"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting."
I don't like fucking with the default CSS, my alternative is this bookmark that injects Javascript in the page and temporarily fixes the formatting at one click of a button
One of the more hilarious takes I've seen. "There are no papers for this, and I choose to disregard the countless number of people who say it is much easier for them to read if the line lengths are constrained as they are in a book or scroll or every other form of human writing ever put on this earth, so I will not make my site easier to read. F you."
I really don't think that's what he's saying. You are assuming a great deal of malice, rather than positive intent. What he's saying is that there isn't hard evidence that shorter lines are more readable, so he made the style choice of longer lines. You're claiming that most people prefer shorter line widths, but again present no evidence that most people actually have that preference, other than vague references to "countless people". I actually think you're probably right, and if you had data Dan might update his stylesheet. But in the absence of evidence, you're just presenting your opinion as fact, and assuming malice.
This is why it's nice to get people's preferences vs thoughts about preferences. Preferences aggregate, thoughts about preferences do not. If one designer says "Readers like narrow columns more, everyone knows that." and another says "I like reading narrow columns.", I'd give the person speaking about readers in general more weight (even with them going the same direction). But, if 100 designers spoke for all readers and 100 designers spoke for themselves, I'm giving more weight to the second group. Hearing 100 preferences is more valuable than hearing one idea, 100 times.
Yeah, that's probably true. He also at least allows people to set their own reading width by adjusting browser.
My frustration stems from the fact that I find the argument "there are no papers with sufficient evidence" to be pedantic bullshit. Like yeah, sure, you aren't even wrong, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen anyone claim to like 180 char lines, whereas I've seen hordes of people who say it is very difficult for them to read that line length, and prefer something book-sized (lengthed?).
Hmm, yeah I actually agree with that way of putting it. The evidence that does exist are the anecdotes, and he seems to ignore that evidence. Many of his readers, myself included, seem to prefer fixed line lengths. So it is a weird choice.
I was mostly reacting to the assumed malice in the parent comment. Based on his blogging style, I think it's more likely that Dan's just a pedantic guy implementing his personal preferences on his personal blog :)
Which is basically my understanding of "too long" lines: The problem doesn't have to do with the length of the line itself / reading one line (which is what most people seem to focus on), it has to do with reliably returning to the beginning of the next line instead of accidentally drifting up or down.
So it wouldn't be much of a problem if there were other visual indicators (code lines have unique shapes instead of being a big block of text, and paragraphs with a blank line between them let you see more easily "I'm going from line 2 of 4 to line 3 of 4" so you don't actually have to track the line sideways. It's tracking the line back to its beginning in a big block of non-code text that's difficult.
yes, if you ignore a millennium's worth of publishing wisdom and think the world of text began anew in 1995, then maybe you can claim that "the science is not settled."
He has every right to make his choice. As do we, in deciding whether to read it.
Yuck! I hate it when sites monkey around with max-width. I've got a nice 27 inch monitor. I want to use all of it. It's refreshing to see a site that doesn't insist on second-guessing the width that I set my browser window.
So you look like you watch a tennis game when you read text? Funny.
On a more serious note: A maximum length for text makes sense ergonomically, which is why especially big prints like newspapers or magazines work with columns. Columns however haven't really cought on in the web, because they do not combine very well with the whole scrolling thing.
No one reads well with 200 characters per line. Been demonstrated that they read a lot slower. Even if line height has been increased to alleviate, which it probably hasn't. I'd recommend multiple columns before super-wide text blocks.
Probably being downvoted because the HN guidelines explicitly say to not comment about such things:
"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting."
Maybe because it's an absolute statement ("this person needs to organise & format his writing better") for a something mostly subjective.
In my opinion the website is readable, fast, lightweight, not distracting and pleasant to read. It's also accessible for people with disabilities, responsive, and works everywhere. I understand that not everyone is as into minimalism as me, just pointing out the problem in "this person needs (...)".
