This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Apparently, there was a former straw poll on including a second search box at the header back in 2006: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll; Many users dislike the new interface and dislike the placement of the search box at the top. As it stands, the current user feedback on the Search box specifically is disorganized, and very difficult to see. This is an attempt to organize the opinions and views into a vote, including reasons behind them from individual users. Only confirmed users will be allowed to vote. --AllyUnion(talk)02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Note: Since the third option is a compromise of both, it will give insight to those willing to compromise (even if it might look redundant or stupid).
The design of the site interface is proposed as three options:
Keep as is (in the new design) AKA Search box on the top header
Restore search box on the left navigation (as in the old design) AKA Search box on the left navigation
Have a transitional phase by including the search box in both the top header and left navigation AKA have it both until users can decide which seems better of the two
Strange I always look at the top left corner or top middle first, and I doubt any research that has shown this. When I first saw this new skin it took me about 2 whole seconds to find the search bar. I don't mind it being at the top, but not the top right corner.--92.251.251.141 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are right, top right focus is assumed in print media, while it is left focus in the web. I strike out that argument accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
You were right at first Skäpperöd - see a book called "Prioritizing Web Usability" by Jakob Nielsen and Hoa Loranger. You can find an outline here, but let me quote: "Search Interface... This interface should be on the top left or more preferably the top right of the page". I have this book in Polish so I can't give anything exact page number - it should be around page 168 (the chapter is called "Search" and the section is called "Search Interface"). --Nux (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
And work by Nielsen and other colleagues preceding that book say much the same thing. My copy of Homepage Usability consistently says that search should be at the top of the page. On page 211, the authors more specifically state that the "upper-right corner" is the standard location. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
User testing says that the top-right positioning is better for newbies. Personal preference can be satisfied with user customizations; much of the vocal resistance is due to the historical position of the search box. Although unregistered users can't have preferences (a technical issue due to Wikipedia's use of server-side caching), it seems silly that an objectively better (as confirmed by user testing) interface (a usability issue) should be avoided because people who are unwilling to register an account to change their settings don't do so. Wikipedia's left-hand search has long been used as an example of bad design—now it's been improved. Let's not cause a regression. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}}18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The argument that user testing indicates the top-right position is better for newbies doesn't fly. The usability testing study included only ten participants! This is hardly a representative sample that would justify relocating the search box. The fact is that most users focus on the top left initially, and there is a greater reason for a search box on the top left for a site dedicated to searching for information. Most search boxes on non-search-specific websites are in the top right corner--because search is a secondary function on those sites. Wikipedia is a search site, and the search box should be located top left (under the logo), or mid-top center surrounded by white space. The top right is non-intuitive and unreasonable for Wikipedia. --JohnBoy (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I actually find the top more intuitive. The search box is more visible at the top, and there is more room for it. If the consensus is to move it to the left, there should be an option in the preferences to place the search box at the top. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Almost every website I've ever seen has a search box at the top. I would think that most casual readers would be accustomed to search boxes being at the top, rather than being hidden half-way down the page among dozens of sidebar links that they don't care about. Perhaps to deal with the issue of queries running off the edge of the window, we could move it to the center (in the new gap between "Discussion" and "Read"), or to the top-left (directly under the logo). Brian the Editor (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The type of website you are talking about has search as a secondary feature. Search engines, like Wikipedia, primarily locate their search boxes on the top left or dead center, where users initially focus or where they hover their cursor.--JohnBoy (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
As per others. Almost every other website uses top, be it top centre or top right, as does nearly every single browser, many OSes, and many programs. (As a side note despite the claim that top left is more intuative, it seems very few websites actually use top left however while opposed to the old location I'm not opposed to top left). See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2010 May 11#Is a search box to the upper right "intuitive"? for examples, most of which use top centre or top right. Adding two search bars is a great way to cause even more confusion, even worse if they do different things. Our previous search bar with search and go was already often criticised as confusing [1][2]Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Top right. So many OSes, browsers and websites have search boxes on the top right of a window that it would be bizarre not to emulate them. This is the only bit of Vector that I like. Fences&Windows18:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is a search engine, not a typical website. Search engines place their search boxes in the most intuitive positions, where users primarily focus as a website is popping up. This tends to be the top left under a logo, or dead center on a website. For that reason, all the arguments that browsers or other websites position a search box at the top right are not considering the type of website, and thus are poor arguments for a website dedicated to searching. Let's look at the top five search sites and several other popular search sites for examples:
Google - Main page: Mid-top center, Subsequent pages: Top left
Yahoo! - Main page: Top center, Subsequent pages: Top center, slightly left
Bing - Main page: Mid-top mostly left, Subsequent pages: Top left
Ask.com - Main page: Dead center, Subsequent pages: Top left
AOL Search - Main page: Mid-top left, Subsequent pages: Top left
Altavista - Main page: Mid-top center, Subsequent pages: Top left
Alltheweb - Main page: Mid-top center, Subsequent pages: Top left
Gigablast - Main page: Mid-top center, Subsequent pages: Top center
Netscape Search - Main page: Mid-top left, Subsequent pages: Top center
Snap - Main page: Left bottom, Subsequent pages: Top left
Dogpile - Main page: Mid-top left, Subsequent pages: Top left
No popular search engine uses top-right positioning for a search box!!! It is completely unreasonable and non-intuitive for Wikipedia to place the search box in the top-right position. At least top center would be somewhat reasonable. Top-right doesn't make any sense whatsoever for a website like Wikipedia.
I can understand there being some confusion about what section JohnBoy's comment belongs in, but tho he has disagreements with others advocating for "Top header (Top)", his objections seem to be to top-right rather than to top. I considered moving it, as 71 implicitly suggests, but i conclude they did not lose track of what section there were putting it in. --Jerzy•t07:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
top right. Explorer 8 search box is there. It is the most intutive position for a search box. In the middle of the left side bar looks like an attempt to hide it. It took me quite a while to get used to it being there.1archie99 (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was quite used to the old search box location, so at first I found myself mildly enraged by its sudden move. However, after thinking about it for some time, I find that the part that I actually dislike is specifically its new location all the way at the right. After looking at the latest prototype (here) that features a (slightly-buggy) auto-expanding search box, I realize that we wouldn't be able to implement something such as that in the static-width left column. So here is my proposal: Search box at the top-left and all of the tabs right-justified. Here's my reasoning: 99% (probably more like 99.9999...%) of Wikipedia's userbase consists of people who merely come to Wikipedia, use the Search box to search for a page, and then read that page and others linked from it. They never go to the Discussion page, or Edit, or use any of the tabs in any way whatsoever. So having tabs strewn all over the top bar and the number one feature (the Search box) all but hidden on the far right, seems like a massive disservice to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's userbase, bordering on elitism ("Editors use the tabs more, and editors are more important, plus I read this random usability study conducted using only 10 people that says top-right is where I should put a Search box, so since that reaffirms my own opinion, I'm just going to go ahead and extrapolate that to cover the hundreds of millions of people who come to Wikipedia and jam that Search box way up over there.") --Cogniac (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Design suggestionSmall and top-left (far away from text-area as clicking center) isn't good. But I think with time we'll find a good solution to place it on top. Then it's better than on the left. --Biezl (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left as it was. I never managed to locate it on the new design and have swirched back to the old. If it's not broken don't fix it. Giacomo 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The logo attracts attention and the search box would be very obvious underneath it.
It keeps to a logical layout, with tools for navigating Wikipedia on the left, and tools for viewing and changing the current page at the top. Why should the search box, the main tool for navigating Wikipedia, be in the latter place?
I dispute any claims that "humans look at the top right first". That is true for images, not web pages. This study, using eyetrack technolohy, found that people look at the top left first, and top right last. Certainly I tend to look either at the top left or top middle first. Our language reads left-to-right. It took me 1-2 seconds, amazingly enough, to notice the new search box.
Partly because I'm used to it, partly because that is where I would logically expect it, but mostly because the current placement cuts off suggested search results for articles with longer names. Resolute20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
As stated below, I don't care since I disabled it the day it went live; but I'm going to vote-by-proxy here for my colleague who sits next to me and says he preferred it on the left (but declined to take the plunge and create an account to go back to the far superior monobook). –xenotalk20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The stated terms of the straw poll limit participation to confirmed users, and your attempt to exercise "your nbr's proxy" is subversive to both that and the terms limiting use of each acct to one user. If your nbr has something to say beyond your unpersuasive "Uh-huh", they should speak for themself. And your don't-care would be miscounted in the "Left" section.--Jerzy•t07:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll thank you not to strike my words again, and I reject the notion that one can restrict participation in this poll simply by saying so. –xenotalk18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left - I tried the Beta for quite a while, but eventually went back. The same thing happened with this last change - I tried and then reverted. Both times the location of the search box was a prime reason for my dissatisfaction. I'm not sure why - perhaps just because I'm so used to the other - but having the box on top seemed much less efficient, and led to a lot more mousing than having it on the left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left so that the results can actually be seen! The issue of smaller monitors mentioned above is also important. Under the logo, or above it. And please, please restore the "go" vs "search." I pity the users - I could not use Vector at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left, it's not intuitive at all finding it up on the right. Also, it causes too much of a gap between the top of the screen and the beginning of actual article content. --CapitalR (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left. As second choice, with my first choice being to simply have search boxes in both locations (top and left). --Elonka01:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please, please, please put it back on the left, or at least allow us to go back to the old format without having to register. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left', I have written extensively about this on other pages- but as requested here we go again-- 1. The world knows that is where it is on wikipedia and other sites emulate us. 2. On a slow screen, or with large text set this is the piece of screen you find first. 3. Logical flow. 4. we are a left to right language. 5 When editing you switch between the edit screen, and the search box for testing links. Extra mouse transverses slows the job- and means that proper checking is not done. 6. Technically getting the css correct for all browsers (legacy, current, and not yet created) on all distros, of all OSs - is just so much simpler under logo than floating to the right. 7. Ive had to revert to Monobook, because cummulatively the floating right box, had stopped me from achieving anything --ClemRutter (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left. Wikipedia has had a clear distinction between global controls (left) and page related controls (top). The current placement of the search box violates this logic and tries to suggest that the box is not for finding other pages but for searching text on the current page. Ville Saari (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left All the rest of the WP navigation is there, so it makes sense for the search bar to be there. Also, as I use Firefox, the WP search bar is directly under the FFx search bar, leading to some mis-searches on both google and wp. ArakunemTalk14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Top/Left - No Brainer! - Right about the words 'Main page' and immediatley right of the globe. All that wasted space put to good use! And, a proven eye magnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.18.54 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left – It looks much better on the left, as it used to look. Some of my friends created an account simply to change the skin to Monobook as they were not used to some of the features of Vector, such as the location of the search bar. —MC10(T•C•GB•L)23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left In English, we read from left to right. Placing the search bar on the left is more logical, because most web pages have links and objects starting on the left side. Options, then content. Not Content, then options. Also, I don't see why only the search bar moved to the top right when all the other options stayed. Finally, when the redesign happened, the top right was the last place I looked for the search bar. I went from left to right, looked down the whole list and then when I went to close the page, I moused over it and found it. Jacasey001 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left On other sites search may be good for looking into the archives. On wikipedia however, search is logically a part of navigation. So take it back to the left.--Agelstern (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left Back where it was, or at least somewhere on the left, that is the Wikimedia and Wikia way and is where everyone expects it to be. Directly under the globe would be best. (Isn't that where it was before?) --91.84.123.154 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Top Left, by which I mean that it would make the best sense to have it on the left, but higher than it used to be. Left-side, like it used to be, but near the top, as it is now. (But I can get used to it pretty much anywhere.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Left below the logo I've written several times about how search is a prime focus of Wikipedia, whereas search is only just another feature for most websites. Search, therefore, needs to be prominent in Wikipedia. Increasingly, small-screen devices like my Android phone feature browsers that serve up normal pages (as opposed to WAP pages specifically adjusted for mobile devices). When the search box is under the logo, it is available without having to scroll around for it. This new search-for-the-searchbox problem is even harder on small-screen devices! Wikipedia should not even contemplate a transition plan to move the search box; it should go under the logo and stay there. NoOneAsked (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Top left, right of the logo To all who argue "take it back to the left because *I* am used to it", I say find a better argument because that one is not in the best interest of new WP users, which will soon outnumber all of us. Besides, how hard is it to get used to a new location? To WP developers, the search bar does not belong there. "Page", "Discussion", "Read", "Edit", "View History"... are all actions performed on the page/article currently displayed. "Search", on the other hand, is an action performed on the site that takes you somewhere else. It's just logically misplaced. My suggestion is to put it above the "Page" and "Discussion" tab, on the right of the logo, where all that blank space currently is. 122.26.84.216 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Both. I am willing to compromise on the issue, and allow time for users to deal with the transition of changing the search box's location. --AllyUnion(talk)02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Both. For best usability, a search box should be included in the location where users are most likely to look. It's fairly obvious that many users naturally look to the left, especially as this is standard practice in many other MediaWiki installations (not just Wikipedia). Other usability testing says that some users tend to prefer a search box at the top. So have the best of both worlds, include search boxes at both top and left, and then add something to Preferences to allow logged-in users to customize things as they like. --Elonka03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Weak Both. I would like it back onthe left, but having it both places would be okeh IF it doesn't confuse people ("Huh?, are these two boxes for two different kinds of searches?" -- I don't know if any-one would react that way, but it should be checked out some-how.) Kdammers (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Comment- What about, the current one at the top being the "go" search that most visitors will want, and a new one at the left where the previous one was, being the "search" function (which I miss)? {{Sonia|talk|simple}}10:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Both The Ebay Advanced search has got a top box and a network of lower boxes and I'm pretty sure this is not an uncommon thing. A little box to the left, a big box at the top, and everyone is happy. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Both Maybe one of the advantages of using the top right search box would be bigger letters and more space. However, keeping the search box in the left is what MILLIONS of users are used to after YEARS of using the wikipedia. I found it practical and intuitive for the search box to be very near the Wikipedia logo, which is the first thing that catches one's attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Both but differentiated. Actually the opposite to Sonia above. Before this upheaval I never thought of the box as 'search box', I overwhelmingly used it as the standard way to Go to an article by name. The two buttons 'Go' and 'Search' seem to have been lost, as commented by others. So please can we have the 'Go to' where Wikipedians are used to finding it (on the left), and the 'Search' where it appears on many Web sites around the world (in the topnav), where we can search for words within an article, rather than by title. Sussexonian (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No objection to both as long as there's one on the left. The inability to see completions makes right-side a complete non-starter--destroys a useful function that has no replacement that is as intuitive or available. Right-side also fails for narrower screens...I didn't see it at all until I side-scrolled. Making it easy for the search to be hidden is a pretty dumb interface "feature" for an encyclopedia. If "people say people think people want upper-right", I don't care if there's one there. But I also need one I can access and use. DMacks (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Comment That sounds like a bug with your browser. It's impossible for the search to be missing/require scrolling in Firefox for me. Even if I reduce the page size so I can only see the wikipedia logo, the search still appears although the page looks super ugly. I presume this is by design. The autocompletion issue is a recognised one and I presume there are various ways to resolve it without moving the search bar. In fact it appears this is already being worked on in the prototype (look at the bug report below) Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Top/Left - No Brainer! - Right about the words 'Main page' and immediatley right of the globe. All that wasted space put to good use! And, a proven eye magnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.18.54 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not clear why the preceding contrib is in the "Both" section, and inclined to think that either of the other two would have been more appropriate. Or maybe that amounts to both. [shrug] --Jerzy•t07:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments18 people in discussion
I noticed that this page is semi-protected. May I suggest that we unprotect it? If new/unregistered users participate, we can simply move their comments to a separate section. If nothing else, we should provide a link to some place where they can comment on the poll, rather than simply barring their participation. --Elonka13:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Personally I don't care, because I've already turned off the new features. However, I think that some anonymous users might be upset that we've foisted these changes on them without any way for them to opt-out short of creating an account. –xenotalk13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Hilarious that this was semi-protected, by the way. Way to listen to your readers!Reply
"Both" is a silly option. If people prefer the left-hand search bar, they will use the left-hand search bar. They will not use the top-right search bar, and will thus complain just as loudly if the left-hand one is ever removed as they are complaining now about the move. Further, the duplication of search elements would be confusing to those who didn't understand it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}}18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Humans look at the top left first, and top right last
I noticed a claim above that humans look at the top right of the screen first. Certainly I have heard this about images. However this study using eyetrack technology shows people look at the top left first, and the top right last. How did the usability team miss this?--Patton123 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Problem with that is it appears to be concentrating on news websites, as does their latest study [3] which you need to pay to see and I can't find anything from the summaries I've read which confirms or denies whether their latest research concurs with their previous research but did come across [4] which suggests their latest study may contradict their previous one on a different issue. More importantly more general research on user reading patterns on the web like [5] have come up with the F shaped pattern. They also have more detailed research although I haven't looked in to it (perhaps the usability initiative have). I did mention [6] in a discussion above who recommend top left or top right based on the F shaped scanning pattern. (I presume this includes top centre.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The research that indicates an F-shaped pattern presents the exact argument that user Patton123 made. People look to the top left first. In fact, on the eyetracking "heatmaps", people rarely looked at the top-right, unless there was something specific located there--and even then they looked there after looking at the top-left first. But the point isn't so much where they look first as what they are looking for. A person coming to Wikipedia to make a query will be searching for a search box. They will scan from top-left to top-center, then drop down and scan mid-top-left across, then maybe at that point will look to the top right. In any case, top-right is neither intuitive nor natural for websites dedicated to search as Wikipedia is. --76.14.248.20 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well I consider it highly questionable if wikipedia is dedicated to search (I've never seen actual evidence showing how many people actually come to the en.wikipedia.org main page to search, I personally always use Google but I'm not in any way claiming to be an average person). Definitely if we were truly dedicated to search, we'd replace the main page with Wikipedia:Search (which also autofocuses). But in any case the F-shaped pattern says "Users first read in a horizontal movement, usually across the upper part of the content area. This initial element forms the F's top bar" not "They will scan from top-left to top-center, then drop down and scan mid-top-left across, then maybe at that point will look to the top right" Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
This decision - like most others regarding usability - shouldn't be made on the basis of a poll but on the results of empirical usability testing and best practices. Don't second guess yourselves because a bunch of amateurs are playing Monday morning quarterbacks. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, non-editing readers outnumber editors by something like 100:1, yet they're completely unrepresented in polls like this, which attract only a tiny segment of Wikipedia's overall userbase (experienced users who follow behind-the-scenes discussions). Mr.Z-man03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Agreed whole-heartedly with both ElKevbo & Mr.Z-man. Unregistered users aren't represented here, which means Wikimedia (or whoever the hell the poor people dealing with this are) should go with good, proven usability practices Alex Muller12:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Good, proven usability studies indicate that a search box should be located top-left, top-middle or mid-top-left, not top-right. The usability study to which Wikipedia refers consisted of ten participants! It was certainly not a representative sample. All the representative and scientific studies indicate a top-left position for the search box would be best. --76.14.248.20 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for proving my point. Where people look when scanning a page provides little guidance on where to place specific elements. The top-right is the customary position for search boxes (I would suggest you start your search with Nielsen's work in this area), established by "long" (what passes for long on the Web!) custom and practice. It may not be the ideal place but it happens so often that it's where people look for it.
And the number of people involved in a usability study bear little relation to the quality of the study and its data given its qualitative nature. ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's possible that search box location is better on the left on Wikipedia and better on the right on other websites, since searching is much more important on Wikipedia than it is, for example, on nytimes.com. Furthermore, I believe it's crucial to remember that Wikipedia's problem is not a lack of nonediting readers -- it's a decline or stagnation in the editing community. Wikipedia will only be the world's sixth most popular site[7] as long as it has enough editors to maintain timeliness, authoritativeness, and quality. Conversely, Wikipedia will always remain in the top ten as long as it has enough good editors, since it is so useful. We need to understand that English Wikipedia's traffic has nowhere to go but down--since almost everyone who would be interested in reading Wikipedia already does--so we need to focus on maintaining the best quality possible. Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well the primary intention of the usability initiative is AFAIK to increase the number of editors (partially by making it easier to edit). Also it seems highly unlikely to me the English wikipedia's traffic has nowhere to go but down (presuming you mean number of visitors not percentage or rank) or that anyone who would be interested in reading wikipedia already does since the internet grows every day particularly in developing countries (but even in developed countries I'm not aware of any where the number of internet users isn't growing) and quite a number of these do use the English wikipedia. If the world populations starts to decline, as it may very well do so in the future then things may change but that seems a long way off. Also the claim that searching is more important on wikipedia then sites with a top right location as well as the plenty of OSes, utilities and browsers is at best an unproven claim and for a number of sites and for browsers seems unlikely to me. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
And that's precisely why this and other usability decisions should be made on the best available empirical evidence and best practices and not by relying on the opinions of a handful of editors expressing their personal preferences (or, worse, uneducated interpretations of a handful of studies, experiments, and anecdotes). ElKevbo (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean to say that the people who use Wikipedia should have nothing to say about these decisions? I had never registered on Wikipedia until this change happened, and then I registered just to raise my voice. After a time of not hearing any response to the stream of complaints that many users left on the site, I went away discouraged. I used Wikipedia less that I did normally, especially since having to log in is an annoying extra step and since the logins do not carry across Wikipedia's subdomains. I am heartened to see now that someone is listening. Please do not suggest that the opinions of existing users are unimportant! NoOneAsked (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
No. I am saying that the opinions of individual editors - most of whom have no background or experience in usability - should be given proper weight. ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
More likely most logged out users don't visit wikipedia enough that they are used to anything. And new people are coming to wikipedia everday. In fact there's a fair chance the majority of wikipedia readers barely noticed the skin change although they may or may not have found it better if they were asked to compare. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
My own read on the situation is that a large percentage of our regular readers did notice the change, and don't like it, but can't figure out where to voice their complaint. It's extremely difficult to find a place to comment, based on the current "New features" link, which goes only to Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch, and has no link to a place where people can comment. Only those who are intermediate/advanced users, or use the watchlist function, really have any hope of finding the poll or comment pages. This is doubtless causing frustration for many users, and it's very non-wiki, to provide information without an associated discussion page. My guess is that if there were an actual link from the Special page to one of the comment pages, we'd be hearing a lot more complaints. Of those who are managing to navigate the labyrinth to actually comment, the ratio of "I don't like the change" to "I like the change" seems to be at least 20-to-1. For a return on a "Usability" project, those are pretty awful numbers. What we'd want to see instead are, "Wow, thanks Wikipedia, this is much easier to use now! Or, "I always wanted that feature, and now you have it, good job!" Instead we have this long chorus of, "Noooooo, change it back, it's harder to use now!" comments. If I were in charge of the usability project (which I'm not), I'd change the default for non-logged-in users back to the original skin, and then proceed more slowly with changes. Instead, we seem to have an attitude of, "Well, the people complaining are just whiners. Stick with the new skin, they'll get used to it." Which, again, is bad usability philosophy. --Elonka13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately it doesn't appear that I can edit that special page by way of the Mediawiki namespace, otherwise I would've added such links. –xenotalk13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Me too. I would've added discussion links, and also fixed the multiple typos on the page. But as it is, it's not even clear who to contact, to ask to have the page changed! --Elonka13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Who said anything about regular readers? One of the big problems with any analysis is there are plenty of people who aren't regular readers, and as I was hinting above, this most likely is the majority of people who visit wikipedia on any given day. Unfortunately testing for what they would prefer is difficult at best. In addition, as I've noted elsewhere, another problem is there are several well recognised bugs which are common sources of complaints (another one was the slow speeds which I presume is no longer a problem but ironically would be if the changes are rolled back). In fact in this very page, some of the supports above are because of people not liking the autocompletion bug.
Also as for your other comment... Perhaps I'm mistaken but it's my experience the vast majority of changes to an interface result in large number of complaints from users familiar with the interface. It seemed to be what happened with MS Office, with Windows Vista, with Youtube etc. In fact I've never seen a major change to an interface where the majority of comments were "Wow, thanks Wikipedia, this is much easier to use now! or "I always wanted that feature, and now you have it, good job!" etc. My experience and understanding (both of which aren't much) of human psychology, crowd behaviour, how people react to changes in general and self-selection (as is always the case when you're relying on people actually offering feedback) suggest to me this is unlikely unless the old interface is so terrible that nearly everyone hated it. However people still make these changes which are lambested.
Perhaps it's because the designers are totally stupid. Perhaps it's because the designers recognise that there's more to making a good design then counting preferences of those familiar with the old design. None of this means the new skin nor any of the other examples were better, I obviously can't say, simply that I think this is an incredibly complicated question which counting complaints can only go a very small way to answering. (And I suspect where we are today in many cases a result of similar disruptive changes which were initially lambested but now few people would want to revert to the old although again that could just be familiarity with the new. )
And perhaps it's because developers are paid to change things? In one of the many pages where people reacted to this change - which I cannot now find again - someone pointed to a series of studies starting in 1998 pointing to the fact that most internet users nowadays are conservative, not daring early adopters, and expect to be able to learn how to use something and not have the ingrained habits overturned. It's been over a decade since one could assume internet users are all intrepid coders and early adopters. Thuis change was obviously very selectively and inadequately beta-tested, and only the users have no way to opt out. We editors can - as it emerges most did during beta. Wrong set of assumptions, woeful implementation, and why are donors to Wikimedia Foundation paying for people to muck things up like this?? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of different ways to change things. And of course ultimately the developers are paid by someone. If you don't think the developers are stupid and they're making changes which achieve no purpose because they're paid to (even though one would think they would be smart to make changes which don't piss people off or at least not so much) then I guess the people who hire them are stupid. Ignoring the WMF for now, let's consider the management of the companies who I mentioned, I somewhat doubt it's in their interest to hire people they don't need to make changes that just piss people off and losses them market share they don't need to lose. Of course sometimes they are stupid or make the wrong decision but are they always? Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Purely anecdotal evidence, but a colleague of mine visits Wikipedia regularly but doesn't have an account - I asked him about it and he said he prefers the old location. –xenotalk13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
"More likely most logged out users don't visit wikipedia enough that they are used to anything." This assertion is empirically testable, and the foundation would do well to start testing it. Personally, I have an extremely strong suspicion that it is simply false. All the people I know who don't have accounts read Wikipedia frequently enough to notice subtle changes. Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I were to ask most of the people I know, I doubt they would have noticed the changes. I wouldn't consider myself normal of course. For example I do know someone well in real life who has a wikipedia account (who I know from outside wikipedia)! I doubt most wikipedia visitors do. For the other people they obviously do visit wikipedia on occasion but I don't think it's enough to really be that familiar with wikipedia. I admit my previous statement was too broad, I more meant most people would barely notice the change. In other words, they may notice it's different but wouldn't really need much or any adjustment. I would suggest there's something very wrong with wikipedia if we're not attracting plenty of occasional visitors and new users every day. However I somewhat doubt this is really the case. According to [8] for example the average internet user in the US only spent 17 minutes on wikipedia in September 2009. I'm presuming this is the the mean which means (no pun intended) it's surely offset by those who spend a lot of time on wikipedia and those who spend no time but it does suggest there's plenty of people who don't visit wikipedia that often. Remember that for most people wikipedia is a reference source and most people don't spend all their time reading references. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi folks,
After some requests about the javascript that moved Monobook's searchbar to the top right, I wrote a script that does the opposite in Vector (everyone has their own preference :D)
I found it annoying for the first couple of days, but only because I was used to it being on the left. Now I'm used to it being top right, right under my Google search box. If it gets moved again that will just be annoying. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it's technically applicable, why not to allow registered users to choose where to have a search box? I know, somebody can ask "Why not to switch back to Monobook?", but a checkbox in the Options would be a nice variant I'd like to vote for. Wizardist (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned above, if you put the below in your User:You/vector.js you'll have it in the left
