I'm talking about the difference in size and contrast between the actual headline and the trailing HN sitebit "(archlinux.org)". The final size they end up on my screen is irrelevant to my point, because my point is about the size and contrast difference _between_ the two, whatever final sizes those might happen to be. The default HN stylesheet calls for 10pt and 8pt for those, respectively, so it's not like I'm just making this up. I'm saying the verbatim title rule is a poor fit here because it took a relevant (central, even!) part of the headline and moved it to a spot of secondary importance and size. There are cases where I defend the rule, but right now I am talking about this case and only this case :)
back
1 comments
So even if the url got bumped to 12pt, you'd complain if the rest was 15? I think that's weird.
As long as it's on the same line as the title and easily legible, I really don't see a problem.
And it's not a spot of secondary importance. If it was still in the title, making it longer, the spot where you see the url would have title in it.
FWIW 12 vs 15pt text used like this is called visual hierarchy (or typographic hierarchy if the differences are limited to typography, they're not here, there's also positional difference between the titles and domains).
Desaturating and down-sizing suggests the information is not important, but in this case is critical to understanding and of equal weight and so should probably have the same visual hierarchy, that's easily achieved by including "Arch Linux" in the title.
I'm glad it's not a problem for you. It is for me, though, and the point of accessibility is to enable use by everyone.
You don't get to declare that something is an accessibility problem just because you don't like it, though.
You would rate the exact same formatting good or bad based entirely on whether the text next to it is a couple pixels larger. That does not sound like "accessibility".
Whether it's hard to read is an accessibility issue. But that's not your complaint.
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Please forgive me if I am (hopefully!) just misreading the tone of these comments, but this exchange has seemed tiringly mean-spirited and argumentative to me. I'm not trying to convince you of some objective fault in HN's design, just sharing my experience to see if anyone else's is similar. My experiences will still be my reality even if the answer to that question is "no" :)
I got snarky because you said "I'm glad it's not a problem for you" when I never said the current design wasn't a problem. I read that as unwarrantedly dismissive!
I'm not disagreeing with your experience, I'm just disagreeing with part of the way you want to fix it.
I have to agree with the previous poster. Sometimes i have absolutely no clue what the article is about because the original title has been edited and the url is not immediately recognizable.
> Sometimes i have absolutely no clue what the article is about because the original title has been edited and the url is not immediately recognizable.
Yes, that happens... but I'm not sure how it applies to this specific case? The URL is the same two words that were removed from the title.
I'm not defending HN's title edits in general.