Read Me

The article put in so much effort in all the wrong ways. Things were moving all over the place and there was no consistency between sections. I had to retrain myself every time I read another paragraph.<p>The only interesting parts for me were the interactive elements. This is the same article except much easier to read: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;readymag.com&#x2F;designs&#x2F;1961839&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;readymag.com&#x2F;designs&#x2F;1961839&#x2F;</a><p>For me, there are only 2 things that would make an article better to read. 1. Better, more concise writing. 2. Interactivity<p>And if the goal is read through rate then perhaps this method will work (if only because people are more likely to scroll blindly through an article to see all the animations). But if the goal is education then sometimes boredom is what&#x27;s needed.

Too many words. Too few insights. Too little information.<p>We&#x27;re drinking from thimbles and pissing Oceans.

Some bits of text are missing (because of badly written CSS I assume), stuff floating in front of the text... I definitely stopped reading before the average 40% of content: annoying layout.

It&#x27;s a page discussing readability of text.<p>Perversely I found the way it was presented made it very difficult to read.

&gt; However, by the end of the 1960s, computers with led screens had become relatively mainstream.<p>Can someone point me to these mainstream LED displays? Are we talking about calculators, or were there 80x25 terminals that used LEDs?<p>(Also interesting fact... &quot;LED&quot; was displayed capitalized on my screen but copy-pasted as lowercase. Indeed, in the DOM, the text is &quot;led&quot;. I&#x27;m extra confused as to why someone would do that!)

The fad success of the &quot;Snow Fall&quot; by NYTimes has created a generation of confused writers who think they&#x27;re artists.<p>Even the NYTimes has moved on from the all over the place interactive format for articles because it&#x27;s not good for readability. If you are confident about your writing you should focus on the writing itself instead of trying to package it in all kinds of bells and whistles. It just signals insecurity.

&gt; Read Me<p>Well I can&#x27;t, because apparently my browser (iOS 10) isn&#x27;t supported.<p>I wonder what advanced JS features the page is using, that are only available on the latest browsers.&lt;&#x2F;snark&gt;

Ironically unreadable with Firefox for Android. Lots of text is cut off. Possibly due to not handling text scaling (accessibility) correctly.

“ More and more text-based content is shared over the Internet, but not everything is thoroughly read. In fact, by the time this article reaches the next screen, a significant share of you will have already stopped reading.”<p>All of this is crammed into a tiny column on the right side of the iPad I’m reading this on. When I start scrolling to read more it starts flickering and jittering because... this article is full of huge amounts of JavaScript doing shit whenever I scroll, and making it move super slow.<p>It also breaks Safari’s “reader view”. Which honestly is about where I usually say “okay does the first paragraph of this illegible piece of the modern web feel worth the next level of hoops I’m gonna have to jump through to read it”.<p>This is an article that does not <i>want</i> to be read.

yea, no interest, showing off your js skills while telling me whatever my audience likes is wrong and bad, all while doing it with an extremely difficult to read and totally inaccessible page isn&#x27;t a great way to get me to care about whatever your position is, idek, didn&#x27;t get that far. I realize this may been an attempt at irony, either way it is done so badly. I really hope it is meant to be ironic.

“However, by the end of the 1960s, computers with led screens had become relatively mainstream.”<p>What? Sixties?<p>Anyway, I&#x27;ve read a lot of materials about readability and some authors provide very different recommendations. A lot of subjective opinions that are supported by questionable researches. Perception of text changes and you simply cannot use the same methods evaluating people from different generations or cultures.<p>In USSR for example all books for children MUST BE printed using sans-serif fonts because some “scientists” decided that serif fonts are harder to read for kids.

For an article concerned with readability, I thought the text was quite difficult to read!

Blank page (JS disabled).<p>Given others&#x27; comments here, I&#x27;m thankful.

I don&#x27;t understand why most of the things discussed in the article continue to be the responsibility of web page authors. For print media of course it makes sense for publishers to hire typesetters to agonise over font size. But for online content, please just send me the text itself and let _me_ choose how to most comfortably read it! Doing anything else is pretty obnoxious.

The information presented was interesting, and the way it was presented was playful and kept me reading despite me being currently exhausted. Soooo, that&#x27;s a positive from me!

The author uses the word &quot;problem&quot; multiple times. Is it really a problem? It feels natural and right to just get the information you need and move on with your life.

Is this supposed to be satire? Start off all about readability, but all the text is written like an ingredients label to the side.

I can&#x27;t tell if the joke is deliberate.