This is good website.
Replying to comments about our web page design
121–130 of 211 posts
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#122Per original link
>>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain.
>Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed.
this statement basically implies that you have no intention of creating a website that is accessible to all users, and to all of those users with cognitive, vision, or neurological issues: "tough luck, go see a doctor!". Though I understand the goal here in terms of style and this page is indeed WCAG friendly enough in terms of some of the most obvious success criteria- this website is an objective nightmare for those with a variety of cognitive disabilities.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.
I once worked at a place where we shifted some content from a two column layout to three columns. We had users telling us it was literally giving them headaches and making them feel ill. This despite the fact that it now looked basically like the rest of our content. You absolutely cannot take all user complaints seriously.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#124Nice explaining, yet terrible web design.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#125Has anyone here seen the original ooer subreddit?
https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ best viewed on desktop
Enjoy it's luscious overdrive.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#126I'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.
> I didn't get a larger monitor just so that everything can waste more space with giant text.
That's what the outer min() is for: it makes sure the font size caps out at 1.3em which usually translates to 16 x 1.3 = 20.8px, which is well within the recommended size range for prose anyway.
What that whole snippet does boils down to exactly what they said in the article:
> The main global stylesheet uses the browser default font size, smoothly scaled up to 130% on higher-resolution displays as the baseline for the body text of the whole document.
On a low-dpi screen, nothing changes. On a high-dpi one, if you haven't set your browser text size to something larger, this snippet saves you from tiny unreadable text. Also note that ctrl+ and ctrl- to zoom still work just fine. It's not as dramatic a change as the sibling comment said. You can try it out on their site to see for yourself.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 brigh…
This is a pretty pointless conversation.
They're going to keep the design. I'm going to be happy about that. You're not.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can a user with eyestrain issues change the colors of a website?
It depends on your own issue but : - https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/font-contrast-fi... - https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/darkreader Or anything that can change or override the default browser style-sheet. Be it yourself if you are technical savvy enough or a tool. It can also just be your monitor settings if it suits you.
I’m not sure that such browser extensions resolve websites from accommodating users with eyestrain/headaches. At the very least, a website with a shrill design should be compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, and the website in question isn’t.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#129Design proof that being "unique" doesn't mean "good". I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Wh…
> It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere.
"Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the children who are wrong."
-Seymour Skinner, "The Simpsons"
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#130I think the one thing that strains the eyes a bit about the layout (besides people just using it as a metaphor for saying they don't like it) is that a lot of their themes use text shadow on all of the text, which makes it look slightly blurry, which in turn makes your eyes strain trying to focus on it.
They address this and tell you your browser is broken. But also that if you are using a non-broken browser and it's still hard to read for you then that's on purpose, they want it to be hard to read for you, because their content is for healthy people only.