4 ms·

Someone who cannot make a page where text is legible without me using Reader View is not a credible authority on design by a long shot.

lokedhs 4y ago
I thought you must have been exaggerating, but then I clicked the the link and oh wow, that contrast. Completely unreadable.
pharmakom 4y ago
Came to say exactly that.
aorth 4y ago
Wait, do you mean the blog post or the Timeless skin on Wikipedia? Both look fine in Firefox's built-in reader view.
- IanCal 4y ago
  The point is you shouldn't need reader view. Having to use it means the design of the site is so bad you have to use a special tool to remove it all.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    I am reminded of the thread the other day regarding W3C's website failing to load its CSS, and thereby improving its readability for a lot of the commenters.
  - Zandikar 4y ago
    > means the design of the site is so bad you have to use a special tool to remove it all. Sounds like most of the content on the web at this point. I agree, you shouldn't need it. But at this point, it should pretty much be standard practice for users given the current state of the web. At this point I'm so used to the internet being fucked by stupid design decisions and the ceaseless bombardment of ads, dark patterns, "engagement" CTA's, and lazy loading javascript that keeps pushing the content I'm trying to read or interact with down the page (looking at you google suggested results) that I had the opposite reaction to most people i this thread: I was pleasantly surprised at how perfectly cromulent it is. Is it good? No. Is it well above average viewing experience? Unfortunately, yes. Again, not a defense of the design(s) in question. Just surprised there are people out there that expect anything more than hot garbage at this point.
  - aorth 4y ago
    > The point is you shouldn't need reader view. Totally agree, but the parent comment said it didn't look right in reader view and I had the opposite experience. Looks fine in reader view...
    - tempodox 4y ago
      I think you misread my comment.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      I think that's a misread - they say it's not legible without reader view.
- gpvos 4y ago
  The blog post.
- WithinReason 4y ago
  The Timeless skin on Wikipedia looks good in Firefox's built-in reader view? What?
mort96 4y ago
The author isn't presenting themselves as an authority on design though? They're presenting historical information about Wikipedia and about a community project.
indrora 4y ago
Somewhere, someone fucked up the rendering of 400 and below weights of web-deployed fonts in Chromium. Not Chrome, but Chromium and its derivatives. Source Sans at 300 weight 0.9rem should be "a little small". There's a ton of rendering tricks for thinner fonts to make them readable but for some Godforsaken reason, Chromium's font renderer turns out to be the one that drinks leaded paint and gasoline.
- hug 4y ago
  It looks nearly as thin and unreadable on Firefox, though, at least on Windows. I actually read your comment and thought "well if Firefox gets it right and it's this lacking in contrast, how awful must it be on a Chromium browser?" and the answer was, apparently, not much more.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Another data point: it looks bad on Firefox on Android too. Perhaps it's Chrome that has a bug which incidentally makes contrast on this page better?
- joshspankit 4y ago
  Is that something you observed in relation to v108 vs v107? Because we’ve noticed a big change for some clients and public corroboration is possibly non-existent.
Fnoord 4y ago
On mobile (Android / Firefox) I double tab and get zoomed in. I dislike this type of font with the heavy horizontal lines at top and bottom (serif fonts like Times New Roman), but then again I cannot set a default font on Android Firefox within the settings via UI. And this page looks great once zoomed in.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
Saw the comment first and assumed this was an hyperbole. Then I opened the page.
baxtr 4y ago
At least reader view works! Often it’s broken..

lokedhs 4y ago

I thought you must have been exaggerating, but then I clicked the the link and oh wow, that contrast. Completely unreadable.

pharmakom 4y ago

Came to say exactly that.

aorth 4y ago

Wait, do you mean the blog post or the Timeless skin on Wikipedia? Both look fine in Firefox's built-in reader view.

IanCal 4y ago
The point is you shouldn't need reader view. Having to use it means the design of the site is so bad you have to use a special tool to remove it all.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  I am reminded of the thread the other day regarding W3C's website failing to load its CSS, and thereby improving its readability for a lot of the commenters.
- Zandikar 4y ago
  > means the design of the site is so bad you have to use a special tool to remove it all. Sounds like most of the content on the web at this point. I agree, you shouldn't need it. But at this point, it should pretty much be standard practice for users given the current state of the web. At this point I'm so used to the internet being fucked by stupid design decisions and the ceaseless bombardment of ads, dark patterns, "engagement" CTA's, and lazy loading javascript that keeps pushing the content I'm trying to read or interact with down the page (looking at you google suggested results) that I had the opposite reaction to most people i this thread: I was pleasantly surprised at how perfectly cromulent it is. Is it good? No. Is it well above average viewing experience? Unfortunately, yes. Again, not a defense of the design(s) in question. Just surprised there are people out there that expect anything more than hot garbage at this point.
- aorth 4y ago
  > The point is you shouldn't need reader view. Totally agree, but the parent comment said it didn't look right in reader view and I had the opposite experience. Looks fine in reader view...
  - tempodox 4y ago
    I think you misread my comment.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    I think that's a misread - they say it's not legible without reader view.
gpvos 4y ago
The blog post.
WithinReason 4y ago
The Timeless skin on Wikipedia looks good in Firefox's built-in reader view? What?

mort96 4y ago

The author isn't presenting themselves as an authority on design though? They're presenting historical information about Wikipedia and about a community project.

indrora 4y ago

Somewhere, someone fucked up the rendering of 400 and below weights of web-deployed fonts in Chromium. Not Chrome, but Chromium and its derivatives. Source Sans at 300 weight 0.9rem should be "a little small". There's a ton of rendering tricks for thinner fonts to make them readable but for some Godforsaken reason, Chromium's font renderer turns out to be the one that drinks leaded paint and gasoline.

hug 4y ago
It looks nearly as thin and unreadable on Firefox, though, at least on Windows. I actually read your comment and thought "well if Firefox gets it right and it's this lacking in contrast, how awful must it be on a Chromium browser?" and the answer was, apparently, not much more.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Another data point: it looks bad on Firefox on Android too. Perhaps it's Chrome that has a bug which incidentally makes contrast on this page better?
joshspankit 4y ago
Is that something you observed in relation to v108 vs v107? Because we’ve noticed a big change for some clients and public corroboration is possibly non-existent.

Fnoord 4y ago

On mobile (Android / Firefox) I double tab and get zoomed in. I dislike this type of font with the heavy horizontal lines at top and bottom (serif fonts like Times New Roman), but then again I cannot set a default font on Android Firefox within the settings via UI. And this page looks great once zoomed in.

forgotpwd16 4y ago

Saw the comment first and assumed this was an hyperbole. Then I opened the page.

baxtr 4y ago

At least reader view works! Often it’s broken..