Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Designing code #64

Open
twolfson opened this issue Dec 22, 2013 · 0 comments
Open

Designing code #64

twolfson opened this issue Dec 22, 2013 · 0 comments

Comments

@twolfson
Copy link

Disclaimer: This talk has nothing to do with JavaScript but is pretty mad science which is why I am still submitting it.

The readability argument has always frustrated me. It manifests as a subjective observation stated as an objective fact. In a lot of cases, it is more habitual/cultural than anything scientific.

Out of this frustration, I began to establish my own theories by pulling in concepts from design.

In this talk, I will outline two experiments and one theory:

Vertical rhythm

Vertical rhythm establishes a consistent sizing of and spacing between elements. This brings up a recognizable/repeatable feel to the code.

Article: http://twolfson.com/2013-05-27-bringing-vertical-rhythm-to-code

Line length

The absolute 80 character limit was introduced due to screen limitations. However, there is something similar in typography which is the ideal amount of characters per line.

I have been experimenting with relative line lengths, the amount of characters from the first non-whitespace character to the EOL.

Articles:

http://twolfson.com/2013-09-08-optimal-line-length-theory

http://twolfson.com/2013-11-26-optimal-lines-again

Objective readability

I am theorizing that if a pattern is repeated within code, it can be recognized at a faster rate which improves readability.

Article: http://twolfson.com/2013-08-15-readability:-formalized

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant