3 ms·
for me, that's way worse, I much prefer to get full width, on my 32 inch monitor, it looks nicer on the default website, and fits way more stuff without needing
by keithnz 5y ago
for me, that's way worse, I much prefer to get full width, on my 32 inch monitor, it looks nicer on the default website, and fits way more stuff without needing to scroll. If I want a similar layout for "reading" I'll just use reader mode in the browser and get a very similar layout.
- Waterluvian 5y agoI used to agree until someone made me stop and assess what it’s like to read text on a wide screen vs. a narrow one. It’s not even close anymore: reading is just so much easier when it’s a narrow column. Wiki pages are like 95% text to read.
- thirdsun 5y agoTo each their own I guess, but to me you just described a terrible reading experience. Filling all available space with content may sound like a good idea on paper but columns of text should really limited in their width - that's just very basic and commonly agreed upon typography best practice.
- keithnz 5y agoexcept, that applies if you are reading something top to bottom, like a book. That's not what I do on wikipedia, I scan for information.... and it is much easier to do that in wide format. What you end up actually reading is a paragraph or two. As a speed reader, I read in chunks, and in wide format it's actually not that bad, its not a wall of text. Most paragraphs end up to be 3-4 lines long and are naturally chunked by citation notes. I find it really easy. There is no one rule of typography, there is general guidance, but context matters. If in your head you've translated that to a "rule", you are doing it wrong.