| Novem_Linguae | |
| Jul 21 2023, 2:09 PM |
| F37145580: Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 15.10.06.png | |
| Jul 21 2023, 2:12 PM |
| F37145584: Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 15.10.43.png | |
| Jul 21 2023, 2:12 PM |
| F37145577: image.png | |
| Jul 21 2023, 2:09 PM |
Reported by @Hey_man_im_josh on Discord
Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):
What happens?:
What should have happened instead?:
Software version (skip for WMF-hosted wikis like Wikipedia):
Other information (browser name/version, screenshots, etc.):
Direct comparison:
I find the new version a lot easier to parse visually, even though it adds a small amount of whitespace - the text isn't really visually separated at all in the old version, whereas it's much easier for me to parse that the article text is distinct from the predicted class information in the new version.
I do wonder if that text should be better aligned with the 'Potential issues', since they seem to be slightly offset from each other.
The misalignment between the icon and the page link bother me, as does the misalignment between the predirected class and potential issues. I personally feel like there's a lot of wasted space with the additional line added between the page preview and the predicted class.
We're planning to address some of this in T342435, but I personally don't think we should revert the whitespace highlighted in this task because I think this does improve legibility.
Instead of making this task about the spacing between specific elements, could we make it about the underlying issue? Eg. You don't want such a reduction in the number of visible rows. I think there is room to pick up vertical real estate from several spots.
I did some tests just now, and recent patches have fixed the "reduction in the number of visible rows" issue and also the padding issue. Should be OK to close this one as resolved.