4 ms·

If you don't have a reader view in your browser, just paste this into your global CSS: p { line-height: 1.7; max-width: 60em; font-s

If you don't have a reader view in your browser, just paste this into your global CSS: p { line-height: 1.7; max-width: 60em; font-size: 1.2em; margin-left: 5em; } It pretty much fixes the default readability which is essentially zero on this site otherwise.

sebstefan 4y ago
I don't like fucking with the default CSS, my alternative is this bookmark that injects Javascript in the page and temporarily fixes the formatting at one click of a button javascript:(function(){ var bod = document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]; bod.style.margin = "40px auto"; bod.style.maxWidth = "40vw"; bod.style.lineHeight = "1.6"; bod.style.fontSize = "18px"; bod.style.color = "#444"; bod.style.padding = "0 10px"; })(); And for a dark mode: javascript:(function(){ var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body"); var html = document.getElementsByTagName("html"); var img = document.getElementsByTagName("img"); body[0].style.background = "#131313"; body[0].style.opacity = "1.0"; html[0].style.filter = "brightness(115%) contrast(95%) invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg)"; img[0].style.filter = "contrast(95%) invert(1)"; })();
Sesse__ 4y ago
Dan Luu talks a bit about this here: https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  yes, if you ignore a millennium's worth of publishing wisdom and think the world of text began anew in 1995, then maybe you can claim that "the science is not settled." He has every right to make his choice. As do we, in deciding whether to read it.
- RoddaWallPro 4y ago
  One of the more hilarious takes I've seen. "There are no papers for this, and I choose to disregard the countless number of people who say it is much easier for them to read if the line lengths are constrained as they are in a book or scroll or every other form of human writing ever put on this earth, so I will not make my site easier to read. F you."
  - whats_a_quasar 4y ago
    I really don't think that's what he's saying. You are assuming a great deal of malice, rather than positive intent. What he's saying is that there isn't hard evidence that shorter lines are more readable, so he made the style choice of longer lines. You're claiming that most people prefer shorter line widths, but again present no evidence that most people actually have that preference, other than vague references to "countless people". I actually think you're probably right, and if you had data Dan might update his stylesheet. But in the absence of evidence, you're just presenting your opinion as fact, and assuming malice.
    - RoddaWallPro 4y ago
      Yeah, that's probably true. He also at least allows people to set their own reading width by adjusting browser. My frustration stems from the fact that I find the argument "there are no papers with sufficient evidence" to be pedantic bullshit. Like yeah, sure, you aren't even wrong, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen anyone claim to like 180 char lines, whereas I've seen hordes of people who say it is very difficult for them to read that line length, and prefer something book-sized (lengthed?).
      - whats_a_quasar 4y ago
        Hmm, yeah I actually agree with that way of putting it. The evidence that does exist are the anecdotes, and he seems to ignore that evidence. Many of his readers, myself included, seem to prefer fixed line lengths. So it is a weird choice. I was mostly reacting to the assumed malice in the parent comment. Based on his blogging style, I think it's more likely that Dan's just a pedantic guy implementing his personal preferences on his personal blog :)
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        "Not even wrong" FTW. There's even a blog with that title: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
      - 4y ago
- robocat 4y ago
  Great thread! Designer says: my opinion is right because A. Dan shows: A is not factual. Designer says: my opinion is right because of B. Dan notices behaviours, and then he writes compellingly about those behaviours.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Buried in the replies is this one: https://twitter.com/jmq_en/status/1255994757773324289 https://twitter.com/jmq_en/status/1255994757773324289 Which is basically my understanding of "too long" lines: The problem doesn't have to do with the length of the line itself / reading one line (which is what most people seem to focus on), it has to do with reliably returning to the beginning of the next line instead of accidentally drifting up or down. So it wouldn't be much of a problem if there were other visual indicators (code lines have unique shapes instead of being a big block of text, and paragraphs with a blank line between them let you see more easily "I'm going from line 2 of 4 to line 3 of 4" so you don't actually have to track the line sideways. It's tracking the line back to its beginning in a big block of non-code text that's difficult.
ryandrake 4y ago
Yuck! I hate it when sites monkey around with max-width. I've got a nice 27 inch monitor. I want to use all of it. It's refreshing to see a site that doesn't insist on second-guessing the width that I set my browser window.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Too hard to read. See newspapers. Multiple windows are a thing.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    So, leave the choice to the user. If I want to read text in a small column, I can easily resize my window. Don't try to force one way.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      No one reads well with 200 characters per line. Been demonstrated that they read a lot slower. Even if line height has been increased to alleviate, which it probably hasn't. I'd recommend multiple columns before super-wide text blocks.
- atoav 4y ago
  So you look like you watch a tennis game when you read text? Funny. On a more serious note: A maximum length for text makes sense ergonomically, which is why especially big prints like newspapers or magazines work with columns. Columns however haven't really cought on in the web, because they do not combine very well with the whole scrolling thing.

sebstefan 4y ago

I don't like fucking with the default CSS, my alternative is this bookmark that injects Javascript in the page and temporarily fixes the formatting at one click of a button javascript:(function(){ var bod = document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]; bod.style.margin = "40px auto"; bod.style.maxWidth = "40vw"; bod.style.lineHeight = "1.6"; bod.style.fontSize = "18px"; bod.style.color = "#444"; bod.style.padding = "0 10px"; })(); And for a dark mode: javascript:(function(){ var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body"); var html = document.getElementsByTagName("html"); var img = document.getElementsByTagName("img"); body[0].style.background = "#131313"; body[0].style.opacity = "1.0"; html[0].style.filter = "brightness(115%) contrast(95%) invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg)"; img[0].style.filter = "contrast(95%) invert(1)"; })();

Sesse__ 4y ago

Dan Luu talks a bit about this here: https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168

AlbertCory 4y ago
yes, if you ignore a millennium's worth of publishing wisdom and think the world of text began anew in 1995, then maybe you can claim that "the science is not settled." He has every right to make his choice. As do we, in deciding whether to read it.
RoddaWallPro 4y ago
One of the more hilarious takes I've seen. "There are no papers for this, and I choose to disregard the countless number of people who say it is much easier for them to read if the line lengths are constrained as they are in a book or scroll or every other form of human writing ever put on this earth, so I will not make my site easier to read. F you."
- whats_a_quasar 4y ago
  I really don't think that's what he's saying. You are assuming a great deal of malice, rather than positive intent. What he's saying is that there isn't hard evidence that shorter lines are more readable, so he made the style choice of longer lines. You're claiming that most people prefer shorter line widths, but again present no evidence that most people actually have that preference, other than vague references to "countless people". I actually think you're probably right, and if you had data Dan might update his stylesheet. But in the absence of evidence, you're just presenting your opinion as fact, and assuming malice.
  - RoddaWallPro 4y ago
    Yeah, that's probably true. He also at least allows people to set their own reading width by adjusting browser. My frustration stems from the fact that I find the argument "there are no papers with sufficient evidence" to be pedantic bullshit. Like yeah, sure, you aren't even wrong, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen anyone claim to like 180 char lines, whereas I've seen hordes of people who say it is very difficult for them to read that line length, and prefer something book-sized (lengthed?).
    - whats_a_quasar 4y ago
      Hmm, yeah I actually agree with that way of putting it. The evidence that does exist are the anecdotes, and he seems to ignore that evidence. Many of his readers, myself included, seem to prefer fixed line lengths. So it is a weird choice. I was mostly reacting to the assumed malice in the parent comment. Based on his blogging style, I think it's more likely that Dan's just a pedantic guy implementing his personal preferences on his personal blog :)
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      "Not even wrong" FTW. There's even a blog with that title: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
    - 4y ago
robocat 4y ago
Great thread! Designer says: my opinion is right because A. Dan shows: A is not factual. Designer says: my opinion is right because of B. Dan notices behaviours, and then he writes compellingly about those behaviours.
Izkata 4y ago
Buried in the replies is this one: https://twitter.com/jmq_en/status/1255994757773324289 https://twitter.com/jmq_en/status/1255994757773324289 Which is basically my understanding of "too long" lines: The problem doesn't have to do with the length of the line itself / reading one line (which is what most people seem to focus on), it has to do with reliably returning to the beginning of the next line instead of accidentally drifting up or down. So it wouldn't be much of a problem if there were other visual indicators (code lines have unique shapes instead of being a big block of text, and paragraphs with a blank line between them let you see more easily "I'm going from line 2 of 4 to line 3 of 4" so you don't actually have to track the line sideways. It's tracking the line back to its beginning in a big block of non-code text that's difficult.

ryandrake 4y ago

Yuck! I hate it when sites monkey around with max-width. I've got a nice 27 inch monitor. I want to use all of it. It's refreshing to see a site that doesn't insist on second-guessing the width that I set my browser window.

mixmastamyk 4y ago
Too hard to read. See newspapers. Multiple windows are a thing.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  So, leave the choice to the user. If I want to read text in a small column, I can easily resize my window. Don't try to force one way.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    No one reads well with 200 characters per line. Been demonstrated that they read a lot slower. Even if line height has been increased to alleviate, which it probably hasn't. I'd recommend multiple columns before super-wide text blocks.
atoav 4y ago
So you look like you watch a tennis game when you read text? Funny. On a more serious note: A maximum length for text makes sense ergonomically, which is why especially big prints like newspapers or magazines work with columns. Columns however haven't really cought on in the web, because they do not combine very well with the whole scrolling thing.