Quick example of how it looks: https://jsfiddle.net/n8Lqypb7/
Is there some way to view the result full screen, namely for viewing on mobile?
58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
11–20 of 254 posts
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#12What is wrong with browser default styling, and why do browsers ship with something that is wrong?
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters
What makes you say that? Anecdotally, I prefer using the full width of my screen.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#13What is wrong with browser default styling, and why do browsers ship with something that is wrong?
Browsers ship with defaults that are now 20 years old - there was a cool post here about 8px body padding a while ago. It's not "wrong" it's legacy.
Why is it legacy though? Shouldn't browsers be free to change it?
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters What makes you say that? Anecdotally, I prefer using the full width of my screen.
There is a huge amount of research devoted to this. Of course personal preferences exist, but there are physical constraints like the degree to which your eyes can move without turning your neck and other things. It’s somewhere between 60-120 I think, with 80 right in the sweet spot.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters What makes you say that? Anecdotally, I prefer using the full width of my screen.
It's actually smaller than 80 characters.
There has been over a century of research into this. It's why newspapers print their stories in columns, instead of across the entire page, which would be easier.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#16What is wrong with browser default styling, and why do browsers ship with something that is wrong?
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters
Do you have some evidence backing this up? Thanks.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#17I've got a screen that is much wider than it is tall, this throws away so much of it. It's as bad as Facebook, where the stuff you want to see is a band about 1/4 the area of the screen.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters What makes you say that? Anecdotally, I prefer using the full width of my screen.
Newspapers have been using columns to break up long lines for well over a century.
It's hard to find to the next line, if they are too long.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default styling looks terrible and is hard to read. Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters, while browsers default to filling the whole width of the screen with text, resulting in a column that's hundreds of characters wide. Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. Browsers still ship the bad defaults because changing de…
> Humans are good at reading columns at around roughly 80 characters What makes you say that? Anecdotally, I prefer using the full width of my screen.
Just look at any physical book. I also wonder how many people would read Wikipedia more if they serve the mobile version on desktop.
Re: 58 bytes of CSS to look great nearly everywhere
#20Do you still have to explicitly add CSS to do something appropriate for the user's dark mode setting? I'd rather not specify any colors at all and just let the browser use system defaults, but last time I checked, that used black-on-white even in dark mode.