- by ander, 2 months agoRated 5 out of 5What a brilliant idea! It makes WP look like a hip magazine. It's much more pleasant and easier to use. I frequently edit WP, and wondered if it might interfere with that. But the Edit command is right there in one of the new menus, and editing session open in a new tab, in the original format. Nicely done! Thanks!
- by Fatyanoor Ashfa, 5 months agoRated 3 out of 5I don't think this is for me - it's so unlike Wikipedia. I did start to appreciate it after trying it for some time (I especially like the nav bar on the left), but I also encountered quite a lot of issues, so I think I'll stick to regular Wikipedia in the meantime.
- Infoboxes look terrible. Images are off-center and the infobox is too close to the body of the article.
- Tables are sometimes split up when they have multiple headers.
- I also think content in tables needs more horizontal padding.
Dark mode certainly needs more work.
- Some elements still have a light background and the light text on it is difficult to see.
- Links in dark mode are gray, which is absurd.
- The text is a bit too bright for me. Either a lighter background or darker text would be easier on the eyes.
- Page previews disappear too slowly when my cursor moves away from it. Waiting for one to go away gets annoying when I'm trying to read the article content.
- The font looks horrid when both italicized and bold.
I understand that some of these issues might be caused by Wikipedia's own architecture, but I'm opting out regardless.
- by Aphant, 8 months agoRated 5 out of 5Very good, and almost perfect in my experience. My requests concern dark mode: the visibilty of links (the blue colour) be made more distinct and, (I'm not sure if this is possible) the screen flash when loading be black instead of white, to not attack the eyes whenever you click into a new wiki page