21–30 of 120 posts
I love how this is formatted - reading it in those little blocks with an image to make it more clear. It is a joy to read. The actual point itself is somewhat interesting too. "curse" is a strong word though.
This format—with each paragraph fading as you scroll, and large changing images alongside—is borderline unreadable. Somewhat ironic in a blog post that (I think) is about tradeoffs between text and formatting.
This format—with each paragraph fading as you scroll, and large changing images alongside—is borderline unreadable. Somewhat ironic in a blog post that (I think) is about tradeoffs between text and formatting.
Not happening to me on mobile, weird.
I love how this is formatted - reading it in those little blocks with an image to make it more clear. It is a joy to read. The actual point itself is somewhat interesting too. "curse" is a strong word though.
Funny. For me, it is horrible user experience. Don't decide for me. Let me read what's already on screen. I hate scroll jacking of any type.
Here, the main text moves up and down when you scroll, and there's an illustration on the side which changes accordingly. I'm seeing mixed opinions about that stylistic choice here, I don't have a strong one myself.
Just that it isn't scroll jacking. It's some other thing.
Markdown's chief feature is to be usable without tooling when writing, so more content is generated in the first place. So it extends the rich/cost graph to the left.
Because markdown is easily and often parsed, it operates as a data source from the get-go, mostly achieving the separation of concerns needed to scale to the right.
What are the pain or price points that will change with adopting this new technology?
(Is Swift-docc really the comparable? It seems to show what this is hopefully not: a subset dialect of markdown struggling with volatile, unusable hash links, no real extensibility or inter-op, tethered to BigCo's mission.)
(The curse of curses: they provoke negativity.)
Markdown has always supported direct raw HTML in it. I don't see any gulf or sudden jump in cost. Don't be a Markdown purist. Even John Gruber, the creator of Markdown, is not a Markdown purist. Go look at the Markdown source of his blog and you will see that he frequently just uses raw HTML. He doesn't even do multi-paragraph ordered lists in Markdown, and chooses to write instead. And he also uses for clickable ima…
Markdown makes it easy to write formatted content at the cost of initial compiler setup, HTML is 0-cost setup but takes some effort to write formatted content. With a tag one could start with vanilla HTML at zero cost, use all its features straight away, but not have to type HTML for the simple, "content" parts of a site.
EDIT: there seem to be web components for this already:
- https://github.com/xan105/web-component-markdown
- https://www.webcomponents.org/element/zero-md
- https://www.webcomponents.org/element/@vanillawc/wc-markdown
This format—with each paragraph fading as you scroll, and large changing images alongside—is borderline unreadable. Somewhat ironic in a blog post that (I think) is about tradeoffs between text and formatting.
This format—with each paragraph fading as you scroll, and large changing images alongside—is borderline unreadable. Somewhat ironic in a blog post that (I think) is about tradeoffs between text and formatting.