This is the perfect CSS File

> This is the perfect CSS File

body{margin:40px
auto;max-width:650px;line-height:1.6;font-size:18px;color:#444;padding:0
10px}h1,h2,h3{line-height:1.2}

> Prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

peanuts-search.com
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

font-family: "Proxima Nova", sans-serif;

I can't look at that font rendering without getting sick

>not responsive
into le trash

That website file inspired me to keep the CSS declarations on my website to a minimum. Wish for it to be smaller, though. peanuts-search.com

the contrast could be higher, something like #222

my personal favorite minimal CSS
body {
margin: 0 auto;
max-width: 50em;
font-family: monospace;
padding: 4em 1em;
}
a { color: #e81c4f; }
h1:after, h2:after { content: ' '; display: block; }
h1:after { border: 2px solid black; }
h2:after { border: 1px solid #d0d0d0; }

pic applied on original

>max-width:650px
for what purpose?
>font-size:18px
>px
that's not how to do font sizes in css
>color:#444
>something like #222
what's wrong with black on white?

>font-family: monospace
does your font renderer's hinting/kerning suck or why would you want monospace everywhere?

is that ubuntu or just some really bad config? that font rendering looks almost as bad as macos.

no css is best css (it's also responsive by default). prove me wrong.

go to betterfuckingwebsite.com and read

can't read shit

>what's wrong with black on white?
nothing, but you are using dark grey on white and I would like darker
>monospace
I just love monospace, no reason
stock ubuntu rendering

no css vs css. this is on a more or less stock debian+gnome setup with full hinting and rgb subpixel aa. only problem is that the hinting only works well for the default fonts (i.e. DejaVu family), most web fonts look like crap - but that is easily fixed by blocking all third party requests with umatrix.

i did. it's full of crap. no css isn't only more readable and more responsive, it also shows more content on a given viewport size. pic related (side-by-side, giving max-width the favor of the doubt as my browser viewport width is usually >1000px). just look at the scroll bars.
let's go over that site's points:
>let it breathe
>size matters
aka show less content for no reason. look at the left side of the screenshot. if you find that hard to read then you're either too far away from your screen, have a high dpi screen (in which case this comparison screenshot is useless to you anyway) or need glasses. increased line-height alone also makes paragraphs less distinguishable.
>Black on white? How often do you see that kind of contrast in real life?
uhm... multiple times every day?! every street name sign, most train and bus stop name signs, number plates on cars, price labels in shops, do i need to go on? i'd say black on white is, by far, the most common combination when good readability is required.
>Looking at an LCD screen is strainful enough.
either too much / little room lighting, wrong screen brightness, or your screen is just crap (i.e. any TN panel). or, as above, you need glasses. i sometimes spend 15+ hours with only minimal breaks staring at a screen when coding. the only things that hurt my eyes are light font / dark background meme color schemes and using a mac.
>Websites are ugly by default
they start to become ugly as you increase the font size, which makes fonts look bolder, making the text area too dark on average. to counteract on that, web designers reduce contrast instead of font-weight (or using a lighter font) because they are retards.

I agree with you except that narrower columns of texts are way more readable than long unbroken lines of text.
But limiting the width with an absolute pixel size is still retarded. With the no css version you can at least adjust it to whatever is best for you by adjusting the browser's window size.

This is autistic. You got one thing for the body sure, but is all the content just going to be dumped raw in the body? You know websites aren't online e-books right?

>specifies anything in px
>"perfect"
nope

>You know websites aren't online e-books right?
Are you a retard which can't concentrate attention? Or you can't read books?

No you retard, I'm saying the content is not the same type. There is more to a website than just a wall of text.

but websites were literally designed to be easily parseable formatted walls of text

the fact that most of websites have more javascript code than actual text content doesn't change anything, in fact HTML5 made text-only browsing tad easier for websites who opted to implement new tags

>he needs more than just a wall of text
fag

>But x was y so therefore after decades of change, x should remain y and make no progress

Who the fuck is talking about javascript bloat? He's saying there's more to markup than raw text in a body div

>websites must show animated colorful pictures and animated shapes the letters are too hard for me

No, different type of text needs different markup depending on content

Animated gif is not css

>I agree with you except that narrower columns of texts are way more readable than long unbroken lines of text.
i'd say that's personal preference. i prefer wider columns, but i also prefer serif fonts for most text - which help the eye tracking lines, making it easier to return to the start of the line. having overly long paragraphs (i.e. pdf ebooks created from a paper layout) is way worse than any specific column width imo.

that said, i don't have a problem with some "fixed"-width (em works better with zooming than px) side margins. i just don't support the idea that you need them for screen, because (unlike in a book or similar) you're not going to hold the page there and surely aren't going to use that area for stuff like pencil notes. it's dead space. wasting >50% of my viewport width is just bad design. if you want slimmer columns then go for a responsive multi column layout.

>but websites were literally designed to be easily parseable
they weren't, if by "parseable" you mean by a computer. frontend devs are, on average, really bad at what they're doing - so bad, that they rejected xhtml2 mostly becaused it enforced validity (which equals easy parseability by computers), and html5 aka tagsoup forever won.

yup, the bettermofosite peeps are design soyboys

Is there finally support for proper multi-column text that scrolls horizontally?

Diskmags had it for a while.

if you(r design) can live without vertical scrolling then yes, that's been working fine for quite some time. combining both is bad from a usability pov.