jae

Personally I don't have a problem with there being a "mismatch" between "crop if 2x" and "crop down to 1x." It's just silly to have a "read more" link that reveals only three words when you click it. (Sometimes "silly" is what you're going for, like that one post about Braid, but that's what manually setting the breakpoint is for.) If something is getting cropped at all, it really should be cropping a few lines.

Naturally that means there are some uncropped posts that are longer on-screen that cropped posts. I don't feel bothered by that discrepancy. Especially since those posts generally aren't on my screen at the same time. There's a reason to it, and it feels intuitive.

Maybe 1.5x would be a better threshold than 2x for phone screens? Feels like bikeshedding but I dunno. Or if you want to be all mystical, then Φ aka ½(1 + √5).

Honestly I think you nailed it the first time around! I do agree that 1x on mobile feels excessively small, especially given that cohost gravitates towards relatively larger posts. The size mismatch doesn't sound wrong or unexpected to me, but maybe there's a case I'm not considering?

I mostly view cohost on my phone, and I agree cutting off at 1x is annoyingly early, especially since it's not uncommon for reasonably-sized css crimes to be a bit taller than my screen. It also usually takes me more like 1.5-2 screens worth of text to decide if I want to read an entire long post or move on, and it's annoying how often I don't make the call to move on until after I've already expanded the post, so now I gotta scroll past the whole thing.

Would it be possible to set it to something like "cut off posts that are 2x screen height, and cut off posts that are taller than [measurement in px or em or something]"? on mobile all posts that are taller than [m] would already be cut off by the 2x height rule, but on a big monitor the [m] rule would kick in before posts reach 2x height.

Yeah, I feel like it makes sense that longer posts would be ok on mobile but feel really long on desktop; admittedly my first thought is base it on the user agent and/or screen configuration so that you can have a different max height for horizontal screens versus vertical screens?

I also wouldn't mind 1.5 on desktop, I think; that's not too bad.

"1.5x limit collapse to 1x" makes sense to me but i mostly use desktop so i dont see it too often. looking forward to the ability to say less and it also working with images <3

There should definitely be a gap between the length that the site shortens posts to and the length that triggers post shortening, because clicking 'read more' to get two more lines of text is not a great experience. I think cutting to 100vh if >200vh is a good place to tune it to on mobile. Maybe to accommodate bigger screens you could put an upper bound on those values, in rems instead of relative to screen size?

I like the auto-folding (so i don't have to figure out where the appropriate place to do so is), but what I don't like as much, is when the fold happens mid-image... I'd love to see if an image is under the fold, having it move up to the top of the image, if that's doable.

I would rather it tended smaller. Having half a blog post on screen by default is a lot to scroll through, especially if I've already read it.

i've shortened posts to avoid just barely hitting the limit and have a goofy 2-line readmore, which is probably not ideal for anyone. agree with other comments that a "mismatch" is fine, i think there should ideally only be a fold if there's actually a significant amount of content underneath

in particular with the way embeds are formatted, title & description fields are at the bottom of them and that's the exact thing i don't want to hide under the auto-readmore

Late to the post, but having this value as a percentage of screen height seems pretty goofy to me - surely just let the user specify a height?