On 06/24/2015 11:45 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 15:30:58 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> yeah. that's why people constantly complains that the very same web
>> pages looks like crap on their mobiles, or on their desktops. a
>> perfect fit!
>
> That's because they are designed to be pixel-precise, like native UI, so
> they have the same issues with user settings as native UI. But poor
> design choice is a responsibility of the respective designer. Well, this
> was already said many times in this thread.

It's not always because of being designed to be pixel-precise. "Responsive design" and "mobile-first" are very deliberately NOT pixel-precise, but most of them look like shit on the desktop (at least until you zoom out about ten times). That's because with such sites, desktop often ends up getting treated as if it were a high-DPI 5"-6" screen.

The new "vw" font size units are going to lead to even more disaster in that regard.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:45:46 +0000, Kagamin wrote:

> That's because they are designed to be pixel-precise, like native UI

in *my* world, native UIs doesn't even know what "pixel" is.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:30:27 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> On 06/24/2015 11:34 AM, ketmar wrote:
>>
>> i ported [cassowary] to D some time ago.
> 
> Github?

no, repo.or.cz ;-)

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/btoozbdfmuoopdrfrxgy@forum.dlang.org

that repo is slightly outdated, as i moved the port to my IV library (and aliced it, so no vanilla anymore...)

there is another port mentioned in that thread, it's even available on code.dlang.org.

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 16:42:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> It's not always because of being designed to be pixel-precise. "Responsive design" and "mobile-first" are very deliberately NOT pixel-precise, but most of them look like shit on the desktop (at least until you zoom out about ten times).

http://abload.de/img/tmpm5p88.png
Lucky you are if you have only problems with font size. There's also a problem that people don't set up their preferred font size, so it's understandable that designers may want to work this around. And e.g. FF doesn't honor that setting anyway.

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 08:13:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> Lucky you are if you have only problems with font size. There's also a problem that people don't set up their preferred font size, so it's understandable that designers may want to work this around. And e.g. FF doesn't honor that setting anyway.

Apple messed up the whole preferred font size by having a smaller default size for Safari than other browsers. That meant that the site looked wrong on Safari if not hardcoding the font-size, from the viewpoint of customers. YMMV.

If the site is "responsive" you should get it right by zooming the whole page anyway. And it makes sense to have larger figures if you need larger fonts.

Others in the thread has used the term "pixel perfect" to refer to the "px" unit.
FWIW "px" does not refer to pixel, but is a perception related unit which is based on the normal view distance to the screen. This is usually rounded off to the closest whole pixel block (1x2, 2x2, 3x3 etc).

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 08:05:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> This appears to have involvement from all major browser vendors, which provides hope it might actually catch on properly. An llvm backend will be created which will compile to "wasm", hopefully LDC and/or SDC could glue to this.
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/
>
> https://github.com/WebAssembly
>
> In particular, see https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/HighLevelGoals.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/FAQ.md and https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/MVP.md

So it has been 13 pages of heated debate, but no PR is to be seen for LDC or SDC...

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 18:38:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 08:05:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> This appears to have involvement from all major browser vendors, which provides hope it might actually catch on properly. An llvm backend will be created which will compile to "wasm", hopefully LDC and/or SDC could glue to this.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/
>>
>> https://github.com/WebAssembly
>>
>> In particular, see https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/HighLevelGoals.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/FAQ.md and https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/MVP.md
>
> So it has been 13 pages of heated debate, but no PR is to be seen for LDC or SDC...

Well, first we have to decide if a PR would even be worthwhile... ;)

On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 01:16:37 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 18:38:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 08:05:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> This appears to have involvement from all major browser vendors, which provides hope it might actually catch on properly. An llvm backend will be created which will compile to "wasm", hopefully LDC and/or SDC could glue to this.
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/
>>>
>>> https://github.com/WebAssembly
>>>
>>> In particular, see https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/HighLevelGoals.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/FAQ.md and https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/MVP.md
>>
>> So it has been 13 pages of heated debate, but no PR is to be seen for LDC or SDC...
>
> Well, first we have to decide if a PR would even be worthwhile... ;)

By this time we'd have a PR and we could play with it to decide using first hand experience.

On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 02:29:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> By this time we'd have a PR and we could play with it to decide using first hand experience.

For which browser? It isn't implemented, is it?

Am Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:15:47 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb ketmar <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org>:

> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 14:06:50 +0200, Marco Leise wrote:
> 
> > If you have a perfectly working old notebook with Windows XP on it, I can recommend QtWeb for its low resource usage and modern-ish feature set. It is a little unstable and rough around the edges though: http://www.qtweb.net/
> 
> Qt+WebKit. low resource usage. you must be joking.

No I was serious. I compared it to pretty much every other
complete graphical web browser on XP and it "won" by a big
margin. (I opened 5 different web sites in each browser and
compared their memory use in the task manager).
Remember when tabbed browsing was no option on old notebooks?
Now it is and my preference in terms of closing old tabs is
doing it like a mark and sweep garbage collector - every once
in a while.

-- 
Marco