Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

gjm comments on Feedback on LW 2.0 - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Viliam 01 October 2017 03:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 11 October 2017 07:35:54PM *  0 points [-]

Looks like LW 2.0 is using a 20px font size, and 25px line height, which is in range of what is recommended.

Is "what was recommended" similar to "mistakes were made"? It blames it on someone else, while leaving the "someone else" unnamed.

Existing recommendations about text size (and particularly, about not fitting too much text on a line) do not consider that Lesswrong has a different usage pattern than most sites. There are references dating back to 1971, but I can't figure out if any scientific studies were actually conducted at the time to determine this, and at any rate, printed text is not the web.

Also, beware of using some recommendation just because it's easy to measure.

This is basically breaking the site in order to fit "recommendations". LW 2.0 is bad, and everyone involved should feel bad. It is fundamentally designed around a bad idea.

Comment author: gjm 12 October 2017 04:30:59PM 1 point [-]

It is fundamentally designed around a bad idea.

That seems rather extreme. What specific bad idea do you mean?

(Context here suggests that it's something like "the idea that typographical choices for LW2 should match those for the web as a whole", but even if LW2's design makes that assumption and even if it's a bad assumption it doesn't seem fundamental enough to justify your last paragraph.)

Comment author: Jiro 12 October 2017 08:45:16PM *  0 points [-]

Context here suggests that it's something like "the idea that typographical choices for LW2 should match those for the web as a whole"

The idea that the study of typographical choices for the web is a mature science whose (nontrivial) recommendations can all be taken at face value.

Comment author: gjm 15 October 2017 02:58:32PM 1 point [-]

So LW2 (as a whole, it seems) is bad and everyone involved should feel bad ... because the people who designed it think that web typography is a mature science whose recommendations can be taken at face value?

Maybe I'm being dim, but that seems really strange to me. It isn't clear to me what even makes you confident that they think that; I'm not sure what it means to say that something is designed around that idea (it can be designed via a process that assumes that idea, I guess, but that really isn't the same); and getting from there to "LW2 is bad and everyone involved should feel bad" seems like an enormous leap.

I wonder whether I'm missing some vital context here.