Jump to content

Wikipedia:Main page/Monitor poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Traditional

[edit]

Please add your resolution and ratio under this header if your monitor is using a traditional (eg. 4:3) ratio.

  1. I really feel this will not help, but (1152x864) (4:3) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1024 x 768 (4:3) Avram (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1024 x 768 - 4:3. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1024/768 washt out LCD 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1024 x 768 - 4:3. -- Mgm|(talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 1400 x 1050 (4:3) --Zantolak (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 1400 x 1050 (4:3) November 30 2008 (gmt+1) acer al2017
  8. 1024 x 768 (4:3) NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 1024 x 768 - 4:3 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. 1024 x 768 - (4:3) El Cangri386 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 1024×768 --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 1024 x 768 - 4:3 Markpalloni (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 1024 x 768 (4:3) -- Suntag ☼ 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 1024 x 768 - DiverseMentality 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 1024 x 768 - iMatthew 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 1400 x 1050 (4:3) --Keithonearth (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 1600 x 1200 and 1280 x 1024 (extended desktop) (00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
  18. Dual screens: 17" 1024x768 (4:3) and 19" 1280x768 (16:10) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. 1600×1200 for desktop. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 1024 x 768 (4:3)  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 1024 x 768, 1600 x 1200, and iPhone JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 1024 x 768 - 4:3 Captain panda 00:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 1024 x 768 - 4:3 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. 1152 x 864 - 4:3 --Mifter (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 1600 × 1200 (4:3) --Imroy (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 1024 x 768 - 4:3 currently -- Cenarium Talk 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 1600 x 1200 (4:3) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 4:3, with a total screen of 1024*768 but a browser window about 800*600 Modest Genius talk 17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 1024 X 768 Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 4:3 Depending on computer either 1024x768 or 1152x864 or 1280x960, nearly always maximised. Sometimes a PAL SDTV so 720x576 (the actual TV is widescreen but because it isn't set up to handle the DAR it'll usually be ~4:3 Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 1024 x 768 (4:3) On one computer. SpencerT♦C 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 800 X 600, the One True Resolution. Danthemankhan 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 1024 x 768 (4:3) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Widescreen

[edit]

Please add your resolution and ratio under this header if your monitor is using a widescreen (eg. 16:10) ratio.

  1. 1280 x 800 (8:5) (05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC))-Villa
  2. 1280x800 (16:10) HausTalk 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1440x900 (16:10), 00:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. 1280x800 (16:10), A new name 2008 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1280x800 (16:10), 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. 1920x1200 (16:10), Wizard191 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 1680x1050 (16:10), lifebaka++ 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 1680x1050 (16:10), Louis Waweru  Talk  00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 1280x800 (16:10); 1440x900 (16:10), 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. 1280x800 (16:10) 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. 1440x900 (16:10); AmaltheaTalk 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 1680X1050 (16:10) – iridescent 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 1280x720 (16:10) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. 1280x800 (16:10) bibliomaniac15 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 1280x800 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. 1440x900 (16:10) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 1280x800 Radagast (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 1680x1050 (16:10) 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. 1920X1200 (16:10), 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. 1280×800 (16:10) for my laptop monitor (one of two). – 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  21. 1280x800 (16:10); 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. 1280x800 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. 1440X900 (16:10), 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. 1680x1050 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. 1280x800 (16:10), 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. 1280x800 (16:10) Jthm guitarist (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 1280×800 for laptop. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 1280×800 (16:10), 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. 1440x900 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. 1680x1050 (16:10) DGG (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 1680x1050 (16:10) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 1280×800 (16:10) Sladen (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 1280x800 Algebraist 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 1280x800 (16:10) --Rory096 02:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 1440x900 (16:10) Nufy8 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 1440x900 (16:10) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 1280x800 (16:10)75.111.30.138 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 1920x1200 05:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  39. 1920x1200 02:26, 30 November 2008 (EST)
  40. 1366x768 PeterSymonds (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 1440x900 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  42. 1680x1050(16:10) lil2mas (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 1024x768 01st december 2008 by VaranusK
  44. 1280x800 Dendodge TalkContribs 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 1280x800 (16:10) —97198 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 1680x1050 (16:10) Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 1152x720 (16:10) on one computer. SpencerT♦C 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 1680x1050 (16:10) Silver mask cube (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 1280x800. MER-C 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 1440x900 Jolly Ω Janner 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other ratios

[edit]

Please add your resolution and ratio under this header if your monitor is using any other ratio.

  1. 1280 x 800 (8:5)(05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC))-Villa
  2. Nearly even square, almost 1:1.2 (1280X1024)--Ipatrol (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1280 x 1024 (5:4), but what's the point? Ntsimp (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1280x1024 (5:4) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1280x1024 (5:4) Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 1280x1024 (5:4) ratio 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. 1280 x 1024 (5:4), which is 4:3.2 and close enough to be in the 4:3 category, in my opinion. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 1280x1024 (5:4). -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 1280×1024 (5:4) for my desktop monitor (one of two). – 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. 1280 x 1024 (5:4) Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 1280 x 1024 (5:4) --Geologik (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 1680x1050 (16:10) on primary (center) head, 1600x1200 (4:3) on left head, and 1200x1600 (3:4) on right head. The center head is my primary reading monitor, the right head is my primary editing monitor. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 1920 x 1200 (5:4) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. 1280 x 1024 --Hut 8.5 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Please add additional comments here, so the other sections don't get bogged down with comments.

  • For the record, I don't think this is the right approach. There's already a main page redesign proposal and they attempt to design pages that work on ALL resolutions equally well. That is the sort of thing that should be our goal. If you design to the majority of users, you're going to put minorities at a disadvantage while they could help the project if they didn't have to jump through hoops to get a reasonable view. - Mgm|(talk) 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until then, we can see what we have to work with. This is just information; there's no design set in stone that is going to be implemented.
Well, it kinda is given that this is mainly concerning readers. I'd have used the other outlets had I wanted to reach registered users. As for consensus, I already conversed with multiple people who didn't see any issue with this on IRC. I could start up a thread on Talk:Main page if that's really necessary. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site notice has only be used three times this year, wikimania, the board election, and the survey. So you need consensus, but it can be discussed here. Also, IRC has absolutely no authority on Wikipedia. Cenarium Talk 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the people in the admin channel are respected users, so their opinion does matter. ;) Anyway, let's get consensus then. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because their opinion has not been expressed onwiki, and especially when expressed in the admin irc channel :) Cenarium Talk 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, let's see how the below poll turns out. :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Must admit that when I saw the message on the sitenotice with the words "redesign" I thought that this was major and important; now that I've arrived (I have added the details FWIW) this request seems lacking, ill-thought-out and without any clear explanation about exactly what it intends to achieve or how the data will be useful. If you really want to do this use a form with radio buttons. If you really, really want to do this, use something that doesn't involve radio buttons (because the real readers you're after are not even going to be able to tell what size television they have, or let alone that, what size of The Internets (browser window) they might actually be using). —Sladen (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 61" JVC DLP 1080p HDTV. Guess I'm not in the focus group. </humor> Useight (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing display resolution would be very useful in (as the FAQ states), for example, designing the layout of the main page, which can get offset sometimes. The instructions also provide information on how to determine what resolution one is using. Guessing you didn't read them? :P As for browser window size, I'm assuming they're using a full-screen or windowed view. I can specify that in the instructions of course. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the type of user that you're after, it currently appears to say "for instructions ... vote below"; if they are familiar with Wikipedia and notice the blue-on-blue [show] button then they'll find the real instructions. (BTW, on this machine it was System→Preferences→Screen Resolution (it's brown in colour!). I was going to tag /instructions with {{vague}} just after the "For example .. balance" sentence but it's locked! On a more serious note; maximised browser windows are what a lot of people (including I) use—however there are people who haven't discovered the maximise box, and people who don't won't use it even if told. I think an all-encompassing analysis should aim to collect actual window-size data and evaluate front-page layout based on that (mainly just checking it works with the extreme corner cases). —Sladen (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, even having this poll reinforces my belief that there are those in favour of the main page proposal who do not give a crap about web usability and web accessibility issues. All they care about is what the majority has and wants. They do not care about minorities who might have to jump through hoops to get a reasonable view.[1] Nor do they care about any newbie who may not even be able to participate because they don't even know how to find this poll, let alone bother or try to edit the page.[2] For the record, there are already admins maintaining ITN, DYK and OTD that try on a daily basis to maintain a balanced main page regardless of each user's monitor resolution. This will most likely not change regardless if there is a new main page layout (which should not be based a certain monitor resolution). Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This aims to get the information. I don't recall anyone ever saying that results are going to be implemented immediately according to what outcomes come from this poll. Oh, by the way, I'm one of the admins trying to balance ITN/DYK/etc.; doesn't work. Displays differently on different aspect ratios. Hence this whole poll to see who is using what and to see how we can therefore adjust things (for example, have javascript detect what resolution someone is using and switch to a design that is more friendly to their aspect ratio, etc.) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this?

[edit]

I see none. What difference does it make what aspect ratios and resolutions are used by the majority? As noted above by more than one user, we don't base our designs on that; we attempt to ensure maximum compatibility with everyone's displays.
Also, as Modest Genius pointed out, it's common for one's browser window to not be maximized (in which case the screen's aspect ratio and resolution are irrelevant).
And even if we did want to obtain this information, why the heck would we rely on a sample wildly skewed toward editors who speak English as a primary language (because non-editing readers and people who primarily speak other languages are far less likely to respond) instead of simply using the statistics that already are available? Is there some reason to believe that Wikipedia readers substantially differ from website readers as a whole?
This is a perfect illustration of why such matters should be discussed in advance on-wiki instead of interpreting some nods in an IRC channel as justification to rush forward with a poll and advertise it via the site notice. —David Levy 19:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree on the flaws of the way this has been carried out and the lack of need for it but I'm not aware of great statistics for the web population as a whole. Most statistics I've seen seem to come from webdesign companies or the W3C etc, whose readers are hardly likely to represent the general web population let alone wikipedia readers in particular. In terms of the general web population, it's possible, perhaps likely that we get a larger number of people with older computers and the like Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that I've seen such statistics. Of course, they don't include the actual window size (which this poll also fails to determine). And again, I don't see how any of this information is useful to us. No matter what, we aren't going to introduce design elements that cater to the majority while adversely affecting the minority. —David Levy 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's how our system works at the moment. For example, the main page will display differently depending on browser and resolution/aspect ratio; templates in articles will wrap differently; etc. This isn't a code issue, just a browser issue (or so I've seen at least). Also, I never said this would be expressly used to make everything view better for widescreen users or vice versa, but it would give us an idea of who is using what and allow us to further take that information somewhere (I don't know where, as I'm not the one controlling the code). All I'm saying is that there's no harm in obtaining this information; if we can use Javascript to do so that's awesome, but apparently it isn't the most reliable method.
In terms of this being skewed towards English users, that generally happens, given that this is the English Wikipedia... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's how our system works at the moment. For example, the main page will display differently depending on browser and resolution/aspect ratio; templates in articles will wrap differently; etc. This isn't a code issue, just a browser issue (or so I've seen at least).
Do you intend for the poll's scope to extend to "templates in articles"? If so, why did you name it "Wikipedia:Main page/Monitor poll" and protect it from moves?
Also, I never said this would be expressly used to make everything view better for widescreen users or vice versa, but it would give us an idea of who is using what and allow us to further take that information somewhere (I don't know where, as I'm not the one controlling the code). All I'm saying is that there's no harm in obtaining this information; if we can use Javascript to do so that's awesome, but apparently it isn't the most reliable method.
"No harm" is insufficient justification for a site-wide notice. If that were the only criterion, we would have dozens of such links at any given time.
Back in July, someone added an undiscussed link (also to a new page pertaining to the main page's design) to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, and my concern regarding the nasty precedent was dismissed as an unrealistic "slippery slope" argument. Less than a week later, we had this.
Given your acknowledgment that you don't know what purpose the requested information could serve, its collection seems rather unimportant, doesn't it?
In terms of this being skewed towards English users, that generally happens, given that this is the English Wikipedia...
The English Wikipedia isn't merely for people who read English as a primary language. —David Levy 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the sitenotice, so I didn't want for anything to be moved by some vandal. Yes, it could cover anything related to viewing.
I don't know a specific purpose, no, but it could suit many. As I've said, main page, templates, other things using the same code.
And I know it isn't merely for English users, but that's what it is geared towards. We don't provide instructions in Swahili if it just so happens that we get somebody who speaks Swahili reading a page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the sitenotice, so I didn't want for anything to be moved by some vandal. Yes, it could cover anything related to viewing.
My point is that the current location implies that the poll pertains strictly to the main page.
I don't know a specific purpose, no, but it could suit many. As I've said, main page, templates, other things using the same code.
But how? You provided the hypothetical example of JavaScript code that customizes the site's appearance based on the user's settings, but I can't conceive of a way that the requested information would aid in the implementation of such a setup. In fact, an improvement along those lines would have the exact opposite effect. (We no longer would have to consider anyone's settings.)
The site notice is reserved for our most important announcements. At any given time, countless polls are ongoing (most created with specific purposes in mind), and they don't receive links in the site notice. The notion that "hey, maybe we could use this information for something or other at some point" (not a real quotation) simply isn't a sufficient inclusion rationale.
And I know it isn't merely for English users, but that's what it is geared towards. We don't provide instructions in Swahili if it just so happens that we get somebody who speaks Swahili reading a page.
I'm not suggesting that the poll should be multilingual. My point is that it's inherently biased toward native English speakers. When it comes to something that could affect the site's usability, that's a major problem. —David Levy 14:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The format and intention of this poll renders it immediately unusable, but this has already been discussed.
I'd like to point out that neither the screen resolution OR window size have more than a minimal effect on coding for Wikipedia because the site is a fluid design, which stretches to whatever width. It's time to stop this. PretzelsTalk! 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, though. There are still multiple minor differences between aspect ratios and differences. If the new code redesigns can fix that, great. Until then, I figured we'd use this to have an idea. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...despite the fact that you have absolutely no concept of how the requested data could be used to accomplish anything of value. —David Levy 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the English Wikipedia. Design is prioritized towards English speakers, isn't it?
And at this point, all the poll was supposed to do was get some information without too much trouble. As for the sitenotice thing, I don't think a 36-hour message would cause too much panic. Of course, consensus seems to suggest otherwise. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the English Wikipedia. Design is prioritized towards English speakers, isn't it?
I assume that you're referring to native English speakers (in which case my response is "good heavens, no"). Frankly, I'm disappointed to encounter that attitude in an administrator.
English is the world's most common second language, and the English Wikipedia is tremendously valuable to people who primarily speak other languages; it contains much more information than most languages' Wikipedias do (and can be translated, of course), and it enables collaboration between individuals whose primary languages differ. And like all Wikipedias, the English Wikipedia depends upon the contributions of users the world over (many of whom obviously aren't native English speakers) to counter the inherent systemic bias toward content pertaining to people and things from cultures in which [English, in this case] is primarily spoken.
So no, an information collection method that skews the results toward native English speakers (thereby potentially reducing the site's usability for others) is not acceptable.
And at this point, all the poll was supposed to do was get some information without too much trouble.
...incomplete, biased information with no apparent use (and potential harm if it somehow were to be used).
As for the sitenotice thing, I don't think a 36-hour message would cause too much panic. Of course, consensus seems to suggest otherwise.
Panic? No. A dangerous precedent? Yes. If anyone with the sysop bit can advertise a poll (including one with no specific purpose in mind) via the site notice, many will. Suddenly, the channel through which our most important announcements is made will be filled with frivolous clutter. Before long, people will ignore/suppress it completely, and it will be rendered useless.
Let's not have that happen, okay? —David Levy 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point for the last one. However, I think you're misunderstanding me about the first point.
English is the world's most common second language, and the English Wikipedia is tremendously valuable to people who primarily speak other languages; it contains much more information than most languages' Wikipedias do (and can be translated, of course), and it enables collaboration between individuals whose primary languages differ. And like all Wikipedias, the English Wikipedia depends upon the contributions of users the world over (many of whom obviously aren't native English speakers) to counter the inherent systemic bias toward content pertaining to people and things from cultures in which [English, in this case] is primarily spoken.
I'm aware of all of this. I think you managed to get "native English speaker" out of me saying "English speaking". Again, the English Wikipedia is designed primarily for people who comprehend English to contribute. We encourage it to be as accessible as possible, within reason. I'm not sure how this would be any different from any of the content on the 'pedia; as I've said, everything here is in English (hence the name).
So no, an information collection method that skews the results toward native English speakers (thereby potentially reducing the site's usability for others) is not acceptable.
As previously stated, what do you mean? Wikipedia is an information collection method, and all of the instructions are in English; is that a major design flaw that should be fixed immediately or just something that comes with the territory of this being the English Wikipedia? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you managed to get "native English speaker" out of me saying "English speaking".
If that isn't what you meant, you weren't addressing my point, which is that people who speak English as their primary language are far more likely than others (with various degrees of fluency) to contribute to this poll. However, the site's accessibility to people with no understanding of English is not unimportant; other Wikipedias derive many of their articles from rough machine translations of ours.
Again, the English Wikipedia is designed primarily for people who comprehend English to contribute. We encourage it to be as accessible as possible, within reason. I'm not sure how this would be any different from any of the content on the 'pedia; as I've said, everything here is in English (hence the name).
The difference is that those other contributions play no role in the compilation of statistics intended for use in determining interface changes that affect the site's usability.
As previously stated, what do you mean? Wikipedia is an information collection method, and all of the instructions are in English; is that a major design flaw that should be fixed immediately or just something that comes with the territory of this being the English Wikipedia?
Again, I'm not suggesting that the poll should better accommodate speakers of other languages. I'm saying that polling is an inappropriate means of collecting this information, and that's assuming that said information is even worth collecting (which has yet to be demonstrated). —David Levy 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll drop this for now while I think about how this could be improved. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For using the sitenotice

[edit]
  • Aye. We want readers to contribute to this, not only registered users. So far it has had a good response. Besides, what's the harm in having this up there? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this for a limited period (48 or 72 hours should be sufficient). But the primary problem I see is that actual readers may have difficulty "casting a vote" unless they understand how Wikipedia works (clicking "edit", wikiformatting their "vote", etc). The devs might be able to tell you more about this since (if I recall correctly) it's possible to detect video resolution through javascript. This would be far more reliable and not require editors to "vote". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to User:Coren those JS functions aren't very reliable. Also, would people be ok with us taking their information without notifying them? I know someone's resolution isn't exactly personal, but they still may have reservations (just raising that as a concern; probably doesn't apply at all but meh). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ECMAscript ("JavaScript") is a computing language. The language is logical, it is deterministic, and the results returned by its standard library are predictably formatted. To suggestion otherwise is (a) hearsay, (b) misleading, (c) probably avoiding a very obvious solution. If there is a bug in the reporting or analysis code, then that bug can be fixed; the actual DOM calls are well documented[3][4]. —Sladen (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, if there is a bug in reporting, we can't fix that, unless we ban all buggy browsers. Also, it's possible some people may disable the function or it may be disabled by default in certain browsers. (Of course, provided the data just isn't reported at doesn't skew the results, if we don't know the resolution for 50% and that's accurately reflected in the data we know our data is useless but it may still be accurate. However if the browser lies then that's a different matter.) Whether any of these are the case, I don't know but all in all, there are a lot of issues which could make such data less then reliable. Remember, there's the theoretical aspect, then there's the practical aspect. Just because in an ideal world all the data should be super accurate since the function is simple doesn't mean that's how it is in practice Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Already found one bug in the reporting [5] albeit not one thats likely to be that common. Also from what I've read, the functions you describe are only for reporting the current screen width and height. They don't tell us anything about the user's window size and height. If the user is not running the browser window maximised or if the OS or browser takes up a lot of additional space, they're basically useless. There may be other functions but how reliable and common these are I don't know. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as only the aggregate date is given to us (not information about individual readers screen sizes) I don't see that there's any particular harm. The information you seem to be concerned with is "percentage of readers with display resolution X", and so forth. That information is not a privacy concern. As noted above, screen resolution may not, by itself, be a useful bit of information since not every reader works with a maximized browser. If there were a way to determine the actual window size (which I think there is) you might be on to something more useful for redesigning the main page. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also don't think it would be a privacy problem, provided we use our own webservers (which I would guess we are). I know the foundation is opposed to any use of external webservers (since we have no control over what information those servers store) and it is clearly against the privacy policy. In any case, if there is real disagreement about whether this violates the privacy policy, it's probably best if we just ask the foundation since they set the policy and it's one area where they've been clear people shouldn't come up with novel interpretations Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against using the sitenotice

[edit]
  • Did you miss the number of people complaining about the donation notice? Granted, this wouldn't be as huge, but the principle remains the same. Regardless, that doesn't change the inevitable inaccuracy of the results or the issue of working to standards. Modest Genius talk 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_page/Monitor_poll&oldid=1257931873"