5 ms·

Or reader mode in Firefox. But agree, there's something hilarious about a guy complaining about bad design interactions - meanwhile his website is almost unread

Or reader mode in Firefox. But agree, there's something hilarious about a guy complaining about bad design interactions - meanwhile his website is almost unreadable on a desktop PC, with whole paragraphs stretching the length of the window.

jl6 8y ago
I'm willing to cut the website some slack. It's 15 years old and still online. It's also only 35KB and loads fast. By comparison to the cesspool that is any modern monetized website, this was a joy to read.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  Yeah, fair enough. In 2004, I think I was still running 1024x768, so this would have been less of a problem then, and newer articles have a better layout: https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ (2014)
  - nailer 8y ago
    Snake text (ie, copying existing learnings from newspaper column widths) was already a thing in 1996 > The column was the first example of what the Web magazine Salon (www.salon1999.com) dismissed as "snake text," meaning the story ran in one long, narrow column. While the reader has to constantly scroll through snake text, the narrow width is far easier to read than, say, oh-I-dunno, Salon's ripped-from-a-magazine page format. https://www.wired.com/1996/11/web-dreams-2/ https://www.wired.com/1996/11/web-dreams-2/
- wffurr 8y ago
  And three lines of CSS would make it readable on wide displays. Somehow not included in those 35KB.
- alias_neo 8y ago
  I have to agree. Having managed to read both articles, which loaded instantly, while on a high-speed, cross-country train journey using mobile hotspot to my laptop, small is good, and even on a 4K, 15.6-inch screen, make the window smaller if you don't like the flow, or use reading mode. Or zoom in :D
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I for one am kinda sick of websites that shove all their content into a narrow band in the middle of the page. What's the point in having all this complicated layout bullshit if it doesn't actually make use of the space it gets on a larger screen?
- nomel 8y ago
  Human eyes are bad at tracking long lines of text. A general guide is 100 character line widths, maximum. Unfortunately, multiple columns are seen as ugly.
glaberficken 8y ago
>"meanwhile his website is almost unreadable on a desktop PC, with whole paragraphs stretching the length of the window" That is not a fair point at all. Resize your window and the content flows with it. What better layout can you demand from a 15yo fast loading webpage that is still online?

jl6 8y ago

I'm willing to cut the website some slack. It's 15 years old and still online. It's also only 35KB and loads fast. By comparison to the cesspool that is any modern monetized website, this was a joy to read.

guitarbill 8y ago
Yeah, fair enough. In 2004, I think I was still running 1024x768, so this would have been less of a problem then, and newer articles have a better layout: https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ (2014)
- nailer 8y ago
  Snake text (ie, copying existing learnings from newspaper column widths) was already a thing in 1996 > The column was the first example of what the Web magazine Salon (www.salon1999.com) dismissed as "snake text," meaning the story ran in one long, narrow column. While the reader has to constantly scroll through snake text, the narrow width is far easier to read than, say, oh-I-dunno, Salon's ripped-from-a-magazine page format. https://www.wired.com/1996/11/web-dreams-2/ https://www.wired.com/1996/11/web-dreams-2/
wffurr 8y ago
And three lines of CSS would make it readable on wide displays. Somehow not included in those 35KB.
alias_neo 8y ago
I have to agree. Having managed to read both articles, which loaded instantly, while on a high-speed, cross-country train journey using mobile hotspot to my laptop, small is good, and even on a 4K, 15.6-inch screen, make the window smaller if you don't like the flow, or use reading mode. Or zoom in :D

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I for one am kinda sick of websites that shove all their content into a narrow band in the middle of the page. What's the point in having all this complicated layout bullshit if it doesn't actually make use of the space it gets on a larger screen?

nomel 8y ago
Human eyes are bad at tracking long lines of text. A general guide is 100 character line widths, maximum. Unfortunately, multiple columns are seen as ugly.

glaberficken 8y ago

>"meanwhile his website is almost unreadable on a desktop PC, with whole paragraphs stretching the length of the window" That is not a fair point at all. Resize your window and the content flows with it. What better layout can you demand from a 15yo fast loading webpage that is still online?