7 ms·

Actually, no thanks. "Sementic" structure is how we got responsive web soup of ugly websites with hamburger menus. We need the opposite, we need a format that

Actually, no thanks. "Sementic" structure is how we got responsive web soup of ugly websites with hamburger menus. We need the opposite, we need a format that stays the same size, same proportions and is vectorized so you can zoom to any size - however, the relationship of space between elements remains constant. PDF is an amazing format IMO. Think of it like Docker - the designer knows exactly how its going to appear on the user's device.

nradov 7y ago
The problems you describe have nothing to do with the semantic web. Those are orthogonal issues.
- machinelabo 7y ago
  No, not everything is orthogonal. When you have sementic structure, you're gonna display it in responsive and adaptive way. That __breaks__ the design intent. For a designer, WYSIWYG is godsent. the parent comment is right - PDF is like a Docker container for designers - people who work with media. If you have opposing thoughts, please elaborate further instead of simply saying "nothing to do with it". HN works by explaining and arguing about issues to get to the bottom of something.
  - aasasd 7y ago
    > For a designer, WYSIWYG is godsent. the parent comment is right - PDF is like a Docker container for designers - people who work with media. Sorta like this then, more rigidly conveying the designer's intended layout: https://bureau.rocks/projects/book-typography-en/ https://bureau.rocks/projects/book-typography-en/ ? (Though these ‘books’ are almost the opposite of what I'm advocating for, in terms of formatting.)
aasasd 7y ago
So you're saying that if you have HTML as a tool then you're irresistibly drawn to making a complex page with menus and ugliness? I don't think that's a problem in HTML. I think the problem is in your head. > we need a format that stays the same size, same proportions Please explain how this helps people read a paper on screens of different sizes and proportions. Like me on my phone.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments. We've had to ask you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - aasasd 7y ago
    It's pretty obviously not a personal attack.
    - dang 7y ago
      I read "I think the problem is in your head" as talking about the other user personally. Looking more closely, I can read it as a general statement, in which case it wasn't a personal attack. Statements of the form "So you're saying [obviously stupid thing]?" still break the site guidelines, though. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - aasasd 7y ago
        Well, firstly I don't need to place words in fermienrico's mouth, since the comment to which I was replying says: ‘"Sementic" structure is how we got responsive web soup of ugly websites with hamburger menus’. On my part I'm trying to figure out why fermienrico considers that connection to be inevitable, in the context of HTML production, as compared to PDF production—i.e. with my correspondent taking the place of an author. Next: > I don't think that's a problem in HTML. I think the problem is in your head. This directly addresses fermienrico's complaint as being targeted at HTML. The ‘in your head’ part says that the problem is imaginary and that the person's reasoning and motivation in arriving at that connection is a mystery to me. So there are two meanings combined, both of which aren't ad hominems. The statement also deliberately invokes the words of the character of Preobrazhensky from Bulgakov's ‘Heart of a Dog’, on the condition of the fresh-born Soviet Union: “The Disruption isn't in the lavatories, it's in the heads”. Let's inspect the statement more closely. The use of the second-person ‘you’ in hypothetical constructs is ubiquitous in English, instead of a third-person ‘a man’ or ‘one’, e.g.: “When you try reading PDF on a phone, you experience unspeakable horror and loss of all hope”—this doesn't imply that the addressed correspondent is the one doing this, and in fact may be directed at multiple unknown readers or listeners. The hyperbole of ‘you're nuts’ is, to my knowledge, also a typical feature of colloquial English language, e.g.: “You must be crazy to try reading PDF on a phone”, or “What's wrong with you, that tablet is too small to display PDF adequately”. These both don't mean that the correspondent is literally mentally damaged, but that the speaking party doesn't understand their reasoning or doesn't agree with it. My choice of words there is rather harsh, yes. Why I needed that is, I've had this same discussion before and I repeatedly failed to extract from people the reasons why they make this inference. I tried different approaches, and now came the time of directly placing the person in the shoes of an author. Still nothing so far. On top of all this and nitpicking further, even disregarding the above I still can't quite fit the statement in a ‘personal attack’ category: as I understand it, an ‘ad hominem’ works by carrying a belief ‘the person has some bad quality A’ over to ‘the person's opinion B hence must be wrong’. In the case of ‘you must be insane/naive to have the opinion B’ no other personal qualities are involved, and the opinion B is directly stated to be wrong. Possibly uncivil and possibly unsupported yes, personal no. P.S. Could someone please make the ‘collapse comments’ button-link larger on phones? It's even worse on a higher-PPI display, easily taking a dozen attempts to hit it—and extensions like Stylus aren't readily available on phones, what with Firefox dumping them in Preview. Just making the link a dozen characters wide would be splendid.

nradov 7y ago

The problems you describe have nothing to do with the semantic web. Those are orthogonal issues.

machinelabo 7y ago
No, not everything is orthogonal. When you have sementic structure, you're gonna display it in responsive and adaptive way. That __breaks__ the design intent. For a designer, WYSIWYG is godsent. the parent comment is right - PDF is like a Docker container for designers - people who work with media. If you have opposing thoughts, please elaborate further instead of simply saying "nothing to do with it". HN works by explaining and arguing about issues to get to the bottom of something.
- aasasd 7y ago
  > For a designer, WYSIWYG is godsent. the parent comment is right - PDF is like a Docker container for designers - people who work with media. Sorta like this then, more rigidly conveying the designer's intended layout: https://bureau.rocks/projects/book-typography-en/ https://bureau.rocks/projects/book-typography-en/ ? (Though these ‘books’ are almost the opposite of what I'm advocating for, in terms of formatting.)

aasasd 7y ago

So you're saying that if you have HTML as a tool then you're irresistibly drawn to making a complex page with menus and ugliness? I don't think that's a problem in HTML. I think the problem is in your head. > we need a format that stays the same size, same proportions Please explain how this helps people read a paper on screens of different sizes and proportions. Like me on my phone.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dang 7y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments. We've had to ask you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- aasasd 7y ago
  It's pretty obviously not a personal attack.
  - dang 7y ago
    I read "I think the problem is in your head" as talking about the other user personally. Looking more closely, I can read it as a general statement, in which case it wasn't a personal attack. Statements of the form "So you're saying [obviously stupid thing]?" still break the site guidelines, though. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - aasasd 7y ago
      Well, firstly I don't need to place words in fermienrico's mouth, since the comment to which I was replying says: ‘"Sementic" structure is how we got responsive web soup of ugly websites with hamburger menus’. On my part I'm trying to figure out why fermienrico considers that connection to be inevitable, in the context of HTML production, as compared to PDF production—i.e. with my correspondent taking the place of an author. Next: > I don't think that's a problem in HTML. I think the problem is in your head. This directly addresses fermienrico's complaint as being targeted at HTML. The ‘in your head’ part says that the problem is imaginary and that the person's reasoning and motivation in arriving at that connection is a mystery to me. So there are two meanings combined, both of which aren't ad hominems. The statement also deliberately invokes the words of the character of Preobrazhensky from Bulgakov's ‘Heart of a Dog’, on the condition of the fresh-born Soviet Union: “The Disruption isn't in the lavatories, it's in the heads”. Let's inspect the statement more closely. The use of the second-person ‘you’ in hypothetical constructs is ubiquitous in English, instead of a third-person ‘a man’ or ‘one’, e.g.: “When you try reading PDF on a phone, you experience unspeakable horror and loss of all hope”—this doesn't imply that the addressed correspondent is the one doing this, and in fact may be directed at multiple unknown readers or listeners. The hyperbole of ‘you're nuts’ is, to my knowledge, also a typical feature of colloquial English language, e.g.: “You must be crazy to try reading PDF on a phone”, or “What's wrong with you, that tablet is too small to display PDF adequately”. These both don't mean that the correspondent is literally mentally damaged, but that the speaking party doesn't understand their reasoning or doesn't agree with it. My choice of words there is rather harsh, yes. Why I needed that is, I've had this same discussion before and I repeatedly failed to extract from people the reasons why they make this inference. I tried different approaches, and now came the time of directly placing the person in the shoes of an author. Still nothing so far. On top of all this and nitpicking further, even disregarding the above I still can't quite fit the statement in a ‘personal attack’ category: as I understand it, an ‘ad hominem’ works by carrying a belief ‘the person has some bad quality A’ over to ‘the person's opinion B hence must be wrong’. In the case of ‘you must be insane/naive to have the opinion B’ no other personal qualities are involved, and the opinion B is directly stated to be wrong. Possibly uncivil and possibly unsupported yes, personal no. P.S. Could someone please make the ‘collapse comments’ button-link larger on phones? It's even worse on a higher-PPI display, easily taking a dozen attempts to hit it—and extensions like Stylus aren't readily available on phones, what with Firefox dumping them in Preview. Just making the link a dozen characters wide would be splendid.