3 ms·
This 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 i
by throw10920 2y ago
This 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