Discussioni utente:SGrabarczuk (WMF)

Benvenuto	Benvenuto/a su Wikipedia, SGrabarczuk (WMF)!
Guida essenziale	Con i tuoi interessi e le tue conoscenze puoi far crescere il sapere libero e l'enciclopedia. Scrivi nuove voci o amplia quelle già esistenti: il tuo contributo è prezioso! Wikipedia ha solo alcune regole inderogabili, i cinque pilastri. Per un primo orientamento, puoi guardare la WikiGuida, leggere la Guida essenziale o consultare la pagina di aiuto. Se contribuisci a Wikipedia su commissione si applicano condizioni d'uso particolari. Ricorda di non copiare testi né immagini da libri o siti internet poiché NON è consentito inserire materiale protetto da copyright (nel caso sia tu l'autore/autrice, devi seguire l'apposita procedura), e di scrivere seguendo un punto di vista neutrale, citando le fonti utilizzate. Buon lavoro e buon divertimento da parte di tutti i wikipediani! Altre informazioni Apponi la firma nei tuoi interventi Visualizza l'elenco dei progetti collaborativi riguardanti specifiche aree tematiche dell'enciclopedia: puoi partecipare liberamente a quelli di tuo interesse o chiedere suggerimenti. Identificati nelle pagine di discussione: firma i tuoi interventi con il tasto che vedi nell'immagine. Una volta consultata la Guida essenziale, prova ad ampliare le tue conoscenze sul funzionamento di Wikipedia con il Tour guidato. Hai già un altro account oppure qualcun altro contribuisce dal tuo stesso computer? Leggi Wikipedia:Utenze multiple. Serve aiuto? Se hai bisogno di aiuto, chiedi allo sportello informazioni (e non dimenticare che la risposta ti verrà data in quella stessa pagina). Se avessi bisogno di un aiuto continuativo, puoi richiedere di farti affidare un "tutor". Hello and welcome to the Italian Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions. If your Italian skills are not good enough, that’s no problem. We have an embassy where you can inquire for further information in your native language or you can contact directly a user in your language. We hope you enjoy your time here!
Tour guidato
Raccomandazioni e linee guida
Copyright
Progetti tematici
Glossario

Naturalmente un benvenuto anche da parte mia! Se avessi bisogno di qualcosa non esitare a contattarmi.

Raven10 (msg) 17:30, 22 mar 2017 (CET)

"Tavola dei contenuti" (non più tale) di Vector 2022

Buongiorno. Ho saputo della nuova interfaccia Vector 2022 e l'ho vista sulle Wikipedia su cui è già stata testata. Va tutto bene tranne la tavola dei contenuti o indice, che integrata nella barra a sinistra e resa scorrevole e a cassetti ha perso tutta la sua natura e funzionalità di "tavola dei contenuti" o "indice". In quanto compressa nella barra a sinistra (con ciò che ne consegue per le titolature lunghe che vengono spezzettate) e resa a scorrimento (con le sottosezioni automaticamente nascoste e "a cassetto"), persino senza più la numerazione a identificare sezioni e sottosezioni, è diventata un disastro confuso e immaneggiabile. In quanto "tavola dei contenuti"/"indice" dovrebbe essere parte della voce come era prima sotto l'introduzione, per dare un'impressione chiara della struttura dei contenuti della voce, e non dovrebbe essere parte della interfaccia utente come in Vector 2022! Che diamine, dovrebbe essere una tavola dei contenuti/indice, non un menu utente! Vorrei che le mie critiche venissero recepite dagli autori di Vector 2022 e discusse dalle comunità Wikipedia prima che tale nuova, orrenda, snaturata e disfunzionale "tavola dei contenuti"/"indice" venga imposta ovunque! --37.161.161.48 (msg) 21:09, 20 ago 2022 (CEST)

Ciao! Grazie per avermi scritto.

I'm happy to read "va tutto bene" :) Also, I'm sorry that you have strong negative feelings about the new table of contents (ToC). If you're wondering about the very basic reason why this change was made, I'd like to invite you to read the page about the feature. You'll find explanations why it has been changed, what was the motivation, etc. Overall, with this change, the ToC is used 50% more by both logged-out and logged-in users, so the primary goal is certainly met, but you are right, there are also various problems about the ToC.

I'd like to understand when do you need (1) a wide ToC working for wide headings (2) a ToC with numbers? In what cases this ToC confuses you? Would it be possible for you to write more? Grazie in anticipo! --SGrabarczuk (WMF) (msg) 21:19, 1 set 2022 (CEST)

Hello. Thank you for your attention. I am the same as 37.161.161.48.

First of all, I think that most of Vector 2022's improvements are in the right direction, giving prominence to the articles' content while significantly reducing the spaces occupied by the user's interface, so as to remember visitors that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network.

The changes to the TOC, on the other hand, are a step in the wrong direction, probably dictated by a wrong interpretation of the TOC as part of the user's interface rather than as part of the article. Being the "table of contents" of the article, the TOC should remain part of the article. It was perfectly identifiable and functional as and where it was before (under the lede [which is a "summary" of the other parts of the article], numbered, fully "collapsed", and with plenty of space for lengthy titles), while with the proposed changes it would lose its identity and function being transformed into a sort of user's "pop-up menu". Such new "pop-up TOC" would be useful only while scrolling lengthy articles. A good compromise would be to keep the old article's lede TOC as it has always been, while introducing the new "pop-up TOC" as appearing only when the lede TOC is fully off-screen.--37.163.43.189 (msg) 19:03, 3 set 2022 (CEST)

Continuing 37.163.43.189. PS: This version is precisely what I meant to represent with my proposal of a "combined" system of TOCs. The pop-up could appear precisely where the new TOC is located in the current Vector 2022 version when the lede TOC is off-screen.--37.163.156.173 (msg) 12:38, 6 set 2022 (CEST)

Ciao, and thank you as well. Your point of view is interesting. I'm not sure if this was the interpretation the team had when decided to work on the ToC, but I think you are more or less right - they might have taken it as part of the interface, not article.

Let's maybe focus on the "lose its identity and function" part. When exactly do you find the old ToC more useful? I admit, ToC in general serves many objectives, is a complex feature, and it's difficult to take all the important and different use cases into account. We might have missed something. So, I'd be most grateful if you tried to identify when exactly you need something different than the current ToC. Thanks! --SGrabarczuk (WMF) (msg) 05:39, 8 set 2022 (CEST)

Continuing 37.163.156.173. Hello. The new TOC loses the identity and functions of the old TOC placed immediatly under the lede, which was not merely a user's tool for navigating the article, but first and foremost 1) an indexed overview of the article's contents, its sections and subsections, and 2) a divider clearly distinguishing the lede (the synthetic summary of the article's parts) from the article's contents, sections and subsections. Figuratively, the TOC acted as the "neck", both distinguishing and connecting the "head" and the "body" of the text; with the new TOC, reduced to a mere user's navigator, such distinctions are lost: it is not only the TOC that loses its function and identity, but the lede and the text's body also lose theirs, with foreseeable detrimental effects on the overall quality of the articles in the long run.--37.160.196.106 (msg) 16:25, 8 set 2022 (CEST)

Thank you for this answer! I'll share your opinion with our team and then get back to you. --SGrabarczuk (WMF) (msg) 17:10, 8 set 2022 (CEST)

Hey, I am a designer at the WMF and have been working on Vector 2022 for the past few years. Firstly I recognize that the changes in the layout of the page are significant, and take time to get used to. Our decisions are grounded, as @SGrabarczuk (WMF) mentioned, in usability research and data, as well as feedback from the community and WMF design team. Regarding the placement of the table of contents, through research we have observed two main advantages of the new placement:

• For logged-out people (and most logged-in people) it is immediately visible upon page load. In Legacy Vector (and other skins) where the table of contents is placed below the lead section, for many articles you will have to scroll before you can view the table of contents (depending on the length of the lead section). This was a clear benefit we heard from people when we tested both options.
• The table of contents remains fixed in place regardless of where you are on the page. We did test options (like this, and this, and this) where the table of contents is below the lead section, and then once you scroll past it becomes fixed on another part of the page. However these solutions mean the table of contents appears in two different places, depending on where you are on the page, and are more complex for people to use.

In addition to our usual testing and data collection, we were able to hire a professional research organization to conduct research in three different countries (Ghana, Indonesia, and Argentina) specifically about the location of the table of contents (link to research report). The results were consistent across people in all three testing groups — the version of the table of contents to the side of the article was the clear favorite.

While it is difficult to find other websites with pages as long as many Wikipedia articles, the few that I have seen on the internet seem to place a table of contents to the side of the content, versus within it. Some examples I am familiar with:

• Our world in data
• The Lancet
• MDN documentation (and most other code documentation websites)

Does that all make sense? Thanks for your thoughts and questions so far. --AHollender (WMF) (msg) 20:16, 8 set 2022 (CEST)

Continuing 37.160.196.106. @AHollender (WMF): Thank you for your attention. I am a nobody, but I remain convinced that a "combined TOC" model (something in the style of 1, 2 & 3) would be the best solution for both users' experience and articles' structure and quality. In my own experience, the first thing I do when I open an article is read its lede (which as per MOS in most Wikipedias is not longer than three or four paragraphs) and then, if I need more information about a certain aspect of the topic, I read the TOC and I choose the pertinent section. I think this is what most users do, and should indeed do as the lede should be the first and main focus of the article. With the new TOC, this is no longer automatic, as the TOC and the article appear as two different things on the screen, and, as I said, the "head" and the "body" of the aricle no longer appear as distinct parts. In the survey you mentioned, among the reasons why the new TOC was preferred I read the following one: "Participants indicated that constant access to the ToC was the main reason for the selection of this prototype as it did not require any further clicks or other interaction". However, I don't see a great difference in clicks required to navigate the article between the old and new model, and a "combined TOC" model would provide both the functionality of the old TOC and the "constant access" of the new TOC. --37.163.49.48 (msg) 18:57, 9 set 2022 (CEST)