In article <20180518004729.gl68...@athene.usta.de> Ingo Schwarze
<schwa...@usta.de> wrote:
> Hi Aner,
>
> Aner Perez wrote on Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:32:44PM -0400:
> > On 05/17/2018 05:22 PM, x...@dr.com wrote:
> >> "Ingo Schwarze" <schwa...@usta.de> wrote:
>
> >>> Absolutely not.
> >>> Mandoc output is not optimized for any device.
> >>>
> >>> Which elements or rules in the current HTML or CSS code
> >>> make you think it is optimized or it discriminates against
> >>> any device?
>
> >> I don't know which element or rule is the problem, however
> >> if I delete mandoc.css the text does fill the screen.
> >>
> >> I understand that what I am trying to do is not supported,
> >> so I'll do something else instead.
>
> > First non-comment line of mandoc.css says:
> >
> > html { max-width: 100ex; }
> >
> > Removing this line allows the use of the full browser width.
>
> That is a very useful bit of information.
> Thanks for investigating and reporting it.
>
> For testing purposes, i removed that line from
> https://man.openbsd.org/mandoc.css
>
> xcv@, could you check with your phone whether this solves
> your original issue?
>
> > I'm sure that it was put there for a reason
> > (maybe to approximate the width of a terminal?).
>
> Correct. The original reason was that for -T ascii and -T utf8
> output, the default is -O width=78. The reason for that is that
> it's conventional wisom in typography that readability of text
> suffers with excessive column width - even though some recent
> research raises doubts whether that is really true. Either way,
> people tend to feel strongly about it.
If text is too wide, each time your sight jumps from the end to the
beginning of the other line it loses track of in which one it was. When
it's too narrow (as used in news papers) your sight has to jump
continuously. That's why in books you generally see lines not narrower
than 60 columns and not wider than 78, that's the comfortable range.
Perhaps I'm wrong assuming this happens to other people. I'd like to
know if that recent research you mention took in care nowadays most
people read no more than one line at a time. :-) Web sites are designed
to look pretty, text is there just for SEO. I mean the oppinion of most
people about what is comfortable while reading doesn't tell the truth.
>
> I must say i never particularly liked that line in the CSS file.
> It always felt like fiddling with details that it might be better
> not to touch, given that display devices running browsers differ
> more than terminal emulators. And here we are with a suspicion
> that it actually causes accessibility issues, even if the suspicion
> is still unconfirmed...
It's not a mandoc problem. That line is a workaround, so even when I
prefer that behavior I'm not against removing it.
>
> Depending on the feedback i get here with respect to how
> https://man.openbsd.org/
> now looks, i shall consider deleting the offending line for good.
>
> In general, i like the idea of making things better by *removing*
> harmful tweaks rather than adding new goo...
Have you added apple-touch-icon.png in all required sizes? No? Why do
you resist to innovation, to "new technologies"? Here you have a guide:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/ConfiguringWebApplications/ConfiguringWebApplications.html
:-)
>
> Yours,
> Ingo
>
>
Walter
