Poll: Is Dan Luu Right About Website Styling?
> Just as an aside, something I've found funny for a long time is that I get quite a bit of hate mail about the styling on this page (and a similar volume of appreciation mail). By hate mail, I don't mean polite suggestions to change things, I mean the equivalent of road rage, but for web browsing; web rage. I know people who run sites that are complex enough that they're unusable by a significant fraction of people in the world. How come people are so incensed about the styling of this site and, proportionally, basically don't care at all that the web is unusable for so many people?
> Another funny thing here is that the people who appreciate the styling generally appreciate that the site doesn't override any kind of default styling, letting you make the width exactly what you want (by setting your window size how you want it) and it also doesn't override any kind of default styling you apply to sites. The people who are really insistent about this want everyone to have some width limit they prefer, some font they prefer, etc., but it's always framed in a way as if they don't want it, it's really for the benefit of people at large even though accommodating the preferences of the web ragers would directly oppose the preferences of people who prefer (just for example) to be able to adjust the text width by adjusting their window width.
Now, I trust Dan Luu; his stuff is meticulously done, even if I don't agree with his methodology.
But I do prefer a little more styling; I just checked my two main sites, and one has 9.3 kB of CSS while the other has 4.7 kB of CSS.
These are not "bloat" to the extent that he was testing, but according to Dan Luu, perfection is when there is literally no CSS. (I checked; his website has zero CSS on the front page.)
And he lays out a good argument for no styling: users can change it to how they want. This is good for many reasons, but top is accessibility.
Is Dan Luu right? Where is the perfect amount of styling?
Also, as a bonus, if anyone has tips about how to build a website that is styled, but overrideable by users, please comment below; I am building a web app, and I want it to be stylish, minimal, accessible, and hackable style-wise.
[1] https://danluu.com/slow-device/
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39729057
[3] https://danluu.com/slow-device/#appendix-articles-on-web-per...
8 comments
[ 6.5 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] threadThe important bit is "the site doesn't override any kind of default styling, letting you make the width exactly what you want (by setting your window size how you want it) and it also doesn't override any kind of default styling you apply to sites".
It's the default styling that matters to him.
Whenever someone complains that Dan Luu's site is unreadable and should have a font size of exactly 18px, that means their browser is configured to display text with a font size that is unreadable to them, which is easily remedied by changing their browser's default to 18px. And the best thing is that everyone can choose their own preferred value.
On my laptop however, his site is unreadable, because the lines are too long.
Resize my window, you say? Well, no. When I'm using a website on my laptop, I generally have several related pages open in separate tabs in the same window, and I flip between them. And you want me to resize my window every time I switch between tabs just so I can read stuff? Good grief, no. Why are you forcing such busywork on me?
Configure my browser to enforce a max-width? Now, I'm a technically minded person, which means I know this is possible, and also I can work out how to do it. Most people can't. Even if there's a browser option that says "prevent lines of text from being stupidly wide", most people will never find it.
Should browsers enforce a max-width by default? Personally I think they should… but that ship has sailed, and it's not going to happen.
So actually, my best option on the laptop is to bump up the text size to stupidly huge. Which means less text fits on screen vertically (bad) as well as horizontally (good), and it makes me feel like I'm getting a preview of what life will be like after my eyesight's spent three or four more decades deteriorating. But it's legible. (Except that table nearly gets to scrolling horizontally again… if it was wider and I had to bump the text size back down to get it to fit, I'd then find that my browser had moved me to later in the document, because it preserves how many pixels I am from the top of the page, not how far I am through the text.)
In summary:
- browsers are too complicated to expect most people to configure them to their preferences
- a substantial number of people full-screen most of their windows and resent being forced to manage their window widths
- design is hard; you can't please all the people all the time, even if you try to avoid having a design; there will be downsides to any approach
- one of the downsides of having a world population approaching 8 billion is that there will always be people complaining about stuff when they should just leave it
I also agree; optimizing my sites to nothing is probably a waste of time. Those sites are already at the level you suggest.