does anyone know what's the string above the "NO CARRIER" written at the bottom of the page?
Wondering that too. Its not an obvious encoding to my eyes.
Replying to comments about our web page design
101–110 of 211 posts
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#102Ha I actually kind of like this design its a bit different but works, I think the only thing that I might say is the reading length is a bit long maybe limiting to a set width in terms of length as its difficult on large screens to read across the full page but other then this not bad.
Have you tried that thing Bionic Reading it could be interesting for people to just digest the text further and quicker if that is the end goal but anyway its interesting I really do like it to be honest
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#103I've always liked ExoticSilicon's design, but not until this post did I realize their smart bit of CSS for default font size: font-size: min(max(1em, 1.3vw), 1.3em); Which explains why it looks just right on my high-DPI Chromebook even though I haven't configured a big enough default font size for the browser. This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum com…
I absolutely hate this. Viewport width has nothing to do with DPI and should not affect the font size. I didn't get a larger monitor just so that everything can waste more space with giant text.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.
I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.
As someone who suffers from strong eyestrain issues, I strongly disagree.
There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate.
If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts.
Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent.
Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable.
edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#105Irony has gone too far when you're writing an article explaining how your ironically bad and retro web design is good, actually.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#106I've always liked ExoticSilicon's design, but not until this post did I realize their smart bit of CSS for default font size: font-size: min(max(1em, 1.3vw), 1.3em); Which explains why it looks just right on my high-DPI Chromebook even though I haven't configured a big enough default font size for the browser. This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum com…
I absolutely hate this. Viewport width has nothing to do with DPI and should not affect the font size. I didn't get a larger monitor just so that everything can waste more space with giant text.
That's the thing. These hacks alwways end up negatively impacting some edge cases. I found a site once that used JS to autosize the text... as a result you couldn't manually resize with ctrl - and ctrl+.. It's better to stick to standards
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument. Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or…
> people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally
You’re assuming. It’s probably not a good idea to base one’s website’s accessibility strategy on such assumptions. Headaches and eyestrain are a real problem for many people. For example, people turn on dark mode because they have trouble looking at white backgrounds late at night or early in the morning. The same rule probably applies to bright colors.
> Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
I don’t think trade-offs are necessary. The website can have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time. For example, if the website was compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, then users could view the site in a simple black and white design.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#108This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page,…
Another perk of staying on Firefox 83.0, the favicon doesn't even load!
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints. > There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed? The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s…
So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text. People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.
Almost everything posted online is hyperbole
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#110Reminds me of Dinos Tomato Pie:
https://www.dinostomatopie.com/