4 ms·

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

kps 10y ago
Yes, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  I think that's what Reader Mode does in most browsers.
  - e12e 10y ago
    It'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 ago
  There 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 ago
    I 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 ago
These 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; }

kps 10y ago

Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago
I think that's what Reader Mode does in most browsers.
- e12e 10y ago
  It'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 ago
There 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 ago
  I 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 ago

These 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; }