digitalmars.D - Re: Redesign of dlang.org
"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:58:06AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:On 4/23/2014 6:19 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Usually when I run into a site with (1) microscopic fonts, (2) giant (often multicolored) fonts, (3) no whitespace, or (4) has more ads/filler than content, my fingers have an almost instinctual ctrl-W (close tab) response. Sometimes not even one word registers in my brain before I move on to the next site.
Incidentally, ugly rainbow text is also why I set my mail client to plaintext-only ages ago.
I've never left terminal-only email clients. :P For a short time at work I put up with webmail, because they didn't tell me pop3 access was available. Boy, that was painful. Then one day I discovered that I can use pop3, and oh the joy! I installed mutt and fetchmail, and from that day on never looked back. Nowadays, it seems that HTML-only mails are getting more common, which is unfortunate. Luckily, there's `elinks -dump`, which one of these days I'm gonna hook up to my .procmailrc so that I won't ever see HTML mails, ever again. >:-) On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:27:09PM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 08:58:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:I agree. Unfortunately though, browsers haven't always has reasonable defaults, so people had to work around, so now it's all pretty much screwed. Maybe what we need is a CSS for "sane-size-defaults: on;" which would provide a "reboot" of the whole default font sizes.
The defaults in the original browsers were set a bit large (16px), so Safari decided to set them smaller for a while. That sucked. Nowadays you can just set the scaling of the body to 87.5% of the default and get a reasonable size (14px).
Funny. I find anything below 16pt unreadably small. But then again, I have a 1600x1200 screen. :P Which I run ratpoison on, which means every window is maximized. So my terminals use an 18pt font to get close to an 80-column display. :PWhat annoy me the most is non-promotional sites that set the body font-family to anything but the default sans-serif (which often happens to be pixel perfect, have good unicode support and is legible).
TBH, I find this "pixel perfect" obsession to be really silly. It shows that web developers don't understand that what the user sees is NOT what developers see, because browsers come in many sizes and shapes, and users' screens also come in many sizes and shapes. "This site is best viewable in AAAxYYY resolution" is so last century. When are we gonna grow out of that?! On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:57:32PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:Another thing that kills me about the new "big picture up top, scroll to gigantic say-nothing text below" fad.... The text below sounds like there might be some more learning to do. So I try to click on the headers.... nothing happens. No see more link. Apparently "Feature rich: we have more features than anybody!" is all they have to say. No explanation of what those features are. <a href="this-makes-me-angry-because-it-sux">Hatred.</a>
Yeah I noticed that about recent new sites. But then again, it's more tolerable than the old "jampack every possible marketing slogan you can onto a presumed 640x480 browser window until it's unreadably cluttered" approach, which *still* conveyed basically no information. "Feature-rich" has become one of those meaningless buzzwords that really should be added to this page: http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html :-P Along with "innovative", "comprehensive", "powerful", "creative", "cloud", "mature", etc., all of which have lost their meaning from marketing overuse. T -- The diminished 7th chord is the most flexible and fear-instilling chord. Use it often, use it unsparingly, to subdue your listeners into submission!
Apr 24 2014
=?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig+dforum outerproduct.org> writes:
Am 24.04.2014 17:34, schrieb "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":According to the CCS 2.1 standard 1 px == 0.75pt. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units Thus: 16pt => 12px => 3.1mm at a reading distance of 71 cm.
16pt => 21.3px
Apr 24 2014