On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:04PM +0100, Alix Pexton via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 24/04/2014 9:44 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> >Considering the very same size 9 fonts are used as default everywhere else in my desktop system and it feels just fine.. yeah, you must be right. It must be small font and not weirdly scaled UI with 2/3 of screen space blank. Sure.
> 
> We must just be oppositesAt the distance I sit from my monitor 9pt type is vanishingly small, I can read it as I type it, but not once I've forgotten what it says. I couldn't work like that.
> 
> I find that most sites use fonts that are too small, I often zoom until what I want to read fills the screen at a reasonable line length. don't know for sure how big that makes it but its probably around 32pt.

Glad to know I'm not the only one! :)


> Sites that have too much empty space around the text are often the ones that are kindest to zooming. others that try to fill the void tend to reflow at every step of zoom and get to very short lines very quickly.

I find it disappointing that after so many decades, we still haven't solved the problem of fluid layout. I mean, it's not as though it's an NP complete problem or something like that; in theory we *should* already have algorithms for this sort of thing. Yet people still continue clinging to outdated concepts about page layout.

In an ideal world, the webserver simply serves the content, and the browser is the one that decides how to present it -- and the user decides how the browser should present it. Ultimately, the user should be in charge.


T

-- 
Verbing weirds language. -- Calvin (& Hobbes)

On 4/24/2014 3:40 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> In an ideal world, the webserver simply serves the content, and the
> browser is the one that decides how to present it -- and the user
> decides how the browser should present it. Ultimately, the user should
> be in charge.
>

That's exactly how HTML used to work, but then the print folk and graphic designers came in and demanded total control.

On 4/24/2014 8:27 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> What annoy me the most is non-promotional sites that set the body
> font-family to anything but the default sans-serif (which often happens
> to be pixel perfect, have good unicode support and is legible).

Yea, I've seen some web documents written in really hard-to-read fonts.

On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 08:17:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> As if <b> hasn't always implied the semantics of "emphasis"
>> anyway...not that anyone's ever had any real use for semantic "which
>> text is emphasized?" for any purpose besides "Should this text be
>> rendered in bold/italic or not?"
>>
>> Funny though...I've never heard any of the semantic-web-loving,
>> <b>/etc haters complain about things like Markdown ;)
>
> I use semantic markup for emphasis where it's supported. Can't say I
> used markdown a lot, though I guess its semantics is more similar to
> that of semantic markup than visual markup, I can say wiki markup is.
>

Markdown:

*italic*
**bold**
**_bold and italic_**

Although it appears to implement those using <em> and <strong>, which strikes me as completely pointless and roundabout.


> I'm thinking more about some standardization of web skins, then people
> will choose their web skin of choice just like on desktop system, and
> sites will use that chosen skin to present content and layout.

Unfortunately that'll never happen: It's already hard enough to get *application* developers not to invent their own idiotic user-disrespecting skin (with poorly homespun controls).

On 04/20/2014 01:21 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> Although I empathize with not wanting to put the full work into
> something if there's a chance it may just get rejected at the last step,
> this is unfortunately the sort of thing that really needs to be in a
> full working pull request before you're likely to get any final official
> approval. Not getting an outright up-front objections is kinda the
> closest thing D has to pre-approval for large changes like this.

Getting more feedback during early development would help.
Not sure how to get there, there is little traffic on dmd-internals, DIPs rarely result from collaboration and pull requests only allow to criticize almost finished work.

On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 15:53:13 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> You probably want a dub.json file like this:

I added the configurations Sonke suggested, see if it works now.

On Thursday, 24 April 2014 at 18:46:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Sass really has some advanced features. It's possible to create a function in Ruby which you can call from Sass.

Yeah, going that far definitely isn't feasible. But I don't think there's a need for that either.

and besides you can always add a macro function to my thing in D too (that's how the color things work anyway)

On 4/24/2014 2:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Yea, I've seen some web documents written in really hard-to-read fonts.


I've recently seen some academic research PDF's where the font is so small that even if I go full screen on them they are very hard to read. I don't get the reason for doing this. Are they trying to save paper or something?

Walter Bright:

> I've recently seen some academic research PDF's where the font is so small that even if I go full screen on them they are very hard to read.

Some combinations of PDF readers and PDF files support reflow, so later you can also increase the zoom. Another solution is to buy a wider screen, now even wide ones are kind of cheap.


> I don't get the reason for doing this. Are they trying to save paper or something?

They are often trying to save paper. Some conferences (and sometimes even some journals) set a maximum limit of pages for submitted papers.

Bye,
bearophile

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:54:29AM +0000, bearophile via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Walter Bright:
> 
> >I've recently seen some academic research PDF's where the font is so small that even if I go full screen on them they are very hard to read.
> 
> Some combinations of PDF readers and PDF files support reflow, so later you can also increase the zoom. Another solution is to buy a wider screen, now even wide ones are kind of cheap.

I don't like wide screens that much, actually. I still prefer 4x3 aspect ratio. I kinda agree with Nick that wide screens are more like half-height screens. :-P


> >I don't get the reason for doing this. Are they trying to save paper or something?
> 
> They are often trying to save paper. Some conferences (and sometimes even some journals) set a maximum limit of pages for submitted papers.
[...]

You mean, they're trying to save on pages? I don't think the journal publisher necessarily cares about *paper* per se, but more about the cost of printing too many pages.


T

-- 
It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages. -- Henry Ford