Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#1

Post by jbm » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:07 PM UTC

Readable: A more readable version of "readability"
readable.tastefulwords.com

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#2

Post by jbm » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:08 PM UTC

(For what it's worth, I was a fan of the old Readability plugin, but I am somewhat concerned about it's direction now.)

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#3

Post by pasbesoin » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:41 PM UTC

It's been quite a small bit of time, now, but IIRC I had some direct correspondence with the author/creator of Readable, and he was a quite agreeable chap. I realize this doesn't speak to the technical merits, but the exchange left me feeling more comfortable about using his product. (Leaving aside the role of advertising and the need to support sites, a separate but not insignificant concern.)

Here's the old URL/site, which is also more visible with Javascript disabled.

http://readable-app.appspot.com/

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#4

Post by j_baker » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:45 PM UTC

"Legally, Readable's source is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license."

Erm... Why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creative Commons wasn't made for code. There are plenty (even too many) open source licenses to choose from. Why not one of those?

EDIT: Yup, using cc for source code is not recommended: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Com...

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#5

Post by tuxcanfly » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:45 PM UTC

I hope this doesn't track what I'm reading unlike the new readability.

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#6

Post by eli » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:47 PM UTC

So the source is licensed CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, but there's no public repository or support? That's a curious approach.

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#7

Post by peterhajas » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:56 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #4

"Legally, Readable's source is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license." Erm... Why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creative Commons wasn't made for code. There are plenty (even too many) open source licenses to choose from. Why not one of those? EDIT: Yup, using cc for source code is not recommended: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Com...

I meet people who license code under Creative Commons. The license is made for lots of stuff, but it doesn't deal with the intricacies of source code.

Some of them are often confused about open source licenses. It probably doesn't help that there's such heated debate (GPL vs. BSD, for example) amongst the licenses.

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#8

Post by arkitaip » Sun, May 08, 2011, 3:56 PM UTC

It's nice that you can customize it because the default - serif - font isn't that readable, atleast not on win7+opera.

Also, I think they need to update the default font families because calibri and other post Vista fonts are as commonly used as Arial & co.

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#9

Post by alok-g » Sun, May 08, 2011, 4:26 PM UTC

tuxcanfly wrote: post #5

I hope this doesn't track what I'm reading unlike the new readability.

Author says that all the text processing is done within the browser.

http://readable.tastefulwords.com/faq/

Still, not 100% sure if the URL is considered text too and is not sent anywhere.

Re: Readable: A more readable version of "readability"

#10

Post by Qz » Sun, May 08, 2011, 4:29 PM UTC

I tried using Readability the other day to zap the SpaceX article from here and it damn near froze my computer. When it was done, it didn't even show me the right article...