names. Howief (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The auto-suggest code causing the cut-off issues was rolled back over the weekend. You may need to press shift-refresh to bypass the browser cache to bypass the browser cache to get the fix to work. Howief (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We're aware of the bug (#23498) about the search terms being cut off. This is a serious issue. We're working on a fix right now and are hoping to have something over the next few days. Thanks to everyone for reporting this bug.

• We've deployed a fix so that the first tab on a page goes to the search box (rather than to the left nav). The first tab should bring the cursor to the search box (unless there are forms such as login, edit, etc.). This is the same behavior as found in Monobook.
• There are a number of comments that the new search box makes less of the search input viewable. We're experimenting with some different approaches to spacing to see if we can preserve the horizontal spacing.
• Quite a few of you have mentioned frustration with the new location of the new search box. Based on our usability testing, the upper right corner was a more intuitive location for search for many users. In our first round of usability testing (conducted prior to any changes), users did not use the search box in the left nav. Rather, they repeatedly went to the search box in the upper right hand corner of the browser. In the second round of testing (which included the search change), none of the users had problems finding the search box in the new location (details here). As an example, there was one user who, when asked to search for something, instinctively found the search box in the upper right corner. When we asked this user if he'd noticed a change in the site, it took him a moment before he realized that the search box had changed locations -- he found the new location before consciously realizing it had changed. Nevertheless, we know this is a significant change for many users. We'd ask people to try out the new location for a bit before switching back.

Font size: Many users have reported that font sizes have become smaller in Vector. We're not sure why, but this is something we're looking into. Any additional info on this issue would be helpful in troubleshooting.

Does this help? -- Gabriel Wicke (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

r55333: Trevor Parscal set the bodyContent font-size at 0.8em; that's too small in my honest opinion. --Virgolette (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't be changing the font size for the main text in the first place! The user has already chosen a default font size in the browser. Don't change that (for the main text of the page). -216.1.16.126 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially _reducing_ the default font size, is very unwelcome.Mpvdm (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are slow: The team has worked hard to ensure that the new features do not result in a decrease in performance. The initial slowness may be due to the stress resulting from the skin switch. Once the switch has propagated to all of the caches (which should be the case by now), performance should return to normal. Also, initial page loads may be slow since the new javascript and CSS needs to be downloaded. After the initial download, things should be quicker as everything should be in the browser cache. Please leave comment if the slowness persists after a few days.

The pages are still very slow; I have seen no improvement here. It's quite irritating when reading pages but really maddening if you e.g. need to track changes and compare and browse a large number of different versions. Any user should be able to easily, i.e. without account and without logging in, disable at least any active content. Missing the old pages! --Sivullinen (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with certain browsers: Our team works hard to support as many browsers as possible and does extensive cross-browser testing. Our priority is obviously to support the most popular browsers (and the most fully standard compliant browsers). Unfortunately, this means that some users of browsers with very small usage (comparatively) may not be fully supported at this time.

• We are aware of an issue where right-clicking on the tabs in supported versions of IE does not work properly (bug #23490). We are working on a fix, but there are a number of potential cascading consequences. We'll keep everyone posted.

Languages in the left nav: To simplify the look and feel of the page, we've put the languages in an expandable menu. The tradeoff is that users who want to view articles in multiple languages will have to expand the menu to view the other languages. But once the menu is expanded, it will remain so until it's collapsed. We felt this tradeoff made sense since the language links were used relatively infrequently based on tracking data and cost of to these users is relatively small (only one additional click is required -- if an additional click were required every time the feature is used, we would have chosen differently).

For those of you who would like to follow the bug-squashing, check out Bugzilla. Most of the bugs have been categorized as Usability Initiative bugs and Vector bugs (hopefully these links will work).

We'll continue working down the list of known issues. Thanks again for your feedback.

Howief (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is quite simple: Nobody seems to like what some developers have done. Go back to monobook as default and start a discussion about each and every change. You have covered some good features under a lot of rubbish. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

I am not happy with the autocomplete in the search box. Please bring it back to how it was before. It is wasting my time trying to guess. I am using wikipedia as a work tool and you made it more difficult to use —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions

Put the search box back to its previous location! We're trained to read from left to right, and the left-hand area of the page is the natural place to start reading, typing or clicking. It also makes sense to have it in the "index" section: the reason it was there in the first place is presumably because the original designers THOUGHT ABOUT IT and concluded correctly that it was the natural location.

If no one can read the type because the font is too small then the "Free Encyclopedia" is not worth anything. I have 20/20 vision and needed an magnifying glass to find and read the 'how to' contact you area. Of course the topic I wanted to learn about will now be researched via other sites. If you continue to use this 'too small to read' font I will not be back.

Fortunately, my monitor is reasonable sized (20"). And, fortunately, 24" or even 40" is relative cheap nowadays. Furthermore (also of course because not everybody can't afford a new, big monitor), the web browser Opera has a nice feature: just hit a specified button to enlarge the whole contents of the webpage (text AND pics). I use the =-button to enlarge 10%, and the --button to reduce with 10%. Default: +=enlarge 10%, but that's not convenient - then everytime, you'd need to use the shift-key. I use the - and = buttons very often. Much more convenient than using the scroll-button on the mouse. Furthermore, i think wikipedia should not change the font size already chosen by people in the browser.Mpvdm (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed other sites using a very small font. Do you save money by doing this. or is it that no one proofs the site they create.

On many sites the font is (way) too small. They should just use the default size set by the user. Many webmasters only look at how they themselves want it. Especially on many forums and such, the next- or previous-page button (often numbered) and such, are way too small. I really hope Wikipedia never will turn into such road...Mpvdm (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just love the new skin/layout - except for the new font which I find hard on the eye and not as easy to read as the previous font that was used. Not only does it appear to be slightly smaller but the letter spacing varies somewhat which adds to the difficulty when reading. I see that the problems with the font are being worked on, that's good but please bring back the original. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey1940 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain you have received thousands - tens of thousands - of complaints on the new minuscule font size of your pages. I've wrote about it initially. I will not constantly change the font size back and forth, all day long, to view Wikipedia pages. Annoying and time-consuming. I have to assume you are not going to remedy the siutation, so my heavy use of the site is ending now. I will use other resources. I'm not happy about having to do that, but you are obviously unconcerned about the unreadability of your pages.

I've noticed that soon after a current event, existing articles immediately get edited to make mention of/comments on a recent event.

For example, the entry "Mississippi Canyon" was edited to include the oil spill. I was interested in a geologic formation only.

The same with the heading "Blowout Preventer". I was interested in the device only.

There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper!

Hello Wikipedia,

I reference Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and find it fantastic. Unfortunately I find that the font is far too small to even read on the updated version and it is significantly slower.

I much prefered to older version as it ran as smoothly as one could hope for.

You can always zoom in. On Firefox and Internet Explorer, it's [CTRL]+[+]. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why double the clicks (from 1 to 2) to get to the printable version? I use this extensively and it's just a pain. Is the LHS real-estate so valuable you have to reduce basic functionality.

(In case it matters, yes, I do donate).

msb

Dear Wikipedia,

The new interface is not as smooth as the old one. The user editing section was far more intuitive before it weas changed. In a language that is written from left to right it makes sense intuitively to have the search bar on the left. I think the new layout also makes it more difficult to tell which tab of the page one is on.

I'm just wondering if there are people who feel compelled to tag each and every article with something, anything, even if the tag itself is incorrect. I visit this site often, and can't remember the last time I saw a page without some tag along the top. It's starting to feel like there are people just tagging every article to satify some need in themselves and not to actually improve anything. Most of the articles are extremely well written and contain enough information to understand the subject matter. Maybe there could be people who could tag the taggers?

I really enjoy the random article feature but I think it would be nice if there was an option that allows us to specify in which category we would want a random article. For example if someone is only interested in random articles about sports and history, they can check these 2 options and this way, stop having less interesting articles when they press on random article.

It's been a couple of weeks since the change and you haven't addressed the font size issue yet? I'm in my 30's, use a computer 12+ hours a day, and have 20/15 vision, but the new font size makes my head hurt. I never realized such a small change could have such a big impact on usability, but I'm starting to avoid Wikipedia if I can find similar info elsewhere.

so many times,,,i read a medical wikipedia article...i discover an error..i fix it...within few seconds. if it were in encyclopedia britannica it would take days to be fixed....

the idea of wikipedia ...is bigger and greater than what we can imagine...iam sure if its will managed ,,,,it will change the history of man kind

When I attempt to test my references when viewing a preview of my edit; I am warned not to do so. I never had this problem with the old interface.

you need to make everything that is directly searched for to come up anything w just one of the words is just wasting my time please fix this or you are all not helping me!

I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT

CHANGES SUCK, SO CHANGE IT BACK. I'LL NEVER US WIKI AGAIN, & YOU'LL BE SORRY WHOEVER MADE IT, PLEASE GO FIX IT BACK BECAUSE THAT SUCKS

I WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.121.50 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! I support this post. "If it aint broke, DONT fix it!" it was fine on the left.. put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.144.158 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I work left-to-right: enter search on the left, see result to the right. I can see why it doesn't fit in the nav menu column tho, I'd like to see it at the left hand end of the tab bar, rather than the right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caylem: Why force me to drag my mouse over to the other side of the screen, whoever designed this needs shooting. you don't separate main functionality like this! Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.83.153 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. The new search bar is in an awkward place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Would like the Wikipedia search bar to be on the left side as it is difficult and irritating to go up the page to the corner and then search for information.The font below the Wikipedia logo can be made bigger as well.Please try to amend these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.209.141 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the search button: please AT LEAST add an option to have it at the left (above corner) again, as it was.Mpvdm (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For various reasons, I'm stuck with an iBook G3 under System Mac OS 9.2, and I browse with Netscape 7.02. Since the recent changes, I can't access Wikipedia *at all*. Going to www.wikipedia.org gives me the bouquet of languages, but then, clicking on any of them provokes an "error of type 2" crash, and Netscape quits. Same (painful) experience when trying to reach *any* specific Wikipedia page, in any language.

Of course, there are worse things in life than being deprived of the Wikipedia: I could get blind, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.97.87 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame, that "Usability Update" simply excluded Mac OS 9 users. That even Netscape 7.x and Mozilla 1.3 or iCab (which is 2 years old) have no chance to display Wikipedia correctly, or crash at all, is a bad sing for Wikipedia. Gladly the Classilla team fixed the problems of Wikipedia two weeks ago, and you can download the new Classilla and use Wikipedia at least http://www.classilla.org. Providing a simple monobook possibility - without creating a login - would be the better way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.134.25 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 May 2010, I've received this "Welcome Message" :

Welcome!

Hello, Malikussaid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I began to panic until Jeffrey Mall tell me what is going on. For newbies like me, it feels like "you forget to do something listed above, please fix it in future". Can Wikipedia show this message at the time user is registering? (or any other ideas?)

Why not offer people the choice of which version they prefer? (like in yahoo mail) Don't force people to have to log in to change back, that's too much work, just put a button there. Like: "Take me back to the older version where the search box wasn't moved"!

The should be no technical reason why the users skin preference, could not be stored in a cookie. This would satisfy another group of users. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learning requires repetition.

I would thus like to create my own library of articles that I could get back to from time to time.

I would like to organize this library into subsections under different subtitles and be able to pass on these subsections to my friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheikin (talk • contribs) 09:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category system can be used for this, up to a point. One thing I would like to see is the ability to transclude a category page into another page, along with the ability to style the content to suit the usage on the other page. For example I might want the pages listed with comments in an upper table with the sub-categories listed in a lower table.

I love wikipedia,I hate these changes.Change for changes sake is ignorant. I'm old please leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlemagne420420 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that your goal was to turn the best site on the interwebs into a useless piece of garbage,Kudos on a job well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.101.29 (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a single day that i dont visit your site..i mean u guys r just amazing i have no words to express how much i like wikipedia its like i got the whole world under my 10 fingers sorry let me rephrase that the whole UNIVERSE..how do u guys do it???? seperate staff for seperate sections i mean so much of detailings in each and every word (hyperlinks) buy the time u have finished reading one article u have learned so many other things in that process.. AWESOME is an understatment..i would like to know how u guys work just kills me to know that..

Suraj suraj52@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.244.252 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been look at Wikipedia for quite some time. Perhaps even years. Had no problems reading anything until lately, when I noticed that pretty much all the text had disappeared.

Looking into it a bit I found that the color attribute, which defined the color of text, is missing, which means that the text is always going to be whatever color the user's browser wants, not what Wikipedia wants.

I realize that neglecting to define the text color is popular today but don't you all want the users to see the pages the way you want them to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.250.213 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suffer the same problem. I already contacted here, but yet no solution. The beta wikipedia seems to be fixed tho! (CyberTigerrr (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The search box up in the corner isn't helpful. The browser's search is already there. If it can't be where it was, at least remove it completely. And where did the 2nd search button go? If you clicked them once you knew already what the difference between the two was - and afterwards the save you a lot of mousing around on the screen.

The fonts got smaller. The overlay was much clearer before, better font-background contrast for the side and top box. At least the language-box is unrolled now (comparing to the first new version) and you don't have to click and wait before being able to look for another language.

Before just plugging in the new layout as default, a referendum would be the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wopp (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You requires that a user transcribe a pictograph in order to enter a link or other material. What about those of us who have images turned off? What are we supposed to do? Go running for help to mummy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colormere (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interface is missing a 'Possibilities' tab beside the Articles tab.

This is because you don't allow original research. This is because you are a tertiary source. This is because Wikipedia isn't at all concerned about the truth of the information it publishes. This is a series of factual statements based directly upon your own policies.

Therefore I don't like the new interface, and subsequently, nor do I like Wikipedia, except as a weak reference of quality no different or better than that of an old or ancient encyclopedia. Sorry. --Xenek (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenek (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please keep the new interface, I love it, its much easier to read and looks better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyxmoxie (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to click the search box or hit tab to enter the search field upon loading the main page.

Um...

Why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.134.206 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Madam:

One more name for AFS : American Foundry Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.183.102 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present version of Wikipedia (June 14, 2010) causes my (old) Mozilla browser to either hang, or just plain drop dead. Something similar happened maybe a year ago. I submitted a bug report -- a challenge -- and the first response was "old browser -- tough". Fortunately, the later responses suggested turning off Javascript, which worked. Since Mozilla has the "feature" that only one copy can be running, and the Jvsc switch is global, I spend a fair amount of time flipping the setting (five clicks each way). A month or so after the original Wikipedia problem, I accidentally forgot to flip the switch before using W, and discovered the problem had gone away: W was now safe to use with Jvsc. No clue what the original problem was. But something you've done in the last ten days has brought the problem back.

I suppose this is an improvement to the user interface.

Rich Schroeppel are see ess at ex em eye ess ess eye oh en dot see oh em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.57.249 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This problem should be fixed now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So terribly inconvenient to find the information out there on top. Replace, if possible, as it was, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.248.44.11 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Printer friendly version was a feature I used alot with the old format. It appears to have discontinued with the new version. I think this is a mistake. Please put it back.

Thanks, Michael Cockrell ccockrell@tx.rr.com Dallas, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.117.127 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The search hints are an awesome addition, but when they are used to search for the exact title of a page, please navigate directly to the page. Otherwise, they are not actually saving any time.

Thanks, Stargazer712 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargazer7121 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the "Take Me Back" thing "on the top" of any page I've encountered in my quest to "take me back"...please, please take me back!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.166.48 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you put the search box back where it was. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.112.44 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new puzzle globe look, but I've realized you don't have the new version on the SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. Could you fix this? Thanks! Shnupbups (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so far i havent had any troubles or problems with the new layout, the biggest thing that annoys me is the location of the search box, i actually really liked it on the left in the middle.to me it seemed like it was faster that way, the box was closer to where my mouse already was and so on. but besides that my reason for posting this was to say that i think you should implement a bookmark feature, or maybe tabs, so that i can move from one page to another but still quickly recall an article that had helpful links within in or just get back onto topic. a tool like this would come in handy for someone like me who uses wikipedia primarily for entertainment purposes rather than as a purely referencial site. i can follow a trail of interesting links all day but i end up losing a lot of good stuff as i move from one page to another. i'll start going down one trail and then either cant remember what page a link was on or even what i was looking for in the first place. plus i think it would benefit those who use your site purely referentially as well since they would be able to have multiple encyclopedia pages open at once. this is more than likely in the wrong place but i trust that an administrator somewhere could help me out and redirect it to the proper area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.0.197.74 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to fix the PS3 compatibility, guys! Nice to be able to read in bed again, and the Vector fonts are much easier on the eyes than the old version. Since I have eyes and can adapt to minute changes, the search bar location isn't an issue, and the suggestions are usually pretty useful!

Still quite a bit slower to load than the original, though. And still unable to click the "sign in" button. Hope these issues can be ironed out, but no major problems anymore. Thanks!

66.185.213.175 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC) (InedibleHulk)[reply]

Since some weeks it appears no field for entering searched word - what is wrong? How to help? Thanks for advise in advance: privateer@freemail.hu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.63.169 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has moved to top right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, EVERY single Book about Typography teach you, that bold Typefaces are DEFINITIVELY NOT legible and made for reading on screen. HEADLINES - OK - NAV - OK - LAYOUT - DISCUSSIBLE... but the TYPEFACE is a catastrophe for reading longer articles. More then ten Lines of Text look like a big black block on the screen. Letters of the Headlines are too bold. Small letters are bit blurred not crisp. think about serifs. I beg you get a typographer or consultant ... and solve this. (working on MAcbook Pro, Firefox 3.6.3)

Please stop testing this new layout on us. It's no improvement. Bring the old one back. Especially the search box. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the new location of the search box to be less convenient than the previous location. This is because the browser controls I use most often (address box, 'go' button, etc. are towards the left side of the browser window, so I end up having to mouse around a lot more.

Even though this seems trivial, I notice this every time I open the home page to search on a topic.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.156.77.12 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an old suggestion, but has Wikipedia considered adding a simple 5-star rating system for 1) quality of page content (regarding readability and accuracy, although perhaps this should be frozen for controversial pages), and 2) complexity ("headacheyness") of content? These ratings could be displayed each as a typical 5-star widget indicating what the overall audience of this page would rate it as, and they would be click-able so that you can add your own rating.

This could be an interesting way to categorize pages to make them more accessible and more useful to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunt.topher (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I found it in the upper right corner. Well, that's probably the worst place where one can put it. So, pretty please, move it back where it was before. That's where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want the old Wikipedia back. The search system in the old system was much, much better. The new system takes three or more steps to get to where the old system took you in one step.

The "geniuses" who think they've "improved" Wikipedia have done no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcking1948 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped reading Wikipedia altogether since you guys "fixed" something that was not broken. I refuse to read in GIANT font or tiny font which is now the only two choices; and I refuse to jump through any hoops in order to read Wikipedia in normal font. Very many people access through public computers in libraries and such. These computers cannot be altered. You guys will obviously never admit that the changes effecting font were stupid.

Nobody likes to work and reading Wikipedia is now work. Many people will now just ignore Wikipedia and read the next best site.

207.151.38.178 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO .mw-panel should be placed at the bottom of the page, allowing content to be the first thing encountered when scanning the page in reading direction. That would also make dynamic hiding of parts of the sidebar unnecessary. --SvartMan (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you completely ignore criticism about the new layout? Why not dare a real, representative survey? Are you so scared that too many people hate the layout?? Or so arrogant that you think it doesn't matter if people don't like it? --70.17.143.113 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism isn't being ignored, believe me. There have been plenty of bugfixes already, and some more interesting ones are still in development, for example the search box in sandbox 3 that automatically expands on use, to deal with the (valid) complaint that the search box was too narrow.

A representative survey probably hasn't been done yet because of the logistical, financial, and/or methodological problems involved. I won't bother trying to explain the complexities of doing a proper survey, but it takes a lot of work (and by extension, money) to do properly, and there are enough simple bugs to fix and simple improvements to make that it's not yet prioritized. There has been usability testing done, which supported the changes, though the small sample size (for practical reasons) makes it … less than ideal, for proving much.

It's not a matter of fear or arrogance about who likes or dislikes the new layout, it's a matter of iterative design. This design has involved a fair amount of thought, and it will be progressively improved. It already features a number of objectively-tested improvements, for example the move of the search box, which is well-explained in this tech blog post.

In any event, any change will provoke both positive and negative reactions. People often dislike change—whether because they're comfortable with the old or displeased with the new (and neither necessarily follows from the other), people will express disappointment with things that are, objectively, better upon revision. Give it time, and both further improvements, and sheer force of familiarity, will alleviate the problem.

I'm just a volunteer, no one "official", in case you're wondering, but don't worry, these concerns aren't being ignored—there's simply much to do. Best wishes, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 07:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Nihiltres. Surveys can be a useful tool, and we intend to use rapid surveys in some areas (e.g. determining the ideal default font size), but we're also looking at metrics like edit/save ratio, search volume, click numbers on particular navigational elements, etc. We all tend to have lots of intuitions about user interfaces, but intuitions are often wrong. We hope to get a better sense of the overall impact of the changes soon.--Eloquence* 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to add my voice to clamor over search box location. Locating to the right is as clumsy as it is counter-intuitive. Surprised this ever got agreed and approved, considering all the big editing brains and user service mavens over there. Return it to the left and bring back the good old days!Wads47 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Ragglecat[reply]

The buttons on the left are higher in the hierarchy of user interface. I think the appearance should reflect this. Instead of giving a bookmark look, a switch look would look better for the buttons on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.237 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment on the "star" addition at the top of the interface, which is used to link an article onto someones watchlist. Whilst I (now) understand why this was done (to minimize the tab width), It is confusing to have a symbol in place of something else, and no explanation as to what it is there for unless you go looking for one.

I spent 35 minutes last night trying to find the place to add an article onto my watchlist, before resorting to asking the #mediawiki IRC channel @ freenode if they'd actually added a watchlist link, which is when I was told that it was the star.

It's not so bad now I know where the button is, but do you think it would be possible to add a gadget into the Preferences on wikis using Vector, so that you can choose whether to display the Star, or have the word "Watch" in the interface instead?

For new users, it may be easier to give them the choice of how to customize the interface to their own wishes, so they know where everything is :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the temporary confusion. :) The star was chosen because it's become a common symbol in many applications (both online and offline) to flag important things. Examples include starring in GMail, the star used for bookmarks in Firefox and Chrome, favorite-tagging in some music applications, and so forth. For a new user who has no mental model of the functionality in Wikipedia, it's hard to see how the new icon is more or less discoverable than the old one. And whether you're a new user or an experienced user, once you've figured it out, you've figured it out. Therefore customizability doesn't IMO add to the discoverability or usability of the feature. I'm sure there are some folks who dislike the star on aesthetic grounds, but that falls into the usual territory of individual CSS/JS customization.--Eloquence* 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Eloquence - I was considering customising the interface, but since I know little to nothing about CSS or Javascript, and some of the people I've asked aren't sure which one would actually need to be used, it's not easy to figure out. If you could indicate whether it would be Client Side or Javascript which'd do this, that would make it easier. I intend to customise it to put the word "watch" there, instead, as was in Monobook. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found the right talk page to post that request to. If you want to play yourself, you may want to take the German script for moving the search box as an example to learn from.--Eloquence* 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]