I have been using (an older version of) Tufte CSS on my blog[0] for years now. I had to tweak it quite a bit before I thought it looked OK on both phones and tablets but I really think it does work well for the longer-form posts I was originally aiming for.
Tufte CSS
41–50 of 50 posts
Re: Tufte CSS
#42Beautiful. Bug? when I narrowed the window, the side notes disappeared?
Re: Tufte CSS
#43I have been using (an older version of) Tufte CSS on my blog[0] for years now. I had to tweak it quite a bit before I thought it looked OK on both phones and tablets but I really think it does work well for the longer-form posts I was originally aiming for. [0] https://sheep.horse/everything.html
I would add more left and right padding.
Re: Tufte CSS
#44Re: Tufte CSS
#45Beautiful. Bug? when I narrowed the window, the side notes disappeared?
On narrower screens they become togglable elements. Try clicking the little reference numbers.
Re: Tufte CSS
#46Beautiful. Bug? when I narrowed the window, the side notes disappeared?
Author calls this out in the document. It’s intentional.
Re: Tufte CSS
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm usually sensitive to such issues, but I'm not seeing it in this case. Can you point out where that's most visible? Or screenshot it? Maybe it has to do with font rendering on your system. It looks fine for me on Windows and Firefox. Hhmm although upon a closer look, the kerning in "We" is a bit wide. But the small caps look fine to me. If this is the only thing, I'd hardly label it "atrocious".
Basically every problematic pair with one of the letters being uppercased Tu in Tufte Pl in Please We in Webpages Al in Also Punctuatuion symbols as in Finally, Markdown’s As for small caps, on apple this is really bad “In his later books” List goes on Cursive in “as close as possible” has stroke width not matching the regular font. In regular font uppercased letters have thicker strokes than lowercased. It’s really…
Heh you're right, it is bad. I don't see it on "Please", "Also", and the small caps, but agree with the rest.
Re: Tufte CSS
#48I have been using (an older version of) Tufte CSS on my blog[0] for years now. I had to tweak it quite a bit before I thought it looked OK on both phones and tablets but I really think it does work well for the longer-form posts I was originally aiming for. [0] https://sheep.horse/everything.html
I would add more left and right padding.
It's my website and I'll do what I want! :)
More seriously, you bring up a good point about form factors. I imagine you are reading my site on a cell-phone. On these devices I purposely made the page width more-or-less fill the width of the screen to fit more text in at a readable font-size.
This used to be a reasonable choice because cell phones all had bezels. Now that many phones have screens that extend all the way to the edge of the device, pages like mine look weird as the text bleeds underneath the users fingers.
Just another example of how it is difficult to design a page that looks good on the multitude of devices that people use these days.
I'm probably not going to change it though.
Re: Tufte CSS
#49I recall quite liking the typography on this website the first time I saw it years ago. It's amazing how much it has dated for me since (I think primarily due to being liberally copied exactly in too many places around the web). > a reminder about the goal of this project. The web is not print. Webpages are not books. Therefore, the goal of Tufte CSS is not to say “websites should look like this interpretation of Tuf…
Really? I took an immediate dislike to it. Same for the site linked in the comments below - https://resilientwebdesign.com It reminds me of the printing found in 200 year old books. I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about it, but it grates. Perhaps it's inconsistent letter shapes. Can anyone more informed comment on the font?
> Can anyone more informed comment on the font?
Could it be that you unconsciously prefer serif fonts to sans serif fonts? Sans serif fonts are preferred by people with dyslexia, for example.
Another thing that comes to mind is high contrast in stroke thickness, thick vertical strokes and thin horizontal or curved strokes. This is reminiscent of engravings and calligraphy, but can be difficult to read on a screen, especially when the font size is small. Anti-aliasing options can also affect this and lead to even greater differences between letters than expected.
Articles like this one may provide you with the right words to describe what you don't like about certain fonts: https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/a-beginners-guide-to-web-...
Re: Tufte CSS
#50Beautiful. Bug? when I narrowed the window, the side notes disappeared?
Causing a 300 year quest to prove a theorem.