131–140 of 271 posts
I'm still looking for "just use links". So many frontends I see use fancy onclicks to emulate links (including updating window.location). However they are either not links or are void links. This breaks all sorts of useful things (copy link location, open in new tab &c.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virtually every site breaks the back button now. Even reddit will suddenly forget discussions I had closed, and where I was on the page, and then have to reload something, when I all I need it to do was take me back to the same state on the page that I had before.
> Virtually every site breaks the back button now This is just not my experience, at all. I'm extremely sensitive to this issue, and its just not something I see all that regularly any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole debate between semantic markup and visual styling in CSS looks to me to be a massive exercise in people yelling past each other and needlessly making all life difficult. I've ranted about this before, but worse is that everyone insists on trying to go with the default flow of elements as much as they can. Example I used last time was that it is actually easy to layout things and have them look pretty solid…
Works in all browsers, maybe, but certainly not all screen sizes. On my 1080p 5" nexus 5x, opening the page leaves me with unreadably small text. If I zoom in, the text doesn't reflow. So now I need to bounce scrolling around from side to side to read a line of text. I suspect if I performed the same test in my 1440p 27" monitor, I'd have a surprisingly similar problem, of overly small text in a small box in the cent…
Note, I couldn't just do an image because of the animation nonsense I was playing with.
Edit: though, oddly, I think you are really complaining about some of the styling I inherited from org. I can possibly fix that easily enough. Never tried. Pretty sure I can just swap out a "width" with "max-width" and things will reflow as desired. For my eyes on my phone, the current width was fine. I didn't bother checking why it killed reflow. But I can confirm it reflows as desired on desktop if I do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it hard to learn. Put someone in front of some graph paper and let them layout what they want the page to look like. Get someone a little more experienced to help them pick the points that can grow, and off you go. Not to say that they can't do better with flex and grid. But it was like our entire industry didn't even bother trying to learn with the first tools that our industry made.
I think the main difficulty is twofold. First there's the box model, which was different in IE than in the rest of the world for a long long time. Juniors that don't understand the difference will produce markup and styling that work in one browser but not the other. Absolute positioning is way more sensitive to the box model than other kinds of layout. Second, unless you really want to insist on absolutely positioni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen a setup where a css preprocessor didn't just generate the output once at build-time.
Oh, people can abuse anything. Maybe they want their CSS all in-line at the top of the dynamic HTML. So they run the preprocessor during page generation on the server. Use a separate CSS via link tag? Oh no, I heard that was slow. Set expires cache header for 1 day? Oh no, that makes testing hard for me and what if the CSS changes? Web developers sometimes use the dumbest reasons to avoid doing good things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that's why that happens. Why on earth would you break one of the most foundational aspects of HTML that way?
My guess is somebody over-engineered a "make anything into a link" helper function and then decided it was easier to just use it everywhere, rather than preferring tags in the 90% of cases where it would make more sense. How do screen readers handle these script-based links? I don't mind it from a "I have working eyes and arms" perspective, but I imagine it's kind of a pain for assisted vision?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth considering that one of the many, many wonderful things about the modern internet and modern browsers is that you don't have to sit and wait passively for someone to deliver the experience you want to you. You have everything you need to make Firefox or Chromium do it for you! Then you can share it with others, and they can have the automagic, fresh-from-the-box, on-by-default experience you would like.
I've been doing this internet thing for nearly 25 years now. I'm not ignorant of all the things I can do on the "modern" internet or browsers. I'm not waiting around passively for someone to deliver experiences I want--I build software, ffs. I made a simple statement about what I wish browsers did by default . That means no extensions. That means that--unless I'm going to fork a browser to build it myself--building y…
If your over-featured site is still readable with lynx, your cheeks shall be spared.
Some visitors want an experience. Others just want information. It is very rare that both types may be satisfied on the same site. If you find that you can build such sites, please report to your nearest zoo, to register for the endangered species breeding program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. Explain that to my mother.
Most operating systems have accessibility options to help with that. Consider helping your mother to use those, they exist for a reason. Punishing everyone just because a few folks need help is not the answer.
But flip the logic. Your inaccessible site, due to tiny unreadable fonts, is punishing everyone whose eyes aren't as good as yours, which is a lot of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about you set maximum font size in your browser? That would be a much better plan. See what I mean?
> That would be a much better plan. See what I mean? No, because there are cases where having large fonts makes sense (e.g. for article titles, etc) while preserving the ability to display smaller fonts than that (e.g. for article content).