Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    631 points wojtczyk | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0.599s | source | bottom
    1. DavidPiper ◴[] No.41407570[source]
    Comically, I didn't even notice those wobbly numbers in the first screenshot, I was too busy noticing:

    - "Unicode" button label way off center

    - The 8/10/16 selector being off center in its own position

    - The indicators for bits 31 and 63 are not aligned with each other

    - x and + not being horizontally aligned (I believe this is an icon-font issue, seen on HN before so knew to look for it)

    replies(6): >>41407613 #>>41408138 #>>41408374 #>>41410147 #>>41410322 #>>41418597 #
    2. countmora ◴[] No.41407613[source]
    > "Unicode" button label way off center

    Its actually the center of the button, I made a video for context: https://imgur.com/a/1Y9O8dS

    > The 8/10/16 selector being off center in its own position

    Might be due to the image compression, it looks fine on my MB.

    replies(3): >>41407959 #>>41409218 #>>41410135 #
    3. samatman ◴[] No.41407959[source]
    > Its actually the center of the button

    Upvoted for putting in the effort, and because you make a correct point.

    But the Unicode button is perceptually off center, because ASCII is a smaller word, and there's no visible boundary between the buttons. This comes up a lot in iconography, the classic example is a play triangle (like the media control) in a circle. Placing the triangle in the geometric center won't look centered, it needs to be a tiny bit to the right of that to account for the shape.

    No separation between the buttons means you can't see the bounds which the words are centered in, so it looks off.

    The 8 and 10 have the same problem, for the same reason. A visible background-gray line between the buttons would solve this problem, it should be 'squircled' to make it I-shaped and match the outer edges.

    4. layer8 ◴[] No.41408138[source]
    Arguably it also should be “1s’” instead of “1’s”. ;)
    replies(2): >>41408756 #>>41410290 #
    5. furyofantares ◴[] No.41408374[source]
    Interesting. I saw the wobbly numbers instantly, but I didn't see any of that, and can't even see the 31/63 issue now.
    replies(1): >>41409695 #
    6. ◴[] No.41408756[source]
    7. fizzynut ◴[] No.41409218[source]
    From zooming into your clip both ASCII and Unicode are wrong:

    - ASCII is off center ~43/50 pixel margins

    - Unicode is off center ~20/25 pixel margins

    - Both have different margin sizes

    - The button sizes of both are the same.

    - The Hide button is offset from both 8/10/16 selector and ascii/unicode buttons

    - Even if everything was correct, because there is no contrast between "Off" and background, it's going to look wrong anyway

    8. DavidPiper ◴[] No.41409695[source]
    The 31/63 issue for me is that they appear to be aligned differently to the 0s directly above them. The left-edge of the 6 seems to be further left than the left edge of the 3. The 3 in 31 at least looks vertically aligned with the 0 above it.

    However, I suspect they both have the same ("Incorrect" seems too harsh a word... "Visually imprecise"?) layout constraints and they look different in practice because "63" is a wider number than "31".

    replies(1): >>41412225 #
    9. xelamonster ◴[] No.41410135[source]
    The selector issue is very visible in your video still: you can see black pixels at the top of the selected number where it shows the selector background, but none at the bottom because it's misaligned and the selection bubble is slightly outside its box.

    Edit: zooming in closer it's maybe not outside the box at all, but there's some odd aliasing artifacts or something making the space above the highlight look bigger than the space below.

    Honestly I don't think it makes it any better if the Unicode text is theoretically centered; the fact that there's zero separation between the options, and such poor spacing that it's difficult to tell and feels awkward either way is still terrible design.

    10. xelamonster ◴[] No.41410147[source]
    The 63/31 misalignment looks to me like it's because they don't use a monospace font.
    11. qingcharles ◴[] No.41410290[source]
    I'd agree with that. I wonder if it was a conscious decision to make it not look like 1 second or something?
    12. qingcharles ◴[] No.41410322[source]
    God, the more you look, the more you find. It's actually horrible.

    Also, the "32" label sits directly centered under the bit above it, but literally none of the others do, they're wherever-the-fuck.

    The x, + etc don't look centered vertically either -- compared to the numbers to the left of them.

    2's and 1's look like they are a different font size to everything else.

    The padding on the buttons at the top is hideous -- the downstroke on the y almost touches the outside of the button.

    I fear how awful this looks in localized versions, if they made any.

    13. IIsi50MHz ◴[] No.41412225{3}[source]
    > and they look different in practice because "63" is a wider number than "31".

    Gah, I was just noticing this again today, in Finder! No sane font has Roman numerals that are not monospaced.

    replies(1): >>41415667 #
    14. maskros ◴[] No.41415667{4}[source]
    Lots of fonts have monospaced numbers, they just need to be enabled! Look for OpenType (TTF and/or OTF) fonts with feature "tnum", and enable it.

    For CSS, use font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums.

    15. pimlottc ◴[] No.41418597[source]
    It looks like a summer intern’s project made in Visual Basic.