Talk:1676: Full-Width Justification

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:44, 4 May 2016 by 162.158.214.217 (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search


I added the emoji snake. Is emoji snake the same as a Unicode snake would be? Azule (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I assumed Unicode snakes would use three different characters: a head, a body segment, and a tail. Your solution is good, but objectively not perfect compared to what's shown in the comic.
So what would be the optimal snake transcription method here? A parenthetical aside saying "A drawing of a snake stretches to the right end of the line."? Or should we just blackmail the Unicode consortium again? ~AgentMuffin
The correct solution is obviously to include a 16 Mpixel image of a snake.Henke37 (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Emoji full snake is already in Unicode as Azule knows. &#x1f40d = 🐍
Segmented snake needs at least three characteres: head, e.g. °, body e.g ~ and tail, e.g. ◝.
Three segment snake °~◝
Four segment snake: °~~◝
Demro (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Could the title text also be a reference to the snake in umwelt? Azule (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Amazon is notorious for being bad at this. Here's a somewhat related Computerphile video. Eno (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, funnily enough, the filler text and the snakes were used in medieval (hand-written) manuscripts. Although it's not a snake but usually a nondescript wriggle that could only pass as a snake when you're squinting really hard. For filler text it's usually low-content words like "truly", "verily", "indeed", "without fail", "in truth" or stuff like that. So it's really an old problem with no satisfactory solution developed in hundreds of years... 162.158.85.93 08:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This practice of filling the line with a dingbat carried on into the days of handset letterpress (i.e. up until the early 1900's), although it gradually became more whimsical and so less frequent in serious works.108.162.241.123 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In practice you reformulate. Not necessarily insert filler words, but just reorder the sentence enough that justification works. That is assuming the automated justification doesn't work, which will try a combination of multiple methods like word-spacing, letter-spacing and hyphenation. Imagine hyphenating at "de-" instead, but adding a little bit extra letter space in "between", and almost double normal word space between "between" and "de-".162.158.114.222 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reformulating can only be done with the (tacit or explicit) permission of the author. There are situations where rewording would not be allowed.108.162.241.123 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

While the arabic part is interesting, I don't feel it to be very relevant here. 108.162.249.156 09:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant because is yet another solution (useful only in Arabic). Demro (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry- how do add a [citation needed] in superscript? Transuranium (talk)Transuranium


The "snake" option is actually less out there than the current explanation indicates. Snakes proper were not necessarily the go-to, but the same general strategy (decorative filling) was used heavily in illuminated manuscripts in the medieval period. 162.158.214.217 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Came here just to say that. The current explanation needs reworking because that's actually one of the oldest ways of dealing with text justification. Check for example the Book of Kells 162.158.203.141 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Modified the explanation accordingly.162.158.214.217 21:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?