5 ms·

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

by aorth 4y ago

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?

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

by 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.

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?