"noc.wikimedia.org, which provides up-to-date copies of files not included in the Wikimedia subversion (SVN) repository, now applies appropriate syntax highlighting to many of its files." Maybe I'm missing something you're saying here, but the syntax highlighting is nothing new. ^demon[omg plz]13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe it's more (?) syntax highlighting "07:38 JeLuF: enabled PHP modules on fenari so that noc.wikimedia.org deliveres syntax highlighted config files." - I was kinda guessing what he meant by "config", I assume a large number of files but it was just a guess. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody reply with a link to any actual statistics that conclusively show that Vector is liked by users more than Monobook? Has any usability study been done here? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the usability study said "X, Y, and Z components of Monobook need improving". Vector is an attempt to ease that. Statistics exists for the number of people who opted-out of Vector; I can't recall the exact figure, but it was something like 10%. No-one has yet, to the best of my knowledge, asked the readers which they prefer. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jarry1250. I hadn't seen that number before. Ten percent actually sounds like an very large percentage to me. It seems to me like the bulk of users never go out of their way to change anything (think IE, etc.). Jason Quinn (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe a better stat would be that 17% of users that opted in to the trial opted out again before Vector went live. Since both processes were one, possibly two clicks - and Vector has by most people's estimations got better since then - I think it's fair to draw the conclusion that most editors prefer Vector. Maybe not all, but most. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]10:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Technology report