Talk:Main Page/2017 Archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page, tools, permanent Link[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Sorry but I can't find a place to mention this in Main Page discussion. The subject link ("permanent link") is dead. I don't know how to fix it.ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work fine for me—when I clicked on it, it led me to this URL: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=3217767 . —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of edits to this page are from spambots[edit]

I know that semiprotecting a talk page is an unorthodox measure, but it's an obvious solution to the above problem. Is it really that much of a hurdle for the tiny (in fact, as yet nonexistent) subset of new editors who have a problem with or question about the Main Page to have to establish an account and/or do the minimal work required to achieve autoconfirmed status before taking their concerns here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As if to put a feather in the cap of this idea, I just reverted some vandalism on this page a few minutes ago that wouldn't have been possible if it had been protected. Does anyone want to opine here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go ahead and semiprotect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world did this edit get past the protection? Don't tell me the spambot was autoconfirmed despite not having any previous edits on this site... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only requirement for autoconfirmation is having been registered for four days. See Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users. Powers (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to change that? I would think we'd prefer a certain number of noncontroversial edits under a user's belt before being autoconfirmed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any way to specify non-controversial edits. But if you look at Wikivoyage talk:Autoconfirmed users there was a narrow consensus to increase the number of edits (controversial or not) to 10, to match Wikipedia's settings. This apparently has to be done via Phabricator ticket and no one took the action item to create the ticket. Powers (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not sure we're overreacting here... Surely reverting a spambot is not that much work? And we may have the occasional somewhat challenged reader who wants to ask a question or whatnot and sees the talk page of the main page as the logical place to do so... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a spambot is not that much work, no, but reverting a spambot manually over and over again is fairly pointless. Regarding the second half of your comment: I would think that if "the occasional somewhat challenged reader who wants to ask a question or whatnot" were a caveat we need to be concerned about, we would have seen that happen at least once since the new Main Page went live in 2015, but we have not (and this isn't the page for that anyway; questions of that nature belong in the pub). And as I said in my original remark, if there's a legitimate question about the Main Page in particular that a new editor may have, the hurdle isn't hard to clear: establish an account, make a nominal number of valuable contributions to the site. If a user wants his concerns about the Main Page to be taken seriously, it's good policy in any event to demonstrate that s/he is invested in the outcome to a certain degree. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Powers - feel free to read "noncontroversial edits" as "non-spambot edits" for the purposes of this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I don't think there's any way to exclude them from the autoconfirmation process. Powers (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increase the size of the Discover image.[edit]

The current 100px size of the images used in the Discover template makes the pictures so small that their presence is barely an improvement on having no image at all. Now the mainspace obviously has three massive images on the rolling template (that are always incredibly well-chosen; congratulations to the relevant editors on that one), so the Discover pic doesn't need to be huge, but if it could at least be large enough to fit alongside all three of the template's items, that would be an improvement.

An approximate example of what this would look like (you'll just have to imagine the blue background and Get involved tab):

  • The Yungang Grottoes (pictured) in Datong are filled with 51,000 Buddhist statues, ranging in size from a few centimeters to 17 meters.
  • Mormons make up a majority of the population of Utah, and their beliefs and practices are one of the strongest influences on public policy in the state.
  • The history of Erlangen was shaped by the Huguenot refugees from France.

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 200px should be fine. Powers (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here either. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit small, no? I don't object, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but space is limited. Unless we redesign the page, 'Discover' has to fit alongside 'Get involved'. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's input. The new size pics will appear from January. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of the carousel[edit]

The carousel changes every 10 seconds, which in my view is too fast to comfortably look at the picture, and read both the title and description. If possible, the length of time between moves should be increased to 15 or even 20 seconds. If this is not possible, we should look at reducing the length of the description on future entries. Alternatively and / or additionally, would it be possible or desirable to put in a 'pause' button to stop the carousel moving automatically? Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think 10 seconds is enough; we want to make sure people see that there are other options. I'd be very reluctant to go past 15 seconds. Powers (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no trouble both reading the blurb and taking in the picture in the 10-second window the current settings allow for. For those who do, there are directional buttons on the sides of the banner for viewers to scroll backwards if they want. I think the status quo is fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also possibly worthy of note is that the average length of the textbox descriptions has been gradually creeping upward since the banner format was introduced (though I do think 145 characters, the original upper limit, is quite unrealistic). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when you don't personally have a problem reading the whole thing in the given time, of course the status quo is fine. However, if it were fine for everyone, I wouldn't be raising the point. Please understand that the two of you having no issues keeping up doesn't make any difference to the fact that many people do have trouble.
Speaking from experience, when you have a problem with reading, having the screen suddenly change as you're reading it is distracting, and in the time it takes to find and use the back button (or in the case of slide 3 moving back to slide 1, the forward button), it's easy to lose track of where you were. This effect is enhanced when reading unfamiliar words or concepts, which given our topic is world travel and we are aimed at an international readership, are always going to be present. It's also distracting knowing that you have to hurry up and read or else keep one eye on the navigation buttons for when the screen moves.
Many people are slower readers for numerous reasons, among them due to learning disabilities, dyslexia, types of autism, sight problems, delayed visual processing, being elderly, speaking English as a second language... why should these people be disadvantaged in this way for the sake of a few seconds that don't inconvenience anybody else? Don't we want Wikivoyage to be accessible to as many people as possible? Many visitors to the main page will be first time visitors to Wikivoyage, so even though their reading speed may not be particularly slow, they need extra time to read and understand the titles ("DotM", "FTT" and "OtBP") as well as the blurb that regular contributors and repeat visitors will not.
To flip around Andre's point, if within 15 seconds, a faster reader would like to move on to the next slide, they can press the navigation button and move it along. Having finished reading, this will cause none of the problems I describe above. It is clear that there is more than one option because there are scroll buttons and the slides are numbered. Alternatively, if speedy readers find themselves overly inconvenienced at having to press the button, the other idea I had was to put in a pause button. Is that possible? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if the carousel does not move within the time a casual visitor glances at it, people might not notice that more than one article is featured. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but there are navigation buttons and slide numbers clearly visible. Even with a frequency of every 15 seconds, it would need a very casual visitor to not spend the required length of time to see at least one change. Quite often when I arrive on the Main Page, it moves instantly or within a couple of seconds. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the length of the blurbs may be the way to go if we want to be accessible to people who read at slower speeds but also let them know that there is a variety of featured content available. Gizza (roam) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about compromising on a length of 12.5 seconds? Would that be acceptable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any alternative to the current status quo is to be welcomed, so my sincere thanks to User:DaGizza and User:Ikan Kekek for trying to get things moving in the direction of a solution.
I am perfectly willing to compromise, as ever, but that really depends on what others' positions are. Nobody has specifically said that 15 seconds is too long, so as far as I am concerned 15 seconds is the compromise length of time versus the 'ideal' 20 seconds, which Powers at least has argued against. With regard to an increase to 12.5 secs, I'm not sure whether an extra 2.5 seconds is enough time; I'm not saying it isn't, but that I'm really not sure. It may be enough for me, but I'm just one person and not representative of everyone with literacy problems. It would be probably better to err on the side of caution, and add an extra 5 seconds to the current delay.
A reduction in the length of the blurbs would also be a good alternative, as would the pause button I keep bringing up; I'm not at all dogmatic about which solution should be adopted, just that a solution is needed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if anyone still doubts there is a problem, take a look at this article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this may give you an idea of what it's like for a slow reader to tackle our carousel. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to 15 seconds. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 might be okay, but really we're all just guessing in the absence of usability studies. My gut reaction is that if 10 seconds isn't enough to read the text, then the text is too long, or we shouldn't expect people to read the entire blurb before it changes. Powers (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘why not get rid of the carousel altogether? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do like it as a feature, but I do wonder the same. I agree that 15 secs is a guess, but would certainly be better than 10. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have anything to say about the option of a pause button? Nobody has said anything, and that could be because it wouldn't work, or because nobody knows how to make one, or just because it's a shit idea, but if nobody says as much, then I'm none the wiser. But it seems to me that if there were a pause button, we wouldn't have to get rid of the carousel, and wouldn't have to guess as to the optimum length of time each item should have. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! Now that the various winter festivities are out of the way, and Wikivoyage has returned to normal levels of 'attendance', could I draw people's eyes back to this discussion? It would be nice to agree on some sort of resolution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earth calling Wikivoyage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, do you read me? ;-) Seriously, a pause button is a good idea, but I don't know how to create one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that, and thanks for replying. It may of course not be possible to put in a pause button, not least if nobody knows how to do it! If this ends up being the case, we should still be looking at changing something, either reducing the length of the blurbs (the Bozeman blurb is impossible for me to read within the 10 second limit, and I only just finished the EU one before it changed) or upping the interval between changes. Over, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be comfortable with longer intervals, or even a carousel that works only by manually flipping pages, if there were some way to upsize the directional buttons at the side of the banner. Reducing the length of the blurbs is possible, but a less favorable solution IMO; it's already difficult enough as is to cram all necessary information into such a limited amount of space. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an issue. The blurbs of the latest entries remain too long for the allotted time. Something's gotta give. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scaling issue on Main Page[edit]

Left: 27", 1920x1080. Right: 15.6", 1920x1080.

I've been used to the look of the Main Page for quite some time now, and I'm not used to seeing the first two elements of the page fitting entirely on my screen, but I think it's at least useful to make a note of it. (To be honest, I only noticed the difference when I compared both of my screens with eachother.) I believe the issue (the first two elements not using the available onscreen width perfectly) has been around for me ever since I've started editing here. Either way, I believe the issue is caused by the elements being rendered in a set width (px) instead of a percentage of the width, whereas the third element (Discover and Get involved section) is rendered with a width defined in percentages. I don't really find the look bothersome per se, but if this is how our homepage looks on 1920x1080 screens, imagine how they would look like on a 4K screen, which are slowly becoming more and more purchasable and popular. I'd just like to start a discussion on whether or not we should rework the page so the elements take up equally as much size on any screen.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wauteurz: My workplace's monitor is ultrawide (3440x1440) and there's a big white space to the right that's enough to fit a second element! OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I use a vertical monitor and the map in the top panel does not fit fulling within my screen. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/2017_Archive&oldid=3621517"