A really chap person could probably host this off a raspberry pi attached to something like a Corsair Voyager and serve multiple requests per second. I'm self hosting so there's no real money cost besides the one-time investment in hardware.
Sometimes it pans out, like I'm fairly happy with this wikipedia mirror, sometimes it doesn't-like I have no logos or branding anywhere on my sites, that turned out to be a bit confusing. I have an idea such as "what if wikipedia was designed only with reading comprehension in mind" and then I see what taking it to the most ridiculous extreme does. 'Above the fold' used to mean something but in current web so much content wants to apply these principles but also wants me to scroll ten miles get to the actual point of the content and it feels really disrespectful to me as the reader. For print it's still fine because you are also limited and also it's often a two-column layout which is still pretty efficient for scanning for key words or phrases while being easy to read. That and people are really abusing the modern typography principle to get me to scroll more and 'engage' rather than just convey the information in a nice way (most news sites and recipe sites are egregious) that I'm starting to get turned off by the style for the web even though it's based in good reasoning. I want to be able to scan a lot of content without having to change pages to find where I want to start reading from. There's just many circumstances that it is not appropriate and I would say an encyclopedia entry is not one of them. I agree with these typography principles when they are applied to things that should be read from top to bottom and the entirety of the content actually consumed as a whole. So that only leaves trying to scale up only the main body of text (which normally isn't that sensitive with regards to scaling up the font size and therefore increasing its size requirements) and leaving alone smaller bits of text like menus, the page navigation etc., which are more likely to be size-constrained and start causing layout breakage if increased by an extraordinary amount. It might not be absolutely exactly the same layout breakage as when squeezing an old page directly into the 300 or so pixels available on a mobile phone in portrait mode, but it will be pretty similar. Not scaling font sizes at all just gives you either tiny text (if you zoom out to fit the large viewport onto the small mobile screen) or loads of scrolling around if you display the page at 100 % zoom level instead.Īnd scaling up all text means you end up approximatively just where you started before you started resizing the viewport. Once you start with the hack of giving non-mobile-compatible pages a larger viewport in order to not break layouts that react allergic when being squeezed into 300-something pixels, what else do you want to do? > (but still inconsitently scale the font sizes so you have to zoom in and out to read different parts) I am not 100% sure what all the pitfalls are with the current interface, but they exist often enough for me to run into them semi-frequently on smaller laptops.
Wiki reader chrome how to#
This obviously breaks the two windows side by side case on laptops but is a top result for me if you google the arcane syntax for how to target mobile browsers with a media query.
Wiki reader chrome manual#
If you don't, you may falsely conclude from manual testing that you need large breakpoints for mobile.Īlso, many times mobile breakpoints don't look at the device orientation and pick numbers like 800px, to capture landscape orientation on medium sized phones or something (I'm not sure where this number comes from to be honest). You may have to also introduce a (nonstandard) viewport tag to prevent mobile browsers from laying out the page at a much higher resolution and then zooming/shrinking on you You're right, and it's certainly a solvable problem but one that often is not solved correctly is my point.
0 kommentar(er)
