6 ms·

"You're a fucking moron if you use default browser styles." - Eleanor Roosevelt

chriswarbo 10y ago
I find it hard to take advice from anyone who makes such strong claims, in such a provocative manner, whilst failing so utterly in their own demonstration: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 Apparently that's "legible" and "looks the same in all... browsers". I certainly agree that BMFW has less contrast than the MFW; so little that it's difficult to read! For comparison, here's how MFW looks: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e White text on a black background, exactly as I asked for when I configured Firefox. Content taking up my whole widescreen monitor, exactly as I asked for when I made the Firefox window that size. The only thing BMFW seems to have correct is using sans-serif font; which I expect is because I unticked Firefox's "allow pages to override these fonts" option. Other than that, it looks like a me-too cargo-cult of MFW which completely misses the point. Presumably the creators of BMFW are using, and only ever test anything with, a black-on-white style which is, let me guess, the browser's default? What would that make them, in their own (jokingly "quoted") words?
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  "I messed up my browser's settings, and now I'm upset that my browser looks messed up."
  - recursive 10y ago
    > "I messed up my browser's settings" ... Wrong. I changed my browser's settings to perfectly reasonable values. White text on a black background. Now I'm reasonably upset because my browser looks messed up.
- Retr0spectrum 10y ago
  I'm a fan of white-on-black too, but whatever setting/addon you are using to acheive that effect seems to be very broken. It's unfair to blame BMFW for a problem created by, and unique to, your specific configuration.
  - recursive 10y ago
    The setting isn't broken. It's not an add-on. It's BMFW's fault, and it's fair to blame it for this. BMFW sets a foreground color, and does not set a background color. Here are the settings in stock Firefox. http://imgur.com/h4SmKYs http://imgur.com/h4SmKYs
    - K0nserv 10y ago
      The author even addresses the fact that they didn't set the background on the site. "I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines." Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed
      - kirubakaran 10y ago
        > the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed You seem to have missed it too :-) > I have taken a lot of inspiration from … http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
      - chriswarbo 10y ago
        > The author even addresses the fact that they didn't set the background on the site. So? JS template engines allow server-side rendering, to address the fact their pages are slow, and unusable without JS. JS libraries have polyfills, to address browsers implementing older JS versions. Drupal allows Varnish, to address how slow its rendering is. SVG graphics libraries have canvas fallbacks to address IE. Video players have MP4 and Webm versions to address fragmented codec support. And so on. Does these things make the MFW argument wrong or moot? No, because a) they involve extra work to solve problems that wouldn't exist if people just made a motherfucking website, and b) because many devs don't even bother to implement these fixes even when they exist: case in point, BMFW's authors wrote about setting the background but didn't bother actually doing it, so their site is broken. > Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed I get that it's "haha only serious", but it's self-defeating. If the premise were "I built a Web-scale Uber-for-toilets with isomorphic React" and the text were unreadable, that would add to the charm. If the premise were "Stop breaking your sites with junk" (which is the message of MFW) and the text were unreadable, that would be unfortunate and a bit ironic. Yet BMFW's premise is "MFW is right, but there's no excuse to leave out these things", and those things break sites. The site itself is a demonstration of why the only point it makes is wrong. It's funny, but in a "laughing at" rather than a "laughing with" kind of way.

I find it hard to take advice from anyone who makes such strong claims, in such a provocative manner, whilst failing so utterly in their own demonstration: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 Apparently that's "legible" and "looks the same in all... browsers". I certainly agree that BMFW has less contrast than the MFW; so little that it's difficult to read! For comparison, here's how MFW looks: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e White text on a black background, exactly as I asked for when I configured Firefox. Content taking up my whole widescreen monitor, exactly as I asked for when I made the Firefox window that size. The only thing BMFW seems to have correct is using sans-serif font; which I expect is because I unticked Firefox's "allow pages to override these fonts" option. Other than that, it looks like a me-too cargo-cult of MFW which completely misses the point. Presumably the creators of BMFW are using, and only ever test anything with, a black-on-white style which is, let me guess, the browser's default? What would that make them, in their own (jokingly "quoted") words?

snowwrestler 10y ago
"I messed up my browser's settings, and now I'm upset that my browser looks messed up."
- recursive 10y ago
  > "I messed up my browser's settings" ... Wrong. I changed my browser's settings to perfectly reasonable values. White text on a black background. Now I'm reasonably upset because my browser looks messed up.
Retr0spectrum 10y ago
I'm a fan of white-on-black too, but whatever setting/addon you are using to acheive that effect seems to be very broken. It's unfair to blame BMFW for a problem created by, and unique to, your specific configuration.
- recursive 10y ago
  The setting isn't broken. It's not an add-on. It's BMFW's fault, and it's fair to blame it for this. BMFW sets a foreground color, and does not set a background color. Here are the settings in stock Firefox. http://imgur.com/h4SmKYs http://imgur.com/h4SmKYs
  - K0nserv 10y ago
    The author even addresses the fact that they didn't set the background on the site. "I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines." Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed
    - kirubakaran 10y ago
      > the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed You seem to have missed it too :-) > I have taken a lot of inspiration from … http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
    - chriswarbo 10y ago
      > The author even addresses the fact that they didn't set the background on the site. So? JS template engines allow server-side rendering, to address the fact their pages are slow, and unusable without JS. JS libraries have polyfills, to address browsers implementing older JS versions. Drupal allows Varnish, to address how slow its rendering is. SVG graphics libraries have canvas fallbacks to address IE. Video players have MP4 and Webm versions to address fragmented codec support. And so on. Does these things make the MFW argument wrong or moot? No, because a) they involve extra work to solve problems that wouldn't exist if people just made a motherfucking website, and b) because many devs don't even bother to implement these fixes even when they exist: case in point, BMFW's authors wrote about setting the background but didn't bother actually doing it, so their site is broken. > Also the whole site is satire which you seemed to have missed I get that it's "haha only serious", but it's self-defeating. If the premise were "I built a Web-scale Uber-for-toilets with isomorphic React" and the text were unreadable, that would add to the charm. If the premise were "Stop breaking your sites with junk" (which is the message of MFW) and the text were unreadable, that would be unfortunate and a bit ironic. Yet BMFW's premise is "MFW is right, but there's no excuse to leave out these things", and those things break sites. The site itself is a demonstration of why the only point it makes is wrong. It's funny, but in a "laughing at" rather than a "laughing with" kind of way.