4 ms·

1. UA config doesn't even enter into this. No one the new design is supposed to help doesn't know how to configure their UA or even what it is. 2. Consider the

1. UA config doesn't even enter into this. No one the new design is supposed to help doesn't know how to configure their UA or even what it is. 2. Consider these 3 images: https://postimg.cc/gallery/X78M9ms https://postimg.cc/gallery/X78M9ms 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has a text that looks good on the designer's macbook. As it happens, the latter is borderline unusable -- an article not longer than a handful of tweets doesn't even fit on one page. P.S. Until today, I genuinely thought that wikiwand was some kind of ad farm, from seeing it pop up in google search.

cxr 6y ago
> 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has [...] No, one of them (Wikiwand) has "normal sized text", and the other two have objectively shrunken text. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. Both HN and Wikipedia, like I mentioned before, are overriding the text size in their stylesheets to force the main body text to display at a size smaller than the UA preferred size. Wikiwand is using the correct font scaling. If you have a problem with the size of the text on the Wikiwand page, it's because your UA is configured to show text at a size that you have a problem with. It's up to you to deal with that. For an example of what properly-sized text looks like, have a look at http://cr.yp.to http://cr.yp.to or http://danluu.com http://danluu.com. These sites are not sending any "designer" styles to your browser (aside from the 8 lines of CSS for the latter, which don't affect the text size). Besides that, your criticism of Wikiwand's design is dominated by details about its layout and not its text size. But I didn't say Wikiwand was the best layout in the world; it's not, and I don't even use it. But it's still not worse than Wikipedia's overly-designed Vector skin.
- def_true_false 6y ago
  You are right, the font-size is not the main problem with Wikiwand. I tried zooming in until the text was the same size on the Vector skin and it's usable. Nevertheless, I don't think it's a coincidence that sites like old.reddit, HN and Wikipedia all use a similar font-size. Less so on Wikipedia, since the Vector redesign increased the size a bit. I don't get what's wrong with the Vector skin though... The only thing I would change is the language options in the sidebar -- no reason for the collapsible search box thingy. Just list all the languages as tuples of (native name, name in current language). Other than that I think it's great, no doubt thanks to all the effort spent polishing it over the years. The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens and a separate skin (or media queries I guess) on mobile. Setting UA font-size to make text readable (as opposed to customizing the relative sizing of different elements) has been obsolete pretty much since Opera introduced zoom. If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in. If they want everything larger they'll apply the zoom to all pages (at least Chrome has this). Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. Certainly no lay person. Edit: Seeing danluu's site linked reminded me of this relevant thread: https://nitter.net/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 https://nitter.net/danluu/status/1115707741102727168
  - cxr 6y ago
    > Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. 'cept for you, right? (Or why are we here otherwise? Reminder: someone started complaining about how large the text looks on Wikiwand site.) > The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it? > If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in. By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right?
    - def_true_false 6y ago
      > What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it? According to sibling subthreads here, a lack of readablity. Since I don't think line length matters much, making text larger is pretty much the only thing left. Zooming is the easiest way to achieve that. It also doesn't alter the layout of the site as much as simply increasing the font-size. > By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right? Of course. Being a power user, I can even set the font-size )) I'm just pointing out that expecting people to do the latter makes no sense unless they are a power user.
      - cxr 6y ago
        > making text larger is pretty much the only thing left Wikiwand doesn't "make the text bigger". It leaves the text size alone. I've already mentioned this more than once. cf cr.yp.to, danluu.com. > I'm just pointing out that expecting people to [set the font-size] makes no sense unless they are a power user. I don't know what you think I'm saying. I'm not talking about power users. I'm saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be injecting rules for small font sizes in the main content. Everyone can leave the font size alone. Wikipedia cramming thousands of lines of CSS down the tubes, where the incorrect font size is among them, is like people who say "backslash" when dictating a URL—they're going out of their way and getting it wrong.

cxr 6y ago

> 2 of them have normal sized text and 1 has [...] No, one of them (Wikiwand) has "normal sized text", and the other two have objectively shrunken text. This is not a matter of opinion; this is fact. Both HN and Wikipedia, like I mentioned before, are overriding the text size in their stylesheets to force the main body text to display at a size smaller than the UA preferred size. Wikiwand is using the correct font scaling. If you have a problem with the size of the text on the Wikiwand page, it's because your UA is configured to show text at a size that you have a problem with. It's up to you to deal with that. For an example of what properly-sized text looks like, have a look at http://cr.yp.to http://cr.yp.to or http://danluu.com http://danluu.com. These sites are not sending any "designer" styles to your browser (aside from the 8 lines of CSS for the latter, which don't affect the text size). Besides that, your criticism of Wikiwand's design is dominated by details about its layout and not its text size. But I didn't say Wikiwand was the best layout in the world; it's not, and I don't even use it. But it's still not worse than Wikipedia's overly-designed Vector skin.

def_true_false 6y ago
You are right, the font-size is not the main problem with Wikiwand. I tried zooming in until the text was the same size on the Vector skin and it's usable. Nevertheless, I don't think it's a coincidence that sites like old.reddit, HN and Wikipedia all use a similar font-size. Less so on Wikipedia, since the Vector redesign increased the size a bit. I don't get what's wrong with the Vector skin though... The only thing I would change is the language options in the sidebar -- no reason for the collapsible search box thingy. Just list all the languages as tuples of (native name, name in current language). Other than that I think it's great, no doubt thanks to all the effort spent polishing it over the years. The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens and a separate skin (or media queries I guess) on mobile. Setting UA font-size to make text readable (as opposed to customizing the relative sizing of different elements) has been obsolete pretty much since Opera introduced zoom. If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in. If they want everything larger they'll apply the zoom to all pages (at least Chrome has this). Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. Certainly no lay person. Edit: Seeing danluu's site linked reminded me of this relevant thread: https://nitter.net/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 https://nitter.net/danluu/status/1115707741102727168
- cxr 6y ago
  > Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size. 'cept for you, right? (Or why are we here otherwise? Reminder: someone started complaining about how large the text looks on Wikiwand site.) > The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it? > If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in. By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right?
  - def_true_false 6y ago
    > What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it? According to sibling subthreads here, a lack of readablity. Since I don't think line length matters much, making text larger is pretty much the only thing left. Zooming is the easiest way to achieve that. It also doesn't alter the layout of the site as much as simply increasing the font-size. > By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right? Of course. Being a power user, I can even set the font-size )) I'm just pointing out that expecting people to do the latter makes no sense unless they are a power user.
    - cxr 6y ago
      > making text larger is pretty much the only thing left Wikiwand doesn't "make the text bigger". It leaves the text size alone. I've already mentioned this more than once. cf cr.yp.to, danluu.com. > I'm just pointing out that expecting people to [set the font-size] makes no sense unless they are a power user. I don't know what you think I'm saying. I'm not talking about power users. I'm saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be injecting rules for small font sizes in the main content. Everyone can leave the font size alone. Wikipedia cramming thousands of lines of CSS down the tubes, where the incorrect font size is among them, is like people who say "backslash" when dictating a URL—they're going out of their way and getting it wrong.