> As a user, when I set my browser to be full screen, I expect the content to take up the full screen. I bought a nice big 27" monitor, and I want to use it. How dare some UX designer 2,000 miles away from me simply decide that I should only be able to see content on a 5" wide strip down the middle!
I've seen this argument come up before multiple times on HN, and it's wild to me. Having sensible CSS defaults is not a designer dictating that you are only able to see content one way. You might prefer to read text in a giant line spread across a giant monitor, and that's fine, but it's not a freedom thing. It's not denying your browser's role as a user agent that sites have CSS files.
Every single website (HN included) makes CSS decisions for the user. What colors should be used, what is the default contrast. Every single line of CSS on a website is a designer decision by a designer 2000 miles away from you about how they think that content should be presented. And if you don't like that, turn off CSS in your web browser. Assuming you're using Firefox (which you should be using), it's trivial to do.
Of course, browsers should allow overriding CSS, and (imo) they should make it easier to do so and more accessible to non-technical users. And yes, part of making a website that respects the browser as a user agent is shipping HTML that can be viewed unstyled and that is easy to override styles for. Ironically, HN does a horrible job of this -- the HTML is not semantic, the use of tables is so egregious that even stripping the CSS out doesn't really remove all of the styling. The site is really messy if you want to override anything. So that HN uses a design that happens to more closely align with what you want does not make the site more respectful of your browser as a user agent. It just means that you and the designer(s) happen to like the same design.
And in comparison, putting `max-width: 45em` on a text column is not even remotely user hostile, it is a very simple CSS property to override -- especially for designs that use single columns because you can change that CSS property without even worrying about reflow. `max-width` is a default that statistically works better for the majority of users even on large monitors (I use a 32 inch 4K monitor and max-widths make text on that monitor easier to read). But of course, some people are different, and that's fine. Go yell at the browser makers to allow easier CSS overrides, or turn off CSS entirely, or install an extension that lets you add CSS to given pages or spend a weekend building an extension that strips max-width out of stylesheets for every website you visit, or customize Firefox's userContent.css file. There are options here. And if you had made an argument about those options, I'd be 100% on board. CSS for websites should be treated as a default setting instead of as a requirement and browsers should support CSS overrides more easily out-of-the-box.
But the idea that designers are denying user agency by not making a proactive design decision to present by default the specific format you want to read -- it's just ludicrous. You're not asking for user freedom, you're asking for designers to target your preferences instead of other people's. Those two things are not the same.
I fully agree that browsers should take a more active role in enabling the user to easily set his/her preferences, without them having to re-develop the CSS for each site they visit.
Browsers allow you to disable styles altogether, but as you note, most sites are horribly broken in that mode. Even Google's home page, which should be dead simple, is horribly broken with CSS disabled. I think if browsers had spines and enabled users to be more opinionated about styles, web developers would respond by ensuring their sites worked better without them.
That I completely agree with -- I've had a hot-take a couple of times in the past and I still hold to it, that regardless of what HTML was intended to be or not be originally, today it's at its best when it's treated as a user-facing rendering target, and a lot of the criticisms about HTML's ability to handle things like giant virtual lists are missing the point that you shouldn't have giant lists in your UX in the first place, you shouldn't have a DOM tree that lists out 20,000 options in a `ul` if you're treating HTML like it's a user-facing interface rather than an authorship format for the developer alone.
I'm still honestly a firm believer in the design technique of designing the HTML of a website before I start working on the CSS, and I know that a lot of people call that naive or say that it doesn't work... but I'm not saying that you can't revise the HTML later to fit a design, just that first I want to know what the content is and I want to treat the HTML as a primary rendering target, not an authoring language. I think there are a lot of benefits to that (one being that in addition to being more user-controllable and flexible, it also makes it much easier to do responsive design if you approach web design through that lens because page layouts become views of a unified block of content rather than completely separate isolated designs).
But I don't think including the CSS is where that process falls apart or that it's disrespecting the user or denying agency. It's like how if someone hands me a image of a block of text, my problem is not that the contrast in the image is too light or that it's the wrong color; my problem is that they handed me an image of a text document. If someone hands me a website that is so intrinsically tied to CSS that it's impossible for me to easily adjust column widths, that coupling is the problem more than the column widths.
Firefox does have some some great options around CSS control for partial or small adjustments but in typical Firefox fashion its best features are all hidden like Mozilla is embarrassed of them. I didn't bring up userContent.css to be dismissive; genuinely you should take a look at it if you've never used it before. I make heavy use of it for websites, everything from building grayscale modes when I want a website to be less distracting, to swapping layouts around. But it's a valid criticism that it's not user-facing and you need to go into advanced settings to even enable it. Browsers could do more.
I've seen this argument come up before multiple times on HN, and it's wild to me. Having sensible CSS defaults is not a designer dictating that you are only able to see content one way. You might prefer to read text in a giant line spread across a giant monitor, and that's fine, but it's not a freedom thing. It's not denying your browser's role as a user agent that sites have CSS files.
Every single website (HN included) makes CSS decisions for the user. What colors should be used, what is the default contrast. Every single line of CSS on a website is a designer decision by a designer 2000 miles away from you about how they think that content should be presented. And if you don't like that, turn off CSS in your web browser. Assuming you're using Firefox (which you should be using), it's trivial to do.
Of course, browsers should allow overriding CSS, and (imo) they should make it easier to do so and more accessible to non-technical users. And yes, part of making a website that respects the browser as a user agent is shipping HTML that can be viewed unstyled and that is easy to override styles for. Ironically, HN does a horrible job of this -- the HTML is not semantic, the use of tables is so egregious that even stripping the CSS out doesn't really remove all of the styling. The site is really messy if you want to override anything. So that HN uses a design that happens to more closely align with what you want does not make the site more respectful of your browser as a user agent. It just means that you and the designer(s) happen to like the same design.
And in comparison, putting `max-width: 45em` on a text column is not even remotely user hostile, it is a very simple CSS property to override -- especially for designs that use single columns because you can change that CSS property without even worrying about reflow. `max-width` is a default that statistically works better for the majority of users even on large monitors (I use a 32 inch 4K monitor and max-widths make text on that monitor easier to read). But of course, some people are different, and that's fine. Go yell at the browser makers to allow easier CSS overrides, or turn off CSS entirely, or install an extension that lets you add CSS to given pages or spend a weekend building an extension that strips max-width out of stylesheets for every website you visit, or customize Firefox's userContent.css file. There are options here. And if you had made an argument about those options, I'd be 100% on board. CSS for websites should be treated as a default setting instead of as a requirement and browsers should support CSS overrides more easily out-of-the-box.
But the idea that designers are denying user agency by not making a proactive design decision to present by default the specific format you want to read -- it's just ludicrous. You're not asking for user freedom, you're asking for designers to target your preferences instead of other people's. Those two things are not the same.