4 ms·

Site is also non-responsive with <meta name="viewport" content="width=640" />, looks horrifying on the 12.9’’ iPad Pro even without taking color scheme into acc

by oefrha 7y ago

Site is also non-responsive with <meta name="viewport" content="width=640" />, looks horrifying on the 12.9’’ iPad Pro even without taking color scheme into account. I know complaining about blog design is out of scope, but if @tonsky is reading this thread, please consider fixing your meta viewport tag.

saagarjha 7y ago
> I hope you have a wide enough monitor to read this. Perhaps they're merely unaware of how their website looks?
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  Yeah, I did think it was amusing reading that on my 27" 2550px wide monitor monitor that the site formatted it so narrowly. https://i.imgur.com/VG31Kpj.png https://i.imgur.com/VG31Kpj.png
  - Fauntleroy 7y ago
    For body copy that line length is pretty much ideal (for readability), but the code blocks could definitely benefit from being as wide as possible...
    - madeofpalk 7y ago
      Yeah, the reading experience was pretty comfortable. Just thought it was amusing that the author hoped I had a big monitor when the author constrains the code blocks to such a narrow width.
- jamil7 7y ago
  This part also tripped me up since I _was_ on a large monitor but the width was tiny.
- oefrha 7y ago
  Or they use some special monospace font where 157 characters at 16px could somehow fit into a 544px wide column (well, that still got nothing to do with monitor width, though).
- stan_rogers 7y ago
  That refers to a <pre> block with no carriage returns, which ordinarily wouldn't wrap.
barbecue_sauce 7y ago
I always see people complain about the narrowness of Medium and think they're overreacting, but this site is pretty extreme. I could fit 3 of these side-by-side across my 13" MacBook Pro's screen.
briandear 7y ago
> I know complaining about blog design is out of scope In this case, considering the topic, such a complaint is really warranted. A set of sensible defaults for that blog would have made it more readable — the blog design is pretty much a rebuttal of the content.

by oefrha 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

> I hope you have a wide enough monitor to read this. Perhaps they're merely unaware of how their website looks?

madeofpalk 7y ago
Yeah, I did think it was amusing reading that on my 27" 2550px wide monitor monitor that the site formatted it so narrowly. https://i.imgur.com/VG31Kpj.png https://i.imgur.com/VG31Kpj.png
- Fauntleroy 7y ago
  For body copy that line length is pretty much ideal (for readability), but the code blocks could definitely benefit from being as wide as possible...
  - madeofpalk 7y ago
    Yeah, the reading experience was pretty comfortable. Just thought it was amusing that the author hoped I had a big monitor when the author constrains the code blocks to such a narrow width.
jamil7 7y ago
This part also tripped me up since I _was_ on a large monitor but the width was tiny.
oefrha 7y ago
Or they use some special monospace font where 157 characters at 16px could somehow fit into a 544px wide column (well, that still got nothing to do with monitor width, though).
stan_rogers 7y ago
That refers to a <pre> block with no carriage returns, which ordinarily wouldn't wrap.

barbecue_sauce 7y ago

I always see people complain about the narrowness of Medium and think they're overreacting, but this site is pretty extreme. I could fit 3 of these side-by-side across my 13" MacBook Pro's screen.

briandear 7y ago

> I know complaining about blog design is out of scope In this case, considering the topic, such a complaint is really warranted. A set of sensible defaults for that blog would have made it more readable — the blog design is pretty much a rebuttal of the content.