5 ms·

So you force a behavior through your browser but when it doesn't work you blame the site? Ok...

• lloeki 14y ago
  Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them. Hopefully the 'create' one uses f003, which apparently lies in PRIVATE_USE_AREA [0] .mini-icon.create::before { content: "\f003"; } [0] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm
  • 54mf 14y ago
    All the icons lie in private use areas, specifically to avoid abuse.
    • TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      Abuse?
      • chc 14y ago
        As stated by the grandparent: > Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them
• ori_b 14y ago
  The alternative is having sites select fonts that hurt my eyes. I want a consistent experience across the web.
  • huhtenberg 14y ago
    That's like wanting all cars on the road to be red :)
    • latortuga 14y ago
      It's more like expecting all cars to be narrow enough to fit in lanes or expecting all cars to have turn signals and brake lights. Type face has a huge impact on how readable text is, car color has almost zero impact on my ability to drive.
    • ori_b 14y ago
      No. It's like expecting that when I adjust my seat to fit my leg length, the doors still work. I like the text to be readable without me leaning in and destroying my vision. The fact that I'm forced to override font sizes for usability because sites don't respect my default settings is bad enough. When they break because of it, it becomes terrible design.
      • Nitramp 14y ago
        +1 on the font size - that's a big problem in particular if you happen to have a large screen. But forcing everything into the same font seems a bit excessive; I've actually seen a couple of sites make really nice use of fonts, and you can still install an extension that turns your page into an "easy reading" mode on a key press. What do you do about fixed width vs proportional fonts?
        • ori_b 14y ago
          All browsers I've seen that allow you to override settings allow you to do it by family (sans, serif, fixed, etc)
        • thristian 14y ago
          I'm not the original poster, but I also force my browser to render in a particular font (specifically, same font used in the rest of my desktop applications). In my experience, I'd say about 0.5% of pages are fancy demos of things you can do with web-font support, 1% of pages use custom web-fonts but look just fine without them, and 0.1% of pages are like GitHub where they actually require a custom font. Everything else uses some "web safe" font, and often very little care is given to selecting which one. Forcing everything into the same font is an excellent solution for the 98.4% of sites that don't use custom fonts, and an decent solution for 99.4% of sites. It should be noted that most of the "easy reading mode" extensions only work well for article-type pages, not for sites like Hacker News or Reddit.
• smackfu 14y ago
  The site uses a font choice to change how the site works, which is pretty much conflicting with the entire concept of a style sheet.
• gdubs 14y ago
  So if, say, an older user forces all text to be large and it renders a site unreadable, you would blame the user?
  • eps 14y ago
    Why would an older user want to enlarge text only, and not the images and other page elements? He wouldn't. He would be using either Ctrl-+ in the browser or an OS-level zoom.
    • vsl 14y ago
      The first thing I enable in Safari is View->Zoom Text Only. Just because you prefer whole-page zoom doesn't mean the rest of us does too. I use zooming only when a page has unreadably small text size, in which case I enlarge it to be readable and do not want to scale up and uglify images that are usually perfectly fine in their original size.
• fusiongyro 14y ago
  Fonts are not behavior. When the web was made of pages and style was secondary to content, this wasn't a problem.
  • look_lookatme 14y ago
    Welp, that's changed.
    • maaku 14y ago
      But should it have?
• vsl 14y ago
  Err, yes, I do blame the site for abusing HTML. If they misuse text markup to represent what is semantically an image, how is that my fault? HTML has <img> for a reason. There's perfectly suitable markup for text and another for images: using the former for the latter is no less idiotic than doing it the other way around. This fad is supremely annoying.