4 ms·

This site is nearly unreadable on mobile because of the following CSS rule: body { padding: 50px 150px; }

by shhsshs 3y ago

gmzamz 3y ago
Reader mode saved the day again for me. But it shouldn’t be needed at all.
- appplication 3y ago
  I wish I liked reader mode, I just can’t get into it. I like how each website looks different. It adds variety to the web. Otherwise everything is just too homogenous.
  - triyambakam 3y ago
    Yes I agree. The differences from site to site also aid in reading. When things all look the same it is harder to read. That's why justified text is harder to read.
swader999 3y ago
Yup, I noped out of it faster than it loaded.
aidenn0 3y ago
Hah, that is why it was so bad on my 480px wide screen
Clamchop 3y ago
Reader mode to the rescue!
dang 3y ago
"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- uglycoyote 3y ago
  it seems to me, if there is one discussion forum where you should be able to point out that a website it broken for technical reasons and why, it is HN. I found this comment interesting (because it explained why the content was completely unreadable) and useful (because the sub comments lead me to a solution that allowed me to read this content). I can't tell if that is the case here, but a lot of time it is the original author posting their content on HN because they want feedback from smart people, so hopefully this is useful to them as well and they unbreak their website. Please consider revising this rule. It seems like such complains should be allowed when the website is completely unusable.
  - dang 3y ago
    Rules like this are approximations and tradeoffs - they always leave in some bad things and/or cut out some good things. So yeah, this rule excludes some interesting things (boo), but it excludes way more repetitive/uninteresting things (yay). That's why we keep the rule - the net influence on thread quality is a clear positive. Btw, this applies at the meta level too: having this rule generates objections to the rule, such as what you posted here or this example from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36904267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36904267. But not having the rule generates more objections, along the lines of "why do people always post these offtopic complaints about page formats etc.? they're so boring..." Formatting complaints wouldn't be so bad if they would hang out somewhere down the middle or bottom of a thread - but for some reason they nearly always get upvoted to the top. They're reflexive reactions that are quick to appear—much quicker than the thoughtful, reflective reactions we most want on HN, which are slower to process and write*—and then they get upvoted because of co-feeling ("me too, I was annoyed by $thing too") and then stick at the top because of inertia, choking out everything on-topic. Then they really generate complaints ("why is everybody talking about CSS padding instead of $topic? what is wrong with this place? jesus christ you people") and it just gets worse from there. The point is that the dynamics aren't stable - you can't have discussions about this kind of thing that stay in their lane and don't crowd out the important things. That makes the value of this rule much higher than you'd guess at first sight - once the problem dies down, it doesn't seem so bad, and then the rule seems excessive. Oh and one last thing - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36914336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36914336. As you say, it's helpful and useful information in its place. That it can't stay in its place is a systemic problem, a tragedy-of-the-commons thing where no one is doing anything wrong at an individual level and yet the end result is undesirable. Most of the tricky moderation problems are like that. Bottom line, this rule is in the running for "best new site guideline of recent years" even though it doesn't feel like it! * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

This site is nearly unreadable on mobile because of the following CSS rule: body { padding: 50px 150px; }

gmzamz 3y ago

Reader mode saved the day again for me. But it shouldn’t be needed at all.

appplication 3y ago
I wish I liked reader mode, I just can’t get into it. I like how each website looks different. It adds variety to the web. Otherwise everything is just too homogenous.
- triyambakam 3y ago
  Yes I agree. The differences from site to site also aid in reading. When things all look the same it is harder to read. That's why justified text is harder to read.

swader999 3y ago

Yup, I noped out of it faster than it loaded.

aidenn0 3y ago

Hah, that is why it was so bad on my 480px wide screen

Clamchop 3y ago

Reader mode to the rescue!

dang 3y ago

"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

uglycoyote 3y ago
it seems to me, if there is one discussion forum where you should be able to point out that a website it broken for technical reasons and why, it is HN. I found this comment interesting (because it explained why the content was completely unreadable) and useful (because the sub comments lead me to a solution that allowed me to read this content). I can't tell if that is the case here, but a lot of time it is the original author posting their content on HN because they want feedback from smart people, so hopefully this is useful to them as well and they unbreak their website. Please consider revising this rule. It seems like such complains should be allowed when the website is completely unusable.
- dang 3y ago
  Rules like this are approximations and tradeoffs - they always leave in some bad things and/or cut out some good things. So yeah, this rule excludes some interesting things (boo), but it excludes way more repetitive/uninteresting things (yay). That's why we keep the rule - the net influence on thread quality is a clear positive. Btw, this applies at the meta level too: having this rule generates objections to the rule, such as what you posted here or this example from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36904267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36904267. But not having the rule generates more objections, along the lines of "why do people always post these offtopic complaints about page formats etc.? they're so boring..." Formatting complaints wouldn't be so bad if they would hang out somewhere down the middle or bottom of a thread - but for some reason they nearly always get upvoted to the top. They're reflexive reactions that are quick to appear—much quicker than the thoughtful, reflective reactions we most want on HN, which are slower to process and write*—and then they get upvoted because of co-feeling ("me too, I was annoyed by $thing too") and then stick at the top because of inertia, choking out everything on-topic. Then they really generate complaints ("why is everybody talking about CSS padding instead of $topic? what is wrong with this place? jesus christ you people") and it just gets worse from there. The point is that the dynamics aren't stable - you can't have discussions about this kind of thing that stay in their lane and don't crowd out the important things. That makes the value of this rule much higher than you'd guess at first sight - once the problem dies down, it doesn't seem so bad, and then the rule seems excessive. Oh and one last thing - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36914336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36914336. As you say, it's helpful and useful information in its place. That it can't stay in its place is a systemic problem, a tragedy-of-the-commons thing where no one is doing anything wrong at an individual level and yet the end result is undesirable. Most of the tricky moderation problems are like that. Bottom line, this rule is in the running for "best new site guideline of recent years" even though it doesn't feel like it! * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...