101–110 of 254 posts
Not explicitly mentioned here, but worth bringing up: Text width should always be constrained to a maximum width to optimize for human reading. Every book ever printed has text with set within the same range for a reason. Full width text guarantees most users will have a poor reading experience.
It seems like I'm permanently in some sort of dystopian nightmare 'unpopular opinion' group where wasting two thirds of my monitors useful space is the right way about doing things. I have monitors either side of my primary in portrait mode specifically for looking at a bunch of code/text and it still wastes at least half of the useful display area. https://i.imgur.com/Qk7fM35.png If I wanted this, I'd press the read…
Of course, this looks like wasted space when you have a landscape-oriented monitor... I personally very rarely maximize my browser so that I read in more of a portrait-style mode, regardless of the orientation of my display.
It seems like I'm permanently in some sort of dystopian nightmare 'unpopular opinion' group where wasting two thirds of my monitors useful space is the right way about doing things. I have monitors either side of my primary in portrait mode specifically for looking at a bunch of code/text and it still wastes at least half of the useful display area. https://i.imgur.com/Qk7fM35.png If I wanted this, I'd press the read…
If that text was full width along your screen you'd be wasting vertical screen space instead. Will you ask them to write more to fill your screen up?
What is wrong with browser default styling, and why do browsers ship with something that is wrong?
The problem with browser default styling is that there should be another level: user default styling. I.e., the styling as chosen by the user.
It seems like I'm permanently in some sort of dystopian nightmare 'unpopular opinion' group where wasting two thirds of my monitors useful space is the right way about doing things. I have monitors either side of my primary in portrait mode specifically for looking at a bunch of code/text and it still wastes at least half of the useful display area. https://i.imgur.com/Qk7fM35.png If I wanted this, I'd press the read…
@-moz-document url-prefix("about:reader") {
.container{
max-width:100% !important;
}
.toolbar-container{
display:none !important;
}
}
It seems like I'm permanently in some sort of dystopian nightmare 'unpopular opinion' group where wasting two thirds of my monitors useful space is the right way about doing things. I have monitors either side of my primary in portrait mode specifically for looking at a bunch of code/text and it still wastes at least half of the useful display area. https://i.imgur.com/Qk7fM35.png If I wanted this, I'd press the read…
html {
max-width: 70ch;
padding: 3em 1em;
margin: auto;
line-height: 1.75;
font-size: 1.25em;
}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
margin: 3em 0 1em;
}
p,ul,ol {
margin-bottom: 2em;
color: #1d1d1d;
font-family: sans-serif;
}
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a literature review on the topic: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234578707_Optimal_L... . The article content is inaccessible, but from the abstract: > Research has led to recommendations that line length should not exceed about 70 characters per line. The reason behind this finding is that both very short and very long lines slow down reading by interrupting the normal pattern of eye movements and m…
> (up to 10 inches) here on HN in my 16" MBP, 10 inches is ~230 characters
> Her results showed that passages formatted in the longest line length (95 characters per line or 10 inches) resulted in the fastest reading speed.