Just for once, Opera behaved nicely for that one, even before it went behind the cut.
I count 412 squiggles. What's the significance of that? I thought at first it was going to be a power of two.
Dyslexic people would utterly hate you if this got adopted. Have you read any works on readable text? It turns out descenders, ascenders etc. are more than just nice patterns, they actually have readability advantages (letters that are near-mirrors of each other are not nice to said dyslexics, however).
One of the new Vista fonts has numerals that ascend and descend, instead of sticking resolutely to the same height. Once you get used to the weirdness, they actually do make it easier to read and memorise large numbers. apparently it's only in recent times that numbers had to be even in height, and this was a fashion statement.
Just for once, Opera behaved nicely for that one, even before it went behind the cut.
Safari did okay as well: it managed to put line breaks between glyphs as necessary. Firefox insists on putting them all on one very long line, unfortunately. (Though my friends page is unfazed by that, muhahaha. My LJ style permits people to render their own posts and comments illegibly wide, but protects every post and comment from strange HTML perpetrated in any other.)
I count 412 squiggles. What's the significance of that? I thought at first it was going to be a power of two.
(After quickly hacking up a Python program to check) 412 is exactly the number of distinct squiggles which obey the following rules:
5×5 grid of dots
single unbroken line
line starts at the top left dot and begins by moving one space right
line then visits every dot in the grid exactly once
line travels orthogonally between adjacent dots at every step.
Looks as if fivemack has generated all the possibilities and translated each one into a nice-looking glyph.
Um, *my* (linux) firefox (2) did not insist on putting them all on one line. And experimenting with it and (windows) firefox (3) they quite happily re-wrap them as I resize the window.
Ah, now I see. It's because my LJ style doesn't explicitly open a <p> tag between the innermost <td> and the string of images, whereas other styles do. Adding an explicit <p> turns on the wrapping behaviour even in Firefox 2, whereas Safari was happy to wrap regardless. I've now fixed my style; thanks for giving me the hint that it was something I could fix at my end!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I count 412 squiggles. What's the significance of that? I thought at first it was going to be a power of two.
Dyslexic people would utterly hate you if this got adopted. Have you read any works on readable text? It turns out descenders, ascenders etc. are more than just nice patterns, they actually have readability advantages (letters that are near-mirrors of each other are not nice to said dyslexics, however).
One of the new Vista fonts has numerals that ascend and descend, instead of sticking resolutely to the same height. Once you get used to the weirdness, they actually do make it easier to read and memorise large numbers. apparently it's only in recent times that numbers had to be even in height, and this was a fashion statement.
no subject
Safari did okay as well: it managed to put line breaks between glyphs as necessary. Firefox insists on putting them all on one very long line, unfortunately. (Though my friends page is unfazed by that, muhahaha. My LJ style permits people to render their own posts and comments illegibly wide, but protects every post and comment from strange HTML perpetrated in any other.)
I count 412 squiggles. What's the significance of that? I thought at first it was going to be a power of two.
(After quickly hacking up a Python program to check) 412 is exactly the number of distinct squiggles which obey the following rules:
- 5×5 grid of dots
- single unbroken line
- line starts at the top left dot and begins by moving one space right
- line then visits every dot in the grid exactly once
- line travels orthogonally between adjacent dots at every step.
Looks as ifno subject
no subject
no subject
<p>tag between the innermost<td>and the string of images, whereas other styles do. Adding an explicit<p>turns on the wrapping behaviour even in Firefox 2, whereas Safari was happy to wrap regardless. I've now fixed my style; thanks for giving me the hint that it was something I could fix at my end!