Look, blakey!



  • Is my screen "ridiculously wide"?

    0_1458417280191_upload-72cefe52-e37b-460c-a12d-88d0186cecfd



  • @ben_lubar Why are you so invested in defending this obvious bug?



  • @ben_lubar To give a quick hint: Ben L doesn't have browser zoom turned on; I do.

    In any case, the exact width of the window is not the issue here. The issue is: I never want mobile view on desktop. Ever. For any reason. Understand?



  • This is like the inverse of Discourse which gave me the desktop view by default on my iPhone 6s because the resolution was too high.



  • @ben_lubar @julianlam I'm completely with @blakeyrat here. Switching mobile mode based on width is questionable to begin with, and nodebb is way too sensitive on it. Notably, snapping your browser window to half the width of an unzoomed 1080p screen triggers mobile mode.

    Cutoff seems to be around 1000 pixels, which is crazy high. This limit really needs to be at or below 600 pixels. If that means modern large mobiles trigger desktop mode, find a different solution altogether.



  • @PleegWat And if you're counting by pixels (which: THIS IS STUPID DON'T DO THIS YOU MORON), make sure you're counting by physical pixels, and not pixels * zoom level. Because that's obviously buggy and wrong.



  • 991 -> 992 pixels appears to be the cutoff. Assuming you're not zooming, because who ever does that?

    It's a fucking stupid design decision, and blakey is absolutely right in calling it out.


  • SockDev

    It's basically the same assumption that Bootstrap makes: anyone on a desktop will have a window over 992px wide; clearly that is not the case.



  • Can we assume 992% of open source developers have no fucking clue about usability, at least?



  • @RaceProUK That's the "Everyone maximizes their windows" mindset that has plagued website design for probably ever. It wasn't true in the late nineties. It certainly isn't true now.



  • Only forum that had a chance of being approved by @blakeyrat that I know of is xenforo, no use trying to please him with something opensource.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @RaceProUK said:

    basically the same assumption that Bootstrap makes:

    That's because they outsourced design and usability concerns to Bootstrap. Seriously, these themes are just Bootswatch's free themes for Bootstrap, and I recognize the icons, the top nav, the buttons...



  • Even microsoft was avoiding opensource when he was onboard.



  • @Yamikuronue it loads them from the bootswatch CDN.



  • @fbmac said:

    Only forum that had a chance of being approved by @blakeyrat that I know of is xenforo, no use trying to please him with something opensource.

    Does it run on the Apple IIe?


  • SockDev

    Which would be fine, except they're treating tablets like phones, which I think you'll agree isn't right



  • @RaceProUK and the reverse assumption that no phone will ever have a screen wider than 992 pixels. Which, considering the resolution of new-ish high-end smartphones, is dumb.

    I mean, my smartphone basically has more pixels in its display than my full HD monitor.


  • SockDev

    And that's why the Fox God granted the magic of
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
    on us; it effectively tells the browser to take into account the pixel density as well as the count (the density being a lot higher on phones), which means that the reported widths in media queries can end up lower than the true number of pixels. Assuming of course the browser can actually do that; as we all know, browsers have a habit of not supporting things properly.

    Then again, NodeBB does have this in its HTML:
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=no">
    I wonder if it's the user-scalable=no that's causing the issues?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    browsers have a habit of not supporting things properly.

    bad browsers don't deserve to be well supported



  • @tufty said:

    Can we assume 992% of open source developers have no fucking clue about usability, at least?

    FTFY

    Back button? Who uses that?

    Browser zoom? Who uses that?

    Multiple browser windows? Who uses that?

    The past 20 years has seen repeated and emphatic attempts by developers to make a web browser stop being a web browser in spite of the fact that all users everywhere expect it to act like a web browser.



  • @BaconBits too late to complain about it now, insist on phpbb or xenforo on the 2017 migration.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @BaconBits said:

    Multiple browser windows? Who uses that?

    At least we now have a forum that won't overheat your phone or computer if you use more than one tab. It's something.



  • @tufty said:

    Can we assume 992% of open source developers have no fucking clue about usability, at least?

    Yes. Even open-source programmers like myself agree there.

    OTOH, the figure is only slightly better for commercial coders, so... it's an industry-wide issue, mmmm'kay?



  • @ScholRLEA the difference is that people tolerate bad stuff a bit when it's free, so you end with popular bad free stuff.

    it's harder to see popular bad paid stuff.



  • @fbmac Well, that's true. I mean, there's a lot of bad stuff that isn't so popular but people pay for anyway (and a lot more that gets shoveled into their system in the 'bundle' that most folks don't realize they are paying for), but crappy commercial software that is popular, not that much.


  • SockDev

    @fbmac said:

    it's harder to see popular bad paid stuff

    You clearly haven't listened to any top 40 hits in the last 20 years. Or anything made by someone who won Britain's X Got Factor Talent. Or any Big Brother after the first series.



  • @RaceProUK i certainly haven't paid for anything in this list


  • SockDev

    But others have; that's the point



  • @RaceProUK said:

    @fbmac said:

    it's harder to see popular bad paid stuff

    You clearly haven't listened to any top 40 hits in the last 20 years. Or anything made by someone who won Britain's X Got Factor Talent. Or any Big Brother after the first series.

    The analogue of "bad free stuff" would probably be the "vocal performances" people do on YouTube. And trust me, top 40 is fucking Mozart compared to that.


    Filed under: yes, all of 'em



  • @BaconBits said:

    @tufty said:

    Can we assume 992% of open source developers have no fucking clue about usability, at least?

    FTFY

    Back button? Who uses that?

    Browser zoom? Who uses that?

    Multiple browser windows? Who uses that?

    The past 20 years has seen repeated and emphatic attempts by developers to make a web browser stop being a web browser in spite of the fact that all users everywhere expect it to act like a web browser.

    That's because back buttons are hard. Zoom is hard. Multiple tabs is hard. Much easier to tell everyone they're doing it wrong and tell them to adapt.



  • @fbmac said:

    insist on phpbb or xenforo on the 2017 migration

    Some have been calling for exactly that since the migration to Discourse was first mooted.



  • @BaconBits said:

    @tufty said:

    Can we assume 992% of open source developers have no fucking clue about usability, at least?

    FTFY

    Back button? Who uses that?

    Browser zoom? Who uses that?

    Multiple browser windows? Who uses that?

    The past 20 years has seen repeated and emphatic attempts by developers to make a web browser stop being a web browser in spite of the fact that all users everywhere expect it to act like a web browser.

    Had one terrible client that wanted lots of features in their "web app" including windows (inside the browser) and features which weren't well supported in IE 6. We had to tell them to install Chrome Frame or IE 8 or it would double the cost, since it had to support later browsers too. (This project circa 2011)



  • @Maciejasjmj You have the same problem with webcomics and web novels, and fanfic as well of course (there's a famous quote among fans that goes, "flipping through Fanfiction.net is like flipping through hell with an occasional slice of the heavenly cheesecake thrown in"). Basically, with no editing or outside forces controlling it, Sturgeon's Law goes into overdrive - there is nothing to filter out the absolute worst material, so self-published works (which is basically what web fiction and art are) can reach depths that even the most slack commercial editors wouldn't release.

    And that's even in light of the examples of fanfiction that does get re-written for formal publication. Not that the source material was much better from what I hear...

    The upside of this is that some brilliant works that would have little or no commercial value can occasionally rise to the surface. Can you see El Goonish Shive or Schlock Mercenary getting a publication deal based on their first strips, or anyone putting The Saga of Tuck into print without massive re-writing? Exactly.

    On the gripping hand, taste is subjective; personally, I read crap like Whateley Academy and the Worldwar series, and enjoy them despite being well aware of how wretched their quality is from a more objective viewpoint. Though now I have to wonder what Turtledove's prose was like before an editor went over it... brrr.







  • @ben_lubar said:

    @cartman82 :wave_tone2:

    WTF? I didn't want to post that...

    I was playing around, clicked the red plus button a few times, then Discard. Hmm...



Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.