Unifying our mobile and desktop domains
146 points
16 hours ago
| 7 comments
| techblog.wikimedia.org
| HN
porphyra
9 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
wolrah
7 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
theshrike79
15 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
sfRattan
9 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
porphyra
8 hours ago
[-]
Yeah, in the olden days, there was no max-width for desktop wikipedia, so the readability was not good.
reply
internetter
5 hours ago
[-]
I still use the old site and personally prefer it
reply
Wowfunhappy
8 hours ago
[-]
> 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.)

reply
booi
7 hours ago
[-]
You would just change the dimensions using the browser devtools no user agent faking needed
reply
eru
7 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
Wowfunhappy
7 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
ncruces
2 hours ago
[-]
Tapping the share button (on mobile) instead of copying the link always used the non-mobile address, AFAICT.
reply
phkx
3 hours ago
[-]
I use the mobile page on desktop. Less clutter is always welcome.
reply
andrepd
7 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
sedatk
11 hours ago
[-]
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!

reply
flexagoon
36 minutes ago
[-]
The link in your comment works perfectly fine for me in Chrome Android, and highlights the part
reply
kevin_thibedeau
6 hours ago
[-]
You also can't search for text in collapsed sections.
reply
SchemaLoad
11 hours ago
[-]
About 10 years late, I can't think of any websites other than Wikipedia still doing the mobile domain.
reply
layer8
11 hours ago
[-]
YouTube? Twitch? FaceBook? GSMArena? There are lots.
reply
sedatk
10 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
SoKamil
9 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
eru
7 hours ago
[-]
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.)

reply
Insanity
4 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
encrypted_bird
5 hours ago
[-]
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.)
reply
RealStickman_
4 hours ago
[-]
Long press on the image to get the alt-text on desktop xkcd
reply
micromacrofoot
11 hours ago
[-]
late for what?
reply
NooneAtAll3
9 hours ago
[-]
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

reply
sedatk
10 hours ago
[-]
Late for fixing design and UX bifurcation.
reply
janpio
14 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
bawolff
10 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
NooneAtAll3
9 hours ago
[-]
wdym?

isn't "new" pc design that's been around for last couple years pretty much mobile one already? (and thus ugly af)

reply
bawolff
7 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
fowl2
3 hours ago
[-]
Incredible that no one from Google noticed this as a regression from their side and either put a workaround in or contacted Wikimedia.
reply
lxgr
11 hours ago
[-]
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?!

reply
LeoPanthera
10 hours ago
[-]
It's surely much less of a problem than most non-technical users wondering why Wikipedia URLs start with "en" instead of "www".
reply
lxgr
45 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
autoexec
6 hours ago
[-]
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.
reply
loeg
4 hours ago
[-]
Hey, when you spend over $100 million a year to run your website, that's the kind of thoughtful analysis one might expect.
reply
pr337h4m
11 hours ago
[-]
The mobile view is a really pleasant reading experience on desktop.
reply
lxgr
43 minutes ago
[-]
Admittedly, it does make for some good impromptu neck exercises on any typical screen.
reply
bawolff
10 hours ago
[-]
> 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...

reply
jonny_eh
11 hours ago
[-]
Now it's your turn YouTube…
reply