3 ms·

Those familiar with the site know it’s intentional to deliver content efficiently to a wide audience. You can’t read a long paragraph in reader mode?

dewey 2y ago
Bad styling is intentional to deliver the content to a wider audience?
- liontwist 2y ago
  You don’t recognize default HTML appearance?
  - dewey 2y ago
    I do, and it's not the default HTML appearance but the default style of how your browser chooses to show unstyled HTML. Just because it's the default doesn't mean it's suitable for reading and it was never thought of being that.
  - Sharlin 2y ago
    How exactly does unstyled HTML cater to a wider audience? That's just a non sequitur.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      Because it is a smaller download, is faster to render, easier for accessibility tools, and is more likely to work in readers and browsers of all kinds.
      - Sharlin 2y ago
        Yeah, a single `body { max-width: 50em }` is not going to change any of that, and actually makes it more accessible to a wider audience. The entire point of typography and formatting is to make text more accessible. Lack of layout is the antithesis of that. Then there's the separate issue of overlong paragraphs, which is simply a sign of poor writing (again making the text less accessible), unless you're trying to argue that the use of fewer <p> tags makes the page faster to load and render? Now, I do wish that browsers had saner default styles, so one wouldn't need even that single line of CSS, but that's not the world we live in, and for whatever backwards-compatibility reason we're stuck with how things were in 1995.
        liontwist 2y ago
        Now you’re agreeing with the main idea but you wish the default was more to your preference. Read his own words about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 I don’t understand though. Times new Roman and clones of it are very readable fonts. It just doesn’t look like short form marketing material.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        If you defend the styling by saying it's efficient, and they say you can have efficient style so that's not a good reason, they are not agreeing with your main idea.
        nottorp 2y ago
        > body { max-width: 50em } I have this 16:9 screen. I'd like to use all of it, thanks.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Filling a wide screen with one column is just going to hurt your ability to read it. That's not a great desire to have. (I'd suggest more than 50 but not a whole lot more, not nearly enough to fill a normal size screen.)
jpollock 2y ago
It doesn’t work well on anything where you can’t manage the window width. My eyes have to travel too far to read the content, slowing me down.
- liontwist 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Luu could achieve his goals while still adding basic things like padding, margins and better structuring of his paragraphs. Absolutism on either side of this debate is purely ideological and does little to serve the user the best possible experience.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      I am user who thinks I’m getting a better experience, so I think his main point is right - you are expressing your preference with the voice of the general user, and moderation.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        "Better" is subjective and debating such a vague generality will get us nowhere. Instead, I will focus on more objectively measurable aspects such as flexibility and ergonomics. You may be getting the most flexible reading experience, but you are getting the most ergonomic reading experience. You also have to put in up-front work to get a better experience, or rely on tools like Reader mode. If that's what you prefer, that's fine. If you weren't aware, in most browsers you can access the menu bar and navigate to "View -> Page Style", and set it to "No Style". Then you're free to add whatever styles you'd like on top. Meanwhile, the casual, less technical, non-designer user can still engage with the content in an accessible and easily parseable manner.

dewey 2y ago

Bad styling is intentional to deliver the content to a wider audience?

liontwist 2y ago
You don’t recognize default HTML appearance?
- dewey 2y ago
  I do, and it's not the default HTML appearance but the default style of how your browser chooses to show unstyled HTML. Just because it's the default doesn't mean it's suitable for reading and it was never thought of being that.
- Sharlin 2y ago
  How exactly does unstyled HTML cater to a wider audience? That's just a non sequitur.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Because it is a smaller download, is faster to render, easier for accessibility tools, and is more likely to work in readers and browsers of all kinds.
    - Sharlin 2y ago
      Yeah, a single `body { max-width: 50em }` is not going to change any of that, and actually makes it more accessible to a wider audience. The entire point of typography and formatting is to make text more accessible. Lack of layout is the antithesis of that. Then there's the separate issue of overlong paragraphs, which is simply a sign of poor writing (again making the text less accessible), unless you're trying to argue that the use of fewer <p> tags makes the page faster to load and render? Now, I do wish that browsers had saner default styles, so one wouldn't need even that single line of CSS, but that's not the world we live in, and for whatever backwards-compatibility reason we're stuck with how things were in 1995.
      - liontwist 2y ago
        Now you’re agreeing with the main idea but you wish the default was more to your preference. Read his own words about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 I don’t understand though. Times new Roman and clones of it are very readable fonts. It just doesn’t look like short form marketing material.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        If you defend the styling by saying it's efficient, and they say you can have efficient style so that's not a good reason, they are not agreeing with your main idea.
      - nottorp 2y ago
        > body { max-width: 50em } I have this 16:9 screen. I'd like to use all of it, thanks.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Filling a wide screen with one column is just going to hurt your ability to read it. That's not a great desire to have. (I'd suggest more than 50 but not a whole lot more, not nearly enough to fill a normal size screen.)

jpollock 2y ago

It doesn’t work well on anything where you can’t manage the window width. My eyes have to travel too far to read the content, slowing me down.

liontwist 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39731878
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Luu could achieve his goals while still adding basic things like padding, margins and better structuring of his paragraphs. Absolutism on either side of this debate is purely ideological and does little to serve the user the best possible experience.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    I am user who thinks I’m getting a better experience, so I think his main point is right - you are expressing your preference with the voice of the general user, and moderation.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      "Better" is subjective and debating such a vague generality will get us nowhere. Instead, I will focus on more objectively measurable aspects such as flexibility and ergonomics. You may be getting the most flexible reading experience, but you are getting the most ergonomic reading experience. You also have to put in up-front work to get a better experience, or rely on tools like Reader mode. If that's what you prefer, that's fine. If you weren't aware, in most browsers you can access the menu bar and navigate to "View -> Page Style", and set it to "No Style". Then you're free to add whatever styles you'd like on top. Meanwhile, the casual, less technical, non-designer user can still engage with the content in an accessible and easily parseable manner.