Wow thanks for taking the time to share all of this.
I'm a fan of 16px + for body copy. I think the browsers have it right most of the time with the default font size of 1em == 16px. You've got me thinking of experimenting with 18px now though.
Where does the 65 chars per line come from? I've heard 2 to 3 English alphabets length but I don't know the original source of that guideline.
Most of my experiences with StackOverflow are positive, but just once in a while I'm left baffled by what feels like an excessive use of force by the power wielders there. Are there some misaligned incentives? Or perhaps I'm not good at understanding the community guidelines.
This is a question I asked yesterday that was down voted at impressive speed. Thankfully a couple of the commenters helped me out with information that benefits the community. Their comments would have made acceptable answers but they were unfortunately closed.
Here's a good episode of The Incomprable podcast where they discuss their favourite board games, helped me discover new games to play: http://5by5.tv/incomparable/184
Good to see the word is spreading about HSTS. EFF started pushing it earlier this month [1], with a perhaps fair claim that it's not widely known about by web developers.
As the article shows it's pretty straightforward to setup; if you can add a response header to your app then you'll be able to figure out how to harden your app with HSTS.
For my fellow web developers who like to learn by video, I've tried to make an easily digested screencast and a page of sketch notes to help get the word out about HSTS and explain what it protects against [2].
I'm not sure about this. Mmm. My gut feeling is I wouldn't feel too cool about using it, and I'd guess that if you gave news sites the chance to opt-in to being framed, not many would take Snip.ly up on it.
But I might be missing the full picture, and perhaps I'm just not the target audience.
Good luck to Snip.ly, but for developers who would want to stop this kind of thing from happening on their own sites, OWASP has a clickjacking defense cheat sheet:
Perhaps CMSes would serve writers better if there was a focus on providing amazing import tools that work with existing file formats, like .doc, that writers prefer and have used their whole careers. Maybe there is too much effort expended on reinventing the word processor in a CMS.
Wow it sounds great and thanks for taking the time for the detailed answer. If there exists now or in the future a screencast or gif of a power user writing an article on the CMS please share it on HN. Although I have a feeling it'd make some devs stuck with an older CMS weep a little.
I'd love to read more about the Guardian CMS that Scribe was written for and how the writers find using it. Do they like it?
When I've worked on news sites in the past, many of the journalists preferred writing in their desktop word processor of choice and cutting and pasting into the CMS as the final step before publishing.
The CMS was probably viewed as a necessary evil and I don't remember there being much love for it from the people who had to spend hours in it everyday.
Partly this was due to the CMS not working offline and it just wasn't as pleasant to use as the software the writers have used for years, which is understandable.
Today I'm looking to start subscribing to BrowserStack and discovered that the $19 plan had lessened its value considerably. I thought it used to support mobile browsers but this blog post was the only evidence I found to verify this. Perhaps HN can confirm or have I remembered this wrong?