3 ms·
A brutalist might now argue that rendering wrong in safari is obviously right. This attitude amusingly mirrors the shift from early to late brutalist architect
by cam_l 2y ago
A brutalist might now argue that rendering wrong in safari is obviously right.
This attitude amusingly mirrors the shift from early to late brutalist architecture. Where early brutalist architects were reacting against the inhumainty of the internationalist style, and concerned with recreating the monumentality of historic buildings in line with modernist principles. Like human spacial organisation, function over form, honesty in materials, and lack of ornamentation.
of course that quickly gave way to cheap concrete and poorly built units. The problems that surfaced with these buildings of course became the selling point. You should be shivering in the cold and dark and damp, cowering before the might of the state. Architecture found it's responsibility was to express frugality and indifference towards the populace.
So now, brutalist web design is no longer finding a level of simplicity which works for both creator and user, it is about fucking with your bloated browser. You should, after all, just be using a Teletype.
- kazinator 2y agoIf your setup cannot properly show text which conforms to the 72 column rule, it represents the serious regression in display capability. This should be a test case: can our browser, on our device, in portrait mode comfortably display 80 column monospaced pre formatted text.
- throw10920 2y agoThis doesn't have anything to do with technical capabilities. Hard-wrapped text is just completely and obviously incorrect. The 72/80-column "rule" was valid in probably the 90's at the latest, and now is pure downside. The odds that the user's font choice and physical screen size will exactly line up with whatever width you decided to impose on them is very small. And if they don't align, then you waste space at best (when display lines are longer than hard-wrapped lines), and cause massive reading headaches (because when your hard-wrapped lines are longer than display lines, you alternate between full lines and those with a few extra spillover characters) at worst. There's also no correct algorithm to reverse hard-wrapping. And it has the potential to cause accessibility problems. Putting hard-wrapped content on the web like this is inexcusable. Don't do it. It actively makes the lives of your readers worse.
- kazinator 2y agoNo PDFs or books for you I guess.
- xigoi 2y agoWell yes, PDFs suck for the same reason.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throw10920 2y agoThis is one of the reasons that PDFs are bad (in addition to forced pagination, which is spiritually similar to hard line wraps) and I prefer to read things in HTML or ePUB (HTML with glasses and a fake mustache) instead. See a previous comment by mine about ArXiV defaulting to PDF renders of papers[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41481309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41481309