4 ms·
And ironically enough, whatever they use to set width of the text doesn't work for me. Web working for everyone is easy, you just don't add crapton of pointles
by Aoyagi 10y ago
And ironically enough, whatever they use to set width of the text doesn't work for me.
Web working for everyone is easy, you just don't add crapton of pointless script bloat and use what's been working for decades - unless you need to do something special, but then you can't expect it to work for everyone.
- CaptSpify 10y agoThis is what's so frustrating to me. A perfectly working web is easy. Most sites actually put more effort into making it work less. This is insane to me. Keep it simple and minimal (in size, features, frameworks, etc, not "lots of whitespace") and it will work for more users. Most sites are not special snowflakes. There are exceptions where lots of formatting/scripting needs to happen, but most sites are better off without.
- nathancahill 10y agohttp://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
- kps 10y agoYes, but — as soon as Cascading Style Sheets existed, browsers should have had a sane base so that http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ looked like http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
- CaptSpify 10y agoI actually think styling should all be done client-side. What I mean is: A site should display only text. Then the browser should have style done via user-defined settings that apply to all sites. There are exceptions where the style is part of the content, but those sites are rare.
- nathancahill 10y agoI think that's what Reader Mode does in most browsers.
- e12e 10y agoIt's kind of odd that there seems to a consensus that user stylesheets are out, but that "reader mode" is a thing. On might have thought that the modern browsers would come with a sane css baseline, making simple html-sites with headers, paragraphs etc look at least as good as a typical Medium.com site (or indeed, like "reader mode") - rather than insisting that every single author add completely redundant reinvention of basic styling.
- patates 10y agoThere comes the question, why not go a bit further and make it like https://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/ https://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/ And then we start displaying ads. Maybe add analytics? Probably a developer with 300 stars implemented scrolling better in JS than the boring old native. Then you look at the calendar and it's already 2016.
- ploxiln 10y agoI was only familiar with the original, and enjoyed finding out about these "better" and "best" variants. But I'll note: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ is really quite good, and it's a single 4KB request http://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/ http://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/ is 19 requests, 1.37MB, and the appearance and functionality are terrible Yeah it's what everyone does these days, but it's everything I hate about the "modern" websites: * it shows no content without scrolling * full background photos with no relationship to the content * gratuitous transitions and layout changes with only the most tenuous relationship to the content There's also a link to http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/ http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/ which cuts the contrast too far, but otherwise is fine, and only 5KB. So really, the "best" variant is not "a bit further", it's a full hop/skip/jump into the deep-end of "modern" anti-patterns
- JBiserkov 10y agoThese are the 7 declarations + the bonus one suggested in the text. body { background-color: #EEEEEE; /* bonus */ color: #444; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 40px auto; max-width: 650px; padding: 0 10px; } h1, h2, h3 { line-height: 1.2; }