3 ms·
Am I the only one that thought that was one of the least interesting and very hard to read (as in nothing drew my eye, lacked any motivation to read those big s
by njharman 15y ago
Am I the only one that thought that was one of the least interesting and very hard to read (as in nothing drew my eye, lacked any motivation to read those big squarish, repeating, same blobs of text) webpages?
Single long column, not adapting to size of browser window. It's more like a book/article/magazine than a web page. Only color jarring red links. Subtitles identical leading/trailing whitespace so text looks continuous instead of broken into sections.
oh but OA used emdash, that's surely important.
- blehn 15y agoSingle long column, not adapting to size of browser window. What? You want multiple columns? That would require scrolling down, then up, then down, then up... I'll take one column, thank you. Also, the idea that you must fill the entire browser window with content is nonsense. The column width should allow for a comfortable reading rhythm. Too short and you break rhythm from changing lines constantly. Too long and it's difficult to find the next line. Most people seem to like 60-80 characters. Why screw that up by letting the browser width determine column width?
- derleth 15y ago> Why screw that up by letting the browser width determine column width? Because I choose browser width, and I set it where I like. That's why the web is better than paper.
- pnathan 15y agomore like a book/article/magazine You mean, more like a media form that has evolved to be readable.