Redesign of dlang.org

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 16:13:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> ... first hit is 
> http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/13724/recommended-column-width-for-text-reading-digital-vs-printed 
> pointing to a study indicating 95 characters per line as 
> optimal for on-screen reading comprehension. The subjective 
> preferences, however, was biased toward smaller numbers.
>
> The second link is 
> http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability which points to 
> a few studies concluding that 50-75 cpl (characters per line) 
> would be indicated for web design.
>
> Third is 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7460041/whats-a-good-maximum-width-of-text-on-a-webpage 
> which quotes a really nice collection of numbers from Smashing 
> Magazine from popular websites, showing that 84% of the sites 
> they looked at use 65-104 cpl.
>
> It just struck me that Google's own search page that I'm 
> looking at right now, which I vaguely recall did not limit line 
> lengths a few years ago, is now using a 90 cpl limit. The 
> page's right-hand side is a white area.
>
> Next is 
> http://webstyleguide.com/wsg3/7-page-design/6-page-width-line-length.html, 
> which mentions 66 cpl as optimal from a physiological 
> standpoint.
>
> Next is http://socialtriggers.com/perfect-content-width/ which 
> nicely advocates smaller cpl at the top of the content (so 
> people read the essential message quickly) followed by 100 cpl.

Gosh now I finally know what researches to blame for my eyes 
bleeding upon most web site restylings (Facebook *caugh-caugh*). 
If anything it just shows that overall reading skills are 
decreasing and no one care about visitors with small fonts (me). 
But current HTML/CSS standards don't provide way to express sizes 
as percentage of screen width (as opposed to page window width), 
do they?