On 03/08/18 13:44, Felix Miata wrote:
Noah Davis composed on 2018-08-02 23:19 (UTC-0400):
Felix Miata wrote:
Noah Davis composed on 2018-08-02 21:26 (UTC-0400):
Here are my problems with https://lists.opensuse.org :
Search: https://i.imgur.com/i3E1YAj.png
"Why the width of the whole page?"
Easy for you to narrow your browser window width to your personal optimum.
Difficult to impossible for anyone who wants or needs it wider to make it so.
In what situation would you want the text area to be 13.5 inches (~34cm) wide (assuming a 15 inch laptop)? If you are using a smaller screen than me, you know lots of websites can adapt to your screen size and resolution, right?
Web stylists do a horrible job trying. They have too much power to control physical sizes instead of being limited to controlling relative proportions. Pixels in the hands of humans are an abomination. Only low level software should have any use for them. People, e.g. app, DE developers and users, should never be exposed to them.
This is the root problem with both web design and software design - assumptions on suitable user sizes based on pixels instead of ems.
The reason most people try to limit their lines of code to 80-120 characters is because it improves readability. It makes it easier to see everything and easier to keep my place when I switch to reading something else and go back. The same applies to wrapped text on a web page, which is why most websites have the sense not to make a text area 13.5 inches wide and the reason why it is preferred that you write letters in a portrait layout and not a landscape layout.
You as developer or stylist have no idea whether the window I'm looking at to view that page is fullscreen or not, nor whether it is anywhere near 13.5" wide, nor what effective size the text is, nor what effective size text is optimal to produce those 80 or 120 character long lines. To complicate further, you also have no idea on viewing distance, which plays a dominant role in effective and usable sizes. It could be a projection, or an 84" screen anywhere between a few feet away or 20X that, or an 6" screen 20cm or 100cm away, or any screen size in between, and up to several meters away.
Ems, user specified ideal glyph size, as baseline sizing unit, solve that problem where used, but they aren't used enough. Here are two simple web examples where they are, created over a decade ago and not since modified:
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/
It used to be far more common that DE's used pt for sizing, and designers could have some idea of resulting physical sizes, since pt sizing automatically adjusts to logical display density, and can adjust to physical display density as well. Web spec developers, web designers, developers of Mozilla.org products, FOSS office software, GTK, QT, other high profile apps, Apple, and Microsoft don't seem to understand this, with the result that a hodgepodge of extraordinary heroics are now being employed to _try_ to cope with the wide and widening range of display densities that now exist, and too often failing.
Alright I think its probably time to pull this part of the discussion up now. You have gotten into the realms of discussing a bunch of things that we have no control over and are generally not related to openSUSE development. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B