22 ms·
Ew. I mean 500 bytes of CSS would make this so much better.
by halapro 4mo ago
Ew. I mean 500 bytes of CSS would make this so much better.
- isatty 4mo agoNo. It’s perfect as is. I can find everything I want. Everything is accessible to everyone and screen readers. Does not require JavaScript.
- crabmusket 4mo agoThe home page links are teeny tiny on a phone screen, borderline unreadable.
- holowoodman 4mo agoThat's because phone browsers have the insane braindead default of scaling everything into tiny unreadableness. You have to explicitly say "stupid browser, nobody ever wanted this shit, behave sensibly by including <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">. No idea why this idiotic custom still hasn't been purged from mobile browsers, but I guess it's just a valuable tradition now... Before mobile browsers arrived, everything was fine and nobody needed meta viewport stuff. That's why this 1997 era page doesn't have it.
- halapro 4mo ago> everything was fine Everything was fine best viewed in IE5.5 at 1024x768. Time has changed.
- FridgeSeal 4mo agoIf only there was a way to zoom, on your phone?!
- halapro 4mo agoIf only you could add 500 bytes of CSS so the content fits the screen.
- halapro 4mo ago> Does not require JavaScript Who mentioned JavaScript?
- phatskat 4mo agoThey did - their list wasn’t all related to _your_ post, other than to say the site is “perfect” to them, after which they enumerated the reasons including “does not require JavaScript”