Time on Unix
venam.nixers.net
venam.nixers.net
Although I did successfully register the whole experience completely put me off from participating. I don't really want to be in a community with such extreme gatekeeping.
>"The mean time recorded there was used as the one to derive your local civil time as an offset from, called Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT for short. However, it was not as precise as it could be and thus got replaced in 1967 by another standard called Universal Coordinated Time, UTC.
UTC is a version of the Universal Time standard. In this standard we also find UT1, that keeps track of Earth rotation angle using GPS satellites ..."
I was confused by this as my understanding is that the first GPS blocks were the NAVSTAR system which were launched in 1978[1]. Or am I reading this incorrectly and UT1 is a later version of the UTC standard?
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/communications/po...
NB: UTC is part of the Universal Time Standard, it is not the time standard. I think from your comment you are mixing the two.
I've read a lot on this topic and couldn't find a page that explained things properly so I created one.
I hope if I've made typos, technical mistakes, or that my writing isn't clear enough in some places that the online community can help with fixes so that this can become a better resource.
I wish the web didn't have the possibility of styling its content and would only use standard options which would be customizable by users. E.g. as a webdev, you wouldn't be able to set the font face beyond "serif", "sans-serif", "monospace" and then everybody could just set those to what they like. Similarly, there would be no "font-size". You'd have to use semantically correct HTML tags and the user would choose the font size for these tags. I'm tired of 99% pages being unreadable. Reader mode is a hack.
EDIT: To clarify, the text on this page renders on my 4k screen with 170% scaling as ~31cm wide and each character is ~1cm tall.
And sure enough, the CSS responsible for this part contains "font-size: 22.4px;". That's beyond reasonable for normal body text.
What has to be fiddled with to get a good design here is the line spacing. The lines need more space between them.
> I wish the web didn't have the possibility of styling its content and would only use standard options which would be customizable by users.
We in the design community now this standpoint, it is as old as the web and prominently defended by Jacob Nielsen.
The majority of design professionals do not agree with Nielsen.
Turns out that one person's subjective experience doesn't form a factual standard for design.
Do you know, or point me to where I could find the scaling factor suggested for 27" 1440p? I zoom similarly on that monitor. Having checked the linked page again, I find it comfortable without zooming on this monitor as well.
For perceived size you need to also factor in your viewing distance though which matters more with things like monitors and TVs that can vary in position a lot from setup to setup vs a phone in your hand or laptop at hands reach for the keyboard. That is to say viewing a 4k TV from 15 feet a 1 inch image covers less visual arc than viewing the same 1 inch image a 4k phone 1 foot from your face so you've got to correct display distance against some assumed standard view distance. For computer displays this is assumed to be ~2 feet which should let you do some math based on the actual distance to your monitor to get intended visual size.
Now the fun part is personal preference can still work it's way in at that last step. The above lets you get to a standard perceived size and should be used as for exporting and publishing things so the above all works (i.e. if you publish something made on a display that showed things as being half the standard size without correcting the scale when publishing and everyone bases their scaling on standard size then everyone ends up having to zoom 200% on your website even though their scaling factor is set correctly). On the other hand the above does not mean that you MUST set it that way to view content though. Have bad eyes? Just like things bigger? Set your scaling factor to be 2x bigger than your scaling is "supposed to be" - just remember when you publish content you need to set the scaling of the layout/content to 50% or you'll break everyone else's scaling factors.
tl;dr: Assuming 2 ft view distance, 2560x1440, and square pixels it should actually already be around the standard scaling anywhere between 100% or 125%. At 3 ft perceptually more like the 175% you're used to (especially if you lean back in your chair while reading).
I see you used "width: 60%" to specify the width of the article text. That's probably good for narrower screens, but on its own can have unpleasant effects on wider ones. Consider adding "max-width: 39em" to mitigate it. You may fiddle a bit with the exact value there to see what works for your website.
As to the text size, you used "font-size: 1.4em". I think that in this regard it's best to rely on the defaults and set "font-size: 100%" in "html, body" and then "font-size: 1rem" for the tag where the main text is contained.
Smaller text would be harder to read. And it's not like the text is edge-to-edge wide.
In any case, our impressions being different only prove my point about standardized styling of webpages.
Well, for fonts it is supported. Just disable 'Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above' in Firefox settings.
I know IE used to have a "always use my fonts" option and pretty sure Netscape used to have it back in the day. It made the web very readable.
I am doing that too, with EasyRes on rMBP 13" 2017, because I don't have external monitor laying around, screen real estate becoming important...