3 ms·
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 mod
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoSnake 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 agoAnd three lines of CSS would make it readable on wide displays. Somehow not included in those 35KB.
- alias_neo 8y agoI 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