Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smooth CoffeeScript

autotelicum.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#21

Post by chicagobob »

ars wrote: post #10
inconditus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the parent was offering advice for accessibility to help the member's of the community improve on their projects. Why would you disapprove of that?

I personally hate when sites make the text narrow. If I want the text narrow, I shrink the browser. (Which I never actually do BTW.) So to me the advice makes things worse, not better. 60-80 chars per line???? Even my email is wider than that. Go for at least 200.

This, a thousand times this.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#22

Post by autotelicum »

blehn wrote: post #3

Ok hackers, listen up... I know you love your fluid-width layouts, but just because you can fill the entire window with content, doesn't mean you have to. Blocks of text become difficult to read (and also ugly) when lines get to a certain length. The rule of thumb is that about 60-80 characters per line is comfortable. On my display, this site has about 250 characters per line and it makes me want to hit the back but…

Good constructive feedback. I thought about it, so one of the next days when I get time, I'll add a little 'Limit Width' button up on top. It'll be freeflow by default, but just one click for those who prefer a narrower format.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#23

Post by andybak »

autotelicum wrote: post #22
blehn wrote: post #3

Ok hackers, listen up... I know you love your fluid-width layouts, but just because you can fill the entire window with content, doesn't mean you have to. Blocks of text become difficult to read (and also ugly) when lines get to a certain length. The rule of thumb is that about 60-80 characters per line is comfortable. On my display, this site has about 250 characters per line and it makes me want to hit the back but…

Good constructive feedback. I thought about it, so one of the next days when I get time, I'll add a little 'Limit Width' button up on top. It'll be freeflow by default, but just one click for those who prefer a narrower format.

Don't leap so quickly to making it a user choice. Just 'Do The Right Thing'. In this case I think enforcing a max width is 'The Right Thing'.

If you disagree then that'a ace but take the responsibility for your own defaults.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#24

Post by dextorious »

ars wrote: post #10
inconditus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the parent was offering advice for accessibility to help the member's of the community improve on their projects. Why would you disapprove of that?

I personally hate when sites make the text narrow. If I want the text narrow, I shrink the browser. (Which I never actually do BTW.) So to me the advice makes things worse, not better. 60-80 chars per line???? Even my email is wider than that. Go for at least 200.

Sure, for some reason standard typographic practice and tons of readability tests that show the need for narrower lines don't apply to you especially.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#25

Post by ars »

dextorious wrote: post #24
ars wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally hate when sites make the text narrow. If I want the text narrow, I shrink the browser. (Which I never actually do BTW.) So to me the advice makes things worse, not better. 60-80 chars per line???? Even my email is wider than that. Go for at least 200.

Sure, for some reason standard typographic practice and tons of readability tests that show the need for narrower lines don't apply to you especially.

And? I think it's a lot more people than you realize - at the moment my comment has 7 points, and that's despite getting downmodded a few times.

This stuff with narrow lines may have been tested on poor readers perhaps? I don't know. All I know is I hate narrow lines - and I especially hate them on websites.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#26

Post by ars »

andybak wrote: post #23
autotelicum wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good constructive feedback. I thought about it, so one of the next days when I get time, I'll add a little 'Limit Width' button up on top. It'll be freeflow by default, but just one click for those who prefer a narrower format.

Don't leap so quickly to making it a user choice. Just 'Do The Right Thing'. In this case I think enforcing a max width is 'The Right Thing'. If you disagree then that'a ace but take the responsibility for your own defaults.

The right thing is free-width of course. You have a personal need for narrow lines - no problem.

But a lot more people than you realize do not like narrow lines.

Re: Smooth CoffeeScript

#27

Post by dextorious »

ars wrote: post #25
dextorious wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, for some reason standard typographic practice and tons of readability tests that show the need for narrower lines don't apply to you especially.

And? I think it's a lot more people than you realize - at the moment my comment has 7 points, and that's despite getting downmodded a few times. This stuff with narrow lines may have been tested on poor readers perhaps? I don't know. All I know is I hate narrow lines - and I especially hate them on websites.

I mostly attribute it to self-delusion.

Also, none of those 7 even did a proper A/B/A test on what they claim --while the counter-example is well shown in tons of tests.

Post reply on HN