ZTree.com  | ZEN  | About...  

 Index   Back

Is the default 283-column text OK for human reading?   [OT]

By: Greg Akers       
Date: Feb 21,2019 at 18:15
In Response to: Is the default 283-column text OK for human reading? (Greg Akers)

> > I just opened this post in
> > Firefox and hit Ctrl+0 to select
> > the default font size, for "normal" people - why else
> > would that be set as the default size by the product designers?
> >
> > http://www.ztw3.com/forum/forum_entry.php?id=122146
> >
> > This sentence spreads itself until the word "ways" hits
> > the right margin and wraps. The position is column 283!
> >
> > Agreed. All the more so because most techniques that are being used
> > today to display text (plain text, RTF, HTML, markdown et al.; and
> the
> > appropriate multiline editing controls in all OSes) have been in use
> > since at least two decades, and have supported ‘soft’ line breaks
> and
> > ways
> >
> > I can't think of a place in real
> > life when this is acceptable, except, of
> > course, the legalise small print, that you are supposed NOT to even
> > attempt to read. This is what reading more elaborate posts in this
> > forum
> > look like, unless you increase the font considerably, or reduce the
> > browser width.
> >
> The short answer is, Yes, a default 283-column text is "OK" for some
> humans to read. It's not my preference, but I can do it. At least it
> is within my control to reduce the window width or increase the font size
> for my easier viewing, without interfering with however anyone else
> choses to view it.
> But text with artificially added CRs, hwoever well intended, needlessly
> eats up the vertical space while simultaneously wasting loads of unused
> horizontal space while leaving no good recourse but to sigh and accept
> it. It reminds me of times past when trying to consolidate notes from
> several co-workers into a single, well formatted team report and having
> to remove CRs at the end of lines to use the word processor's automated
> formatting features. I don't recall, just now, if it was due to the
> primitive email app or something else, just an annoying memory.
> Here I prefer the long text string to the short ones:
> Because I can shorten the long text string, but can do nothing with the
> short ones:

SORRY! I forgot that the wide image file would keep the long text string from wrapping even if the browser window is narrowed.

Oh, well. Technology! What can I say?

Thread locked

Messages in this Thread

95,045 Postings in 11,981 Threads, 349 registered users, 33 users online (1 registered, 32 guests)
Index | Admin contact |   Forum Time: Jul 12, 2020 - 9:56 am EDT  |  Hits:32,131,082  (9,404 Today )
RSS Feed