On 4/22/14, 1:39 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 20:01:27 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/22/14, 3:32 AM, Kagamin wrote:
What's problem with entire page width? I don't remember difficulty
reading w3c docs or gcc docs or linux man pages even when they occupy
the entire page width.
https://www.google.com/search?q=page%20width%20study#q=optimal+page+width+for+reading&safe=off
As I have already pointed out, there is no optimal width. E.g. if you
have 3 lines per paragraph you can have longer lines. If you have 20
lines per paragrap you need shorter ones.
According to the top hits in the search I posted, your point is not valid.
So why are you doing this?
Trying to be clever? Obviously not.
I don't understand the motivation of this quip.
Kagamin meant "window width". Clearly if the user can adjust his window
he can get the desired text width.
Today's crop of browsers are tabbed, and for many users the position of
the browser window is dictated by external constraints (relation to
other windows, external monitor or not etc) and it's unreasonable to
demand resizing the window whenever they swap tabs.
Only after two decades of academics
pointing out a need for flexible width do web designers get it and start
chanting for "responsive design". Not because they actually understand
what they are doing, but because they were FORCED to leave their ugly
fixed width obsession by the introduction of mobile devices.
Strawman. I'm not advocating for fixed width.
Too many documentation sites still get this wrong, meaning: they don't
work properly if the user sets a larger font or uses his own stylesheets.
This is the proper link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/
(You ARE flame baiting, right? I think you owe Kagamin an apology.)
Wut? This is weird, but whatevs. Just please don't charge him attorney
fees :o).
Andrei
