Redesign of dlang.org

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 14:59:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:58:06AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 4/23/2014 6:19 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> >Usually when I run into a site with (1) microscopic fonts, 
>> >(2) giant
>> >(often multicolored) fonts, (3) no whitespace, or (4) has more
>> >ads/filler than content, my fingers have an almost 
>> >instinctual ctrl-W
>> >(close tab) response. Sometimes not even one word registers 
>> >in my
>> >brain before I move on to the next site.
>> >
>> 
>> Incidentally, ugly rainbow text is also why I set my mail 
>> client to
>> plaintext-only ages ago.
> [...]
>
> I've never left terminal-only email clients. :P
>
> For a short time at work I put up with webmail, because they 
> didn't tell
> me pop3 access was available. Boy, that was painful. Then one 
> day I
> discovered that I can use pop3, and oh the joy! I installed 
> mutt and
> fetchmail, and from that day on never looked back.
>
> Nowadays, it seems that HTML-only mails are getting more 
> common, which
> is unfortunate. Luckily, there's `elinks -dump`, which one of 
> these days
> I'm gonna hook up to my .procmailrc so that I won't ever see 
> HTML mails,
> ever again. >:-)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:27:09PM +0000, via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 08:58:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
>> wrote:
>> >I agree. Unfortunately though, browsers haven't always has 
>> >reasonable
>> >defaults, so people had to work around, so now it's all 
>> >pretty much
>> >screwed.
>> >
>> >Maybe what we need is a CSS for "sane-size-defaults: on;" 
>> >which would
>> >provide a "reboot" of the whole default font sizes.
>> 
>> The defaults in the original browsers were set a bit large 
>> (16px), so
>> Safari decided to set them smaller for a while. That sucked. 
>> Nowadays
>> you can just set the scaling of the body to 87.5% of the 
>> default and
>> get a reasonable size (14px).
>
> Funny. I find anything below 16pt unreadably small.

According to the CCS 2.1 standard 1 px == 0.75pt.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

Thus:

16pt => 12px => 3.1mm at a reading distance of 71 cm.

Yep, that pretty tiny. :-)

> TBH, I find this "pixel perfect" obsession to be really silly.  
> It shows that web developers don't understand that what the user
> sees is NOT what developers see

If we are talking about fixed sizes, sure. Pixel perfect in this 
context means that black lines of the fonts are aligned with the 
pixel layout so you get sharp black lines and not blurry gray 
shit that looks like it are out of focus. To get that right you 
have to adjust the font/rendering engine so the lines match up.

When it comes to graphics there is no longer an excuse for not 
gong whole sale SVG. IE8 is thankfully not a contender anymore! 
:-) Misaligned vector-graphics is not so bad if you avoid 1 
hardware-pixel thin lines. (Or you can adjust it with javascript).

One property missing on LCDs that CRTs have is the lowpass filter 
after the D/A conversion, which leads to jagged artifacts. Thus 
they are "pixel perfect" by nature. There is now way around it. 
If you don't want "pixel perfect" then you have to go back to 
CRTs where the phosphors is your reconstruction filter. Of 
course, this doesn't matter with very high resolution displays.

(I am also clinging onto my 1600x1200 display…)

> "This site is best
> viewable in AAAxYYY resolution" is so last century. When are we 
> gonna grow out of that?!

I dunno.

The current fad is: «this site is best viewed on a cellphone so 
we have almost no content, but let's

                           SCALE UP THE
                            FONT AND
                         CENTER THE TEXT

so it looks nice on desktops. Mobile first!»