5 ms·
Completely unrelated to the article, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on full-width lines of text characteristic of unstyled HTML. I've seen some[1]
by azdavis 10y ago
Completely unrelated to the article, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on full-width lines of text characteristic of unstyled HTML.
I've seen some[1] bemoan its impacts on readability and others[2] complain about websites which artificially restrict themselves to (what can be) a narrow slice of the viewport.
[1]: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com
[2]: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/2Ndtw3ZBRX2 https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/2Ndtw3ZBRX2
- rch 10y agoOn desktop I reflexively zoomed in to %125 and didn't think about it until I read your comment. It also has a reasonable default font size my phone, so it's easy to read quickly. This is pretty rare since browsers gave up on text reflow.
- hex13 10y agoI begin to think that nowadays websites are just designed for "zooming in" in mind (very small fonts, too many space etc.). So maybe we shouldn't complain. These websites are just meant to be zoomed. Although some web developers are cruel and block zoom with meta tag (I never understood why some developers did that, maybe for trolling people with poor sight?).
- exadeci 10y agoPretty simple, we won't bother reading, I just read the comments instead of trying to read that awful formatting. >7 fucking declarations. Would have been nice