191–200 of 237 posts
If I ever encounter, and need to read a webpage with arbitrarily sized and placed grids of text, please somebody just shoot me. https://webkit.org/wp-content/uploads/Grid-Lanes-newspaper-d...
Never read a newspaper?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link to the source for your stats? I'm not finding anything to corroborate that -- I'm seeing stats suggesting things like 90% of Chrome users are on the newest version after two weeks: https://timotijhof.net/posts/2023/browser-adoption/ And Stat Counter shows that the current version of Chrome utterly dominates in any given month: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-version-market-share/desk... The glacial ad…
My go-to reference is this, which itself cites statcounter: https://caniuse.com/usage-table I was specifically referencing desktop Chrome, not including Chrome for Android, but other than that, if there are discrepancies, I'm not sure what the cause is.
The Timo Tijhof data is based on Wikipedia visits, and shouldn't be affected by adblockers.
Meanwhile, StatCounter is based on sites that use its analytics, and on users not using adblockers that might block it. The CanIUse table makes clear there's a long tail of outdated Chrome versions that each individually have tiny usage, but they seem to add up.
It's fascinating they're so wildly different. I'm inclined to think Wikipedia, being the #9 site on the web [1], is going to produce a more accurate distribution of users overall. I can't help but wonder if StatCounter is used by a ton of relatively low-traffic sites, and the long tail of outdated Chrome is actually headless Chrome crawlers, and so they make up a large proportion relative to actual user traffic? Since they're not pushed to update, the way consumers are. And especially with ad-blocking real users excluded too?
Anecdotally, in web development I just haven't seen users complain about sites not working in Chrome, where it turns out the culprit is outdated Chrome. In contrast to complaints about e.g. not working in Firefox, which happen all the time. Or where it breaks in Chrome but it turns out it's an extension interfering.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites
Any ideas how I can track support for this in firefox?
I have often thought layouts should be done by a constraint solver. Then there could be libraries that help simplify specifying a layout, which feed constraints to the solver.
I've done that for desktop apps before. You have to be careful with the effects of sub-pixel rendering and whatnot if your math is continuous, but it's a viable path that I quite like.
Props to the Safari team. They surprised us all when they suddenly shot to the top of interop-2025 this October https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025
Safari became the new IE for a while, the amount of problems I've had with Safari CSS animations and SVGs is endless. It's good they're trying to not make Safari suck as much.
There is an element of tragic comedy to those announcement. While remarkable on their own, everybody knows that one cannot use any new browser feature reliably any time soon due to Apple not shipping continuous updates to the browsers they force upon their users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't think of a single good reason why they don't adopt an "evergreen" 4/6-week update model except Not Invented Here syndrome or "it's not Apple-like, we prefer the OS team (and therefore Marketing) dictating our release schedule, users be damned". There's a new version of Safari Technology Preview [1] for macOS every two weeks. There's a new version of Safari released every September for macOS, iOS, iPadOS, an…
The Safari/WebKit people are doing good work, yes. I use Safari as my default, and like every Firefox/Safari user I still get some bugs that don't occur in Chrome (not talking about WebMIDI obviously), so watching that 30 point gap between stable Safari and bleeding-edge WebKit (longer than 7½ weeks) on wpt.fyi was quite frustrating. The average Safari user would have a better browsing experience with a shorter fix d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never read a newspaper?
Yes, I have. Printed, which is fundamentally, and literally a different media type with different properties
TLDR: in the user's eyes, a newspaper and this sort of layout are not very different, if the average user can navigate the former for hundreds of years, they can navigate the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that better? It's still a grid of images that seem to be constrained to a more or less rectangular grid. I'm thinking more of a dynamic grid where there is a mix of sizes of horizontal and vertical images.
The point being raised is that dynamic image grids don't actually make for a good UX. They might look more visually interesting at a superficial glance, but when you're actually using the interface to browse images, predictability wins out. Even having mixed-orientation images, where there is some degree of extra whitespace between images, does not change this. It is way easier to digest the content when your eyes ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never read a newspaper?
(Not GP poster.) I don't really have a problem with masonry layouts, but a newspaper is limited by the paper size and they have incentive to squeeze everything in there (to maximize the spread of "information"). The screen is theoretically infinite (although not for kiosks). I do have a website with a lot of images, and at the moment everything is in a 3-across grid layout...