Something I hate about Chrome
-
@kazitor said in Something I hate about Chrome:
How can it be centred if it doesn't have a width smaller than the parent?
Find the centreline of the content and the centreline of the parent. Make them coincident. Congratulations; you centred the content in the parent irrespective of their relative widths.
-
-
All this discussion about tables vs divs... I say: why not both? And throw in a list for good measure too!
-
@Atazhaia Lists seem perfectly cromulent in modern HTML. Those floating blue boxes could probably be
<li>
's.
-
@Atazhaia I did use DIVs to get scrolling inside of a table cell. DIVs are great when you only need one (fill a space or just some standalone container). It's when you need to arrange them into some approximation of a window or a table that they fall apart. And that's the curse of turning the web into a platform for apps instead of documents.
@PleegWat I always felt uncomfortable abusing lists that way. HTML4 had alot of tags that represented useful concepts that the browsers never went anywhere with. Then they dumped them in HTML5 to replace them with another set that also doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
-
@Zenith said in Something I hate about Chrome:
HTML4 had alot of tags that represented useful concepts that the browsers never went anywhere with. Then they dumped them in HTML5 to replace them with another set that also doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
Iirc the tags representing useful concepts are just divs with fancy names in HTML5. They walk like divs and quack like divs, just wearing different hats.
-
@Captain said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@Zenith Ugh,
<div class="row"> <div class="col-xs-4"></div> <div class="col-xs-4"></div> <div class="col-xs-4"></div> <div class="col-xs-4"></div> <div class="col-xs-4"></div> </div>
TADA!
This stuff is a fragile trainwreck.
-
@Bulb said in Something I hate about Chrome:
This stuff is a fragile trainwreck.
Has the web ever not been a fragile trainwreck?
-
-
@loopback0 said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Something I hate about Chrome:
a broken browser.
But you repeat yourself.
Is there anything that's not broken?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@loopback0 said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Something I hate about Chrome:
a broken browser.
But you repeat yourself.
Is there anything that's not broken?
Not in the agile age!
-
@HardwareGeek said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@Bulb said in Something I hate about Chrome:
This stuff is a fragile trainwreck.
Has the web ever not been a fragile trainwreck?
When all you could do is put text up, it worked well and wasn't fragile. My old website setup worked great up until I changed it last week to try to be "modern" and "slightly responsive". It would look different on different browsers and systems (some more different than others) but I didn't see anything wrong with that.
Now I'm supposed to make a page that is readable on both a phone that's lying about the size of the
screenviewport and a maximized window on a 4K desktop monitor with who knows what DPI setting and have them resemble each other to some approximation. Once upon a time the user's font size preferences would have handled 99% of the work, at least as far as my personal site goes. Instead I have a fragile trainwreck. :(
-
-
@Parody said in Something I hate about Chrome:
When all you could do is put text up, it worked well and wasn't fragile. My old website setup worked great up until I changed it last week to try to be "modern" and "slightly responsive". It would look different on different browsers and systems (some more different than others) but I didn't see anything wrong with that.
When I first designed my site, most browsers would actually display
<img>
s inline, without having to click a link to the image as the whole document. I read something about designing for the lowest common denominator, so I designed it to work as well in lynx as a in graphical browser; any image that was used as a link also had a text link, in case the image wasn't displayed.<table>
was only (?) supported in state-of-the-art Netscape 4. If you tried to view it in a less capable browser, it would look like an ugly mess, but it was still usable.Sadly, it really hasn't changed much since then.
-
@Parody said in Something I hate about Chrome:
Now I'm supposed to make a page that is readable on both a phone that's lying about the size of the screen viewport and a maximized window on a 4K desktop monitor with who knows what DPI setting and have them resemble each other to some approximation. Once upon a time the user's font size preferences would have handled 99% of the work, at least as far as my personal site goes. Instead I have a fragile trainwreck. :(
It works well enough for simple things like Better motherfucking website. Looks good on desktop or mobile, without worrying about any threes of pixels.
-
@levicki said in Something I hate about Chrome:
@hungrier said in Something I hate about Chrome:
It works well enough for simple things like Better motherfucking website. Looks good on desktop or mobile, without worrying about any threes of pixels.
But it doesn't have tables!
It also doesn't have pictures, which cause a lot of issues even when they're vectors. :(
My old design was somewhere in between those two sites; most pages didn't limit the width.
-
@Parody kill two birds with one stone: a table of background colours.