It was mildly annoying how en.wikipedia.org would redirect to en.m.wikipedia.org on mobile, but en.m.wikipedia.org wouldn't redirect to en.wikipedia.org on desktop. So when a mobile user sent me a link, I had to go and manually delete the '.m' in order to view it nicely. But I guess it makes sense since desktop developers need to be able to see the mobile site sometimes.
I have always hated "m." domains for exactly this reason. They almost exclusively go one-way, mobile users get redirected to the mobile domain but desktop users never get redirected back, and all too often not only was the mobile version of the site objectively worse from the perspective of a desktop user but even the link to go back manually was either hard to find or nonexistent.
Wikipedia was one of the worst offenders, but lots of sites screwed this up in exactly the same way, and I feel it was a predecessor to modern "mobile first" web platforms that either treat desktop as second-class users or actively don't want desktop users.
There was a period I can recall, maybe 2010 to 2020 most prominently, when a subset of HN readers strongly preferred the mobile Wikipedia site, even on desktop, and would always use ".m" linking to Wikipedia articles in comments threads. This also seemed to happen in reddit threads during that decade.
I sort of remember some of the older MediaWiki desktop themes looking worse than the mobile theme, but it was never enough for me personally to try always using the mobile site at the time. I do still strongly prefer old.reddit.com... For as long as that portal continues to exist.
Your website might want to present a different interface for people using mouse and keyboard than for people using tiny touch screens? Even if the number of pixels in the browser window is otherwise the same.
I think Wikipedia redirected based on user agent, but yes, whatever, point is if you're a developer you can use the browser devtools to simulate whatever you need.
That's a welcome development albeit late, but more importantly, they should address the "can't link to a highlight" problem on mobile. When all sections are collapsed by default, browser won't scroll to the relevant section.
m.youtube.com and m.facebook.com redirect you to main "m-less" domain when on desktop. That was the greatest problem with Wikipedia. You had to experience that mobile layout on desktop unless you edited the address line and reloaded the page.
m.wikipedia.org was a feature, not a bug. The interface is good on desktop. For some time, before Wikipedia did a desktop site rework, this was my go-to frontend.
Guess this also means I’m getting old as I remember the earlier comics about his partner going through this. I think this is the first one I read after I became a “weekly reader”: https://xkcd.com/1141.
I was hoping this was a unification of the both layouts as well, that would have been really impressive. The mobile version of the article pages is great, but getting both versions from the same frontend would be an amazing case study.
The new one (called vector-2022) is much closer to mobile stylings, but not the same. The mobile skin is called minerva. On top of that the mobile site makes some changes to the content to simplify it, and replaces some elements.
I'd be surprised if anyone but the oldest non-technical users had any idea what the "www" was or why it would or wouldn't be at the front of a URL. It takes zero technical knowledge to understand "en" indicates the language and probably rarely comes up since you can use www or omit the en and links mostly just work.
They might wonder (although I doubt it), but it’s nothing actionable.
With m., they used to see a mobile layout that’s a really poor fit for a desktop screen and that they would have manually switch out of via some relatively obscure button.
It was mildly annoying how en.wikipedia.org would redirect to en.m.wikipedia.org on mobile, but en.m.wikipedia.org wouldn't redirect to en.wikipedia.org on desktop. So when a mobile user sent me a link, I had to go and manually delete the '.m' in order to view it nicely. But I guess it makes sense since desktop developers need to be able to see the mobile site sometimes.
I have always hated "m." domains for exactly this reason. They almost exclusively go one-way, mobile users get redirected to the mobile domain but desktop users never get redirected back, and all too often not only was the mobile version of the site objectively worse from the perspective of a desktop user but even the link to go back manually was either hard to find or nonexistent.
Wikipedia was one of the worst offenders, but lots of sites screwed this up in exactly the same way, and I feel it was a predecessor to modern "mobile first" web platforms that either treat desktop as second-class users or actively don't want desktop users.
The m. was still better than the (thankfully short-lived) fad of everyone buying a .mobi or similar domain for their mobile site.
Like the subdomain was RIGHT THERE.
There was a period I can recall, maybe 2010 to 2020 most prominently, when a subset of HN readers strongly preferred the mobile Wikipedia site, even on desktop, and would always use ".m" linking to Wikipedia articles in comments threads. This also seemed to happen in reddit threads during that decade.
I sort of remember some of the older MediaWiki desktop themes looking worse than the mobile theme, but it was never enough for me personally to try always using the mobile site at the time. I do still strongly prefer old.reddit.com... For as long as that portal continues to exist.
Yeah, in the olden days, there was no max-width for desktop wikipedia, so the readability was not good.
I still use the old site and personally prefer it
> But I guess it makes sense since desktop developers need to be able to see the mobile site sometimes.
IMO this isn't a good reason. Developers can change the user agent.
(I also imagine there could be a no-redirect preference for logged in users. Or even just a special query string you could add to the end of a url.)
You would just change the dimensions using the browser devtools no user agent faking needed
I'm not sure dimensions are all that's different?
Your website might want to present a different interface for people using mouse and keyboard than for people using tiny touch screens? Even if the number of pixels in the browser window is otherwise the same.
I think Wikipedia redirected based on user agent, but yes, whatever, point is if you're a developer you can use the browser devtools to simulate whatever you need.
Tapping the share button (on mobile) instead of copying the link always used the non-mobile address, AFAICT.
I use the mobile page on desktop. Less clutter is always welcome.
> But I guess it makes sense since desktop developers need to be able to see the mobile site sometimes.
That is not at all the reason; did you read the article?.
Also web developers can just use devtools to simulate a mobile browser.
That's a welcome development albeit late, but more importantly, they should address the "can't link to a highlight" problem on mobile. When all sections are collapsed by default, browser won't scroll to the relevant section.
A random "link to highlight" example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_of_Cyprus#:~:text=On%2...
Such a link doesn't work on mobile if it points inside a collapsed section.
That makes directing people to relevant content on mobile really hard, and I end up sending screenshots instead.
EDIT: "Link to fragment"s had the same problem, but apparently, they fixed it. Thanks for that too!
You also can't search for text in collapsed sections.
The link in your comment works perfectly fine for me in Chrome Android, and highlights the part
About 10 years late, I can't think of any websites other than Wikipedia still doing the mobile domain.
YouTube? Twitch? FaceBook? GSMArena? There are lots.
m.youtube.com and m.facebook.com redirect you to main "m-less" domain when on desktop. That was the greatest problem with Wikipedia. You had to experience that mobile layout on desktop unless you edited the address line and reloaded the page.
m.wikipedia.org was a feature, not a bug. The interface is good on desktop. For some time, before Wikipedia did a desktop site rework, this was my go-to frontend.
https://m.xkcd.com/ is one example that I actually find useful.
(Well, the mobile view is useful. Not sure whether splitting it off into its own domain is useful.)
Very touching current XKCD. https://xkcd.com/3172.
Guess this also means I’m getting old as I remember the earlier comics about his partner going through this. I think this is the first one I read after I became a “weekly reader”: https://xkcd.com/1141.
I agree. AFAICT there is no way to view a comic's alt-text on mobile on the desktop site. (Also, the desktop site is way too zoomed out.)
Long press on the image to get the alt-text on desktop xkcd
late for what?
pc website redirected mobile users from the very beginning
mobile website did not redirect pc users
10 years late at fixing this very basic problem
Late for fixing design and UX bifurcation.
Incredible that no one from Google noticed this as a regression from their side and either put a workaround in or contacted Wikimedia.
Great job.
I was hoping this was a unification of the both layouts as well, that would have been really impressive. The mobile version of the article pages is great, but getting both versions from the same frontend would be an amazing case study.
The mobile site is relatively unpopular among editors, i think there would be a riot if they did that.
That said, there is a "desktop" version of the mobile skin, you can get it by appending ?useskin=minerva to a wikipedia url.
I use that trick to still get the vector layout. No version past that is to my personal liking.
wdym?
isn't "new" pc design that's been around for last couple years pretty much mobile one already? (and thus ugly af)
The new one (called vector-2022) is much closer to mobile stylings, but not the same. The mobile skin is called minerva. On top of that the mobile site makes some changes to the content to simplify it, and replaces some elements.
Finally! But…
> Wikipedia’s use of it is surprising to our present day audience, and it may decrease the perceived strength of domain branding
Really? That’s the reasoning, and not the fact that mobile links forwarded to desktop browsers would render the mobile view?!
It's surely much less of a problem than most non-technical users wondering why Wikipedia URLs start with "en" instead of "www".
I'd be surprised if anyone but the oldest non-technical users had any idea what the "www" was or why it would or wouldn't be at the front of a URL. It takes zero technical knowledge to understand "en" indicates the language and probably rarely comes up since you can use www or omit the en and links mostly just work.
They might wonder (although I doubt it), but it’s nothing actionable.
With m., they used to see a mobile layout that’s a really poor fit for a desktop screen and that they would have manually switch out of via some relatively obscure button.
The mobile view is a really pleasant reading experience on desktop.
Admittedly, it does make for some good impromptu neck exercises on any typical screen.
Hey, when you spend over $100 million a year to run your website, that's the kind of thoughtful analysis one might expect.
> Really? That’s the reasoning, and not the fact that mobile links forwarded to desktop browsers would render the mobile view?!
If you read the more technical internal rationals instead of just the press release, what you said is mentioned as one of the reasons for the change
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Mobile_d...
Now it's your turn YouTube…