As ever, the staggering difference in readability between https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ (on desktop at least) demonstrates that rawdogging the internet is generally a bad idea.
also known as the default font size in browsers, don't you dare override the user's preferred font size for body copy, scale everything else in units of rem instead.
I’d bet you that 98+% of users don’t even know you can change the browser font size. For that overwhelming majority of users the size reported by their preferences and their actual preferences do not necessarily align. This is not a defence of setting smaller-than-16px font sizes, but it is a defence of setting larger sizes if testing shows it improves user experience.
The users that need that to be able to read (e.g. vision problems) definitely do know that. It's about accessibility
See: HN, that sets a "10pt" font size, otherwise known as 13px.
At least they have a reason and it fits for me. :)
body {
font-size: larger;
}
.comment, .default, .comhead {
font-size: 14px;
}
.subtext, .pagetop {
font-size: 13px;
}
.title {
font-size: 16px;
}
What was a regular border, eventually becomes a half-circle.
I did mean font sizes though. :)
I've never seen a CSS framework that's good. (Unless you count https://simplecss.org/, but that's of very narrow usefulness.) They're all made by the kinds of people who don't understand web technologies, and seek to hide them behind a layer of abstraction so they don't have to think about them any more. Unfortunately for them, there's a reason the web's how it is. Some of it's backwards-compatibility, but most of it is that a large group of very clever people failed to find a way to make it any simpler without breaking something important; and so, the framework people tend to break important things.
If you find yourself reaching for something like Tailwind or Bootstrap, just use inline style attributes. It's easier for everyone involved.
Wrt Tailwind I still have not used it enough to decide whether it is good™ but it is not that different from writing inline styles.
Apart from optional plugins it is more like a CSS preprocessor than a framework (every class expands to one or few CSS declaration)
The most frameworky features it has is that it predefines CSS variables to allow further customization
A crude "not that different from writing inline styles" classy framework just makes it harder to refactor your CSS in future, because it's all tucked away under incomprehensibly-named CSS classes, and there are otherwise-useless <div>s all through the HTML.
For handwritten html I believe that tailwind has significant downsides (unless you abuse @apply), but that the case I focus on.
I should have mentioned that I believe tailwind to be applicable only if you have some strong templating support
> Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body>
This seems to have been removed from everywhere since at least 2017
In practice it doesn't really mean much outside of blog-like text so when doing layouts it's more of just a standard everyone agrees on using everywhere because it's easier to stick to one for consistencies sake and it does the job. I don't think many frontend devs ever test zooming text using a browser anyway, their main concern is variations in screen sizes, basically device variation not manually zooming text. But I get the arguments to limit it to text.
https://community.qbix.com/t/qbix-websites-loading-quickly/2...
Yet I have only ever heard of people complaining about it recently, when GUI designed started debasing itself by making everything web-based, and zoomers started demanding dark mode everywhere. Before that, and in my lifetime of computer nerditry dating back to the mid-90s (on self-luminescent CRTs!), I have never heard of people intentionally turning down the brightness or complaining about contrast of anything, whether its a tube TV or computer screen.
Which makes this whole preference for low-contrast incredibly suspicious. Like it was another one of those learned 'ailments' that spread around society like a shitty meme.
My phone is always on low brightness at night, but for some reason my monitor is always at 100% without question, which means light theme during the day (to match paper/pencil in front of me) and dark theme at night because it is otherwise too much light. Then one day, I tried a light theme at night at 50% monitor brightness and my eyes relaxed immediately. I realized that I have been squinting constantly to brace against the maximum brightness.
The usual advice is to instead increase ambient/room light but I have the room light set perfectly for writing and reading on paper.
I'd be happy with a No Ads And No 3rd Party Trackers, Analytics or Other Shit Club.
If I zoom in to increase the font size and make it more readable, the text doesn't reflow so it forces me to drag left and right to read the whole line.
There used to be a time where you could have actual adaptive reflowing zoomable text content, but web designers and browser developers conspired to break it and make it worse.
This makes sense to me. Pinch to zoom is a specific affordance which means “make the line segment between my fingers be this long”. It wouldn’t make sense with reflow.
But if you change the font size setting on your browser you will get exactly what you want. Odd how zoom and font size are not linked the same as on desktop - at least for me on Firefox mobile.
There used to be a Firefox extension to force text reflow on any website, but recent versions with the new extension API don't allow installing it.
I don't know about you but I typically have more than one window open. Information density is valuable to me, even on a large screen.
(It's one of the more glaring flaws of the Reddit redesign...)
I don't even say it with the typical puritan TV USA mindset but just the, give me the facts, not the show. Yelling won't make you right, just 14. Specially when it's clearly not a visceral reaction but a thought out post.
It's like comedy that thinks saying fuck or shit is funny when that's basically the lowest bar of humor. Say it, but style matters, the word in itself is not funny (unless you're a kid and afraid of someone telling you off, again: boldness).
You're supposed to feel conflicted between the obnoxious tone and the rational message. The writing makes fun of know-it-alls while also making a well reasoned argument.
maddox.xmission.com
Of course it's easy to rant and monologue. Dozens of TV presenters do it but sometimes it's very easy to find fault in their subjectively humorous generalizations.
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bob_dylan_is_a_podcaster
Blowing in the wind, the first song that comes to mind, doesn't fit this at all.
A quick Spotify search through the most popular songs and I can't find any in 10-15 that fits that example soundbite he used, to extrapolate this "emperor's got no clothes" argument on bob Dylan.
I'm not particularly a fan of Dylan except a song here and there I like (looking at the list), but it just shows the style over substance and strength of argument.
To this, someone will call "don't be such a buzzkill, it's just a joke" and that's fine but then you've left the land of making valid points and into the self congratulatory "ironic" content.
I didn't miss the point, it seems, but you did miss mine.
Yeah, but if they had done it your way neither you nor anyone else would know about it.
Looks to me like they put a lot of thought into the marketing of that thought out post
Now it was about using insults instead of proper arguments and pretending the mere use was funny. Which isn't.
Also, it's funny how you "insult" in generic third person because if you insult me directly you might get banned. Hey, feel free to insult me directly. I won't care. You just won't necessarily have a good argument because of it and you might also get your comment deleted, but let's see if you're as "brave" to argue with the would be censors then.
Finding an insult funny just because it's an insult is definitely childish, as I've said before and you haven't tried to address, it relates to rebelry against some authority, which just isn't there in this case.
I won't be offended by the insult, but using in the way the website in question does is just superfluous content and can effectively serve as an mechanism to hide less than solid points.
How about you actually try?
Running away with a false accusation and a dishonest "good wish" is just sad.
Would you call this style?