301–310 of 328 posts
"If you can stick to the same style long enough and also write articles for long enough, your style sheet can become your brand. But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego." This is blatantly incorrect or a flagrant misrepresentation. CSS can certainly improve readability without adding design. Readability is a check list which stock HTML does not address. https://practicaltypography.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fun fact: your text will look nothing like a book if you use HTML with no CSS and rely only on the user agent default style sheet. Books are designed, too.
If you don't like default settings, change them, that's why the options dialog exists.
According to the following website, the value of the product you're selling is inversely proportional to the effort (including website sugar) you need to put into selling it. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
Cloudflare Pages, Github Pages, Gitlab Pages, Netlify, etc, etc. It's all free at this level. Vastly distributed and they can all use CI/CD to build static-site-generator configurations for you, if you want that.
It's not about the money. Hostgator has been a recurrently awful host over the past 21 years, cutting people off as soon as they get popular, downtime when they overoversell their service. They're a relic, alongside Dreamhost, Bluehost, GoDaddy; the type of host we just don't need any more.
The rest of the article is right: you may not need anything more than HTML+CSS, but life is a lot easier if you don't have to build it yourself. I'll take Astro + Git + Cloudflare over "gen.php" + FTP + Hostgator any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But this isn't a viable solution for a lot of people.
Why not? Are you saying “because a lot of people don’t use Firefox”, or because of some problem you perceive in turning off custom fonts?
It quickly gets more complicated for some sites, which users might use often. There are folks talking about how you can use custom CSS to fix just about any site, and that's true, but how technical are we expecting users to be?
And even as a user who develops websites for a living and can definitely do all this, I don't want to. The web should be designed to work for users by default. I shouldn't have to fix websites to use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Are you saying “because a lot of people don’t use Firefox”, or because of some problem you perceive in turning off custom fonts?
Because a lot of people don't have the technical ability. The tab is called "Advanced" for a reason. It quickly gets more complicated for some sites, which users might use often. There are folks talking about how you can use custom CSS to fix just about any site, and that's true, but how technical are we expecting users to be? And even as a user who develops websites for a living and can definitely do all this, I don…
Come now, it doesn’t take any technical ability to use the checkbox. It’s called “Advanced” because it’s more complex tweaks that most people aren’t interested in and which take a moderate amount of space so they want to keep it out of the way lest the page get too long, not because it’s hard to use in any way.
> It quickly gets more complicated for some sites, which users might use often.
It is rare for this to have any ill effect on any site (icon fonts that don’t use the PUA and aren’t Material Icons (for which Firefox has manual exceptions in place) are about the only case, and they’re distinctly rare nowadays—I only recall encountering about two cases last year, both of which were paired with labels and thus unimportant), and in those rare cases it’s unusual for it to be a real problem (they’ll almost always have labels or tooltips).
I will quite happily recommend changing this setting to completely untechnical users. It occasionally causes very mild harm, and can theoretically cause great harm for particular sites (but I haven’t found such a site for years, and any such sites were surely already broken anyway), but the rest of the time it improves matters markedly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except monospace fonts shouldn't be used for prose , so the author is actively making the reading experience worse for... aesthetics and vanity reasons? It's hard to respect the advice of a designer whose deviations from their own rules make the design worse. Almost any web-safe font[1] would have been a better choice. [1] https://www.awayback.com/index.php/2010/02/03/revised-font-s...
Who says they shouldn't be used for prose? Screenplays is one example off the top of my head that is ubiquitously monospace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you even browsing websites that have any design then? Why are you even browsing in anything other than lynx? Please spare me seeing that ideologically boring site again Like I can barely imagine what your house might look like. Just like a purely functional weathered hovel with the absolutely barest essentials. A perfect prison cell
Web 2.0 design can be fixed so some extent by disabling javascript and sometimes disabling styles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
personally I miss the vanilla html of the late 90s (unless advanced guis) same went for emacs I stopped using themes
The default Emacs theme is not great, but the current best practice is to stop messing with themes and just use modus (vivendi or operandi depending on your light/dark preference), especially since they are now included as part of Emacs.
Bold statement. Those look mostly terrible to me.