@Soren @Jeremy I often zoom out when using TW in the browser so I also experience the problem Soren describes. I just wanted to add my vote to his alternative proposal.
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 17:37:35 UTC Soren Bjornstad wrote: > Maybe this is a good thread to piggyback on, as I've been having trouble > with the fixed-fluid and fluid-fixed dichotomy lately. I have a different > proposal. I don't have enough experience with either CSS or TiddlyWiki > internals to know how difficult it would be to implement, but it doesn't > seem crazy complicated to me. > > Here's the fundamental problem I see with the existing layout: there is a > range of widths that are desirable for the story river. Up until a point, > it should be as wide as possible while leaving enough room for the sidebar > because you can fit more content on the screen that way. But eventually, > making the story river wider makes it harder to read because the lines get > unpleasantly long (see for example here > <https://practicaltypography.com/line-length.html> on readable line > widths). I think the desirable point for TW, at least for me, is often > substantially wider than for, e.g., a novel, since there's also the > side-by-side preview to consider, as well as tables, images, etc. > Nevertheless, there's definitely a point where additional width makes the > wiki less usable. > > The fluid-fixed mode is thus problematic because the story river will > continue growing without bound as your monitor size increases, to the point > where lines are unreadably long. It would be better to leave extra space to > the right of the sidebar on large monitors. Fixed-fluid mode solves this > problem, but if you set the story river width to a value that leaves enough > space for the sidebar on a small monitor, the story river will be exactly > the same size on a large monitor, wasting a ton of space, while if you set > it to a value that looks good on a large monitor, the sidebar will be > permanently exiled to the top of the screen on a small monitor. > Essentially, whichever mode you choose, your wiki will look bad on a > monitor of a significantly different size. > > I think a new mode should be offered, perhaps entirely replacing the > existing modes and certainly becoming the default, which has two width > breakpoints rather than the existing one: > > - Zone 1, used when viewport width is below minimum side-by-side width: > - Sidebar above content; both sidebar and content take up full > viewport width (as presently). > - Zone 2, used when viewport width is above minimum side-by-side width > but below *maximum story river width + fixed sidebar width*: > - Sidebar to right of content; sidebar consumes a configurable > fixed width, and story river consumes all remaining available space (as > in > fluid-fixed presently). > - Zone 3, used when viewport width exceeds *maximum story river width > + fixed sidebar width*: > - Sidebar to right of content; story river consumes a configurable > maximum width, and sidebar consumes all remaining available space (as > in > fixed-fluid presently). > > This would allow each wiki to select sidebar and story river widths that > make sense for their content, while retaining a sane display on all screens. > > On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 3:44:11 AM UTC-6 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> coda coder wrote: >> >>> ... And If one disagrees, how does one express dissent? >>> >> >> The GitHub has "downvote" for that :-). >> >> So far it has 8 "upvotes", which is significant enough to get attention >> there. >> >> My sense is that PMario's PR is, basically, a good idea. >> >> TT, x >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d288ea50-da29-4b39-b54f-a30ddd0d7d5dn%40googlegroups.com.
