• T. Hex@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’re usually the same PDF that’s designed for a giant paper menu, so I feel like I’m reading a huge document through a peephole.

    A “responsive” website that reshapes the document to fit your screen size is usually a better experience. But I’ve certainly seen it done poorly and wished they hadn’t tried to be clever.

    • Venat0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      they’re a restaurant, not a Web developer, the important thing is if the food is good lol

    • ericwdhs@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I wish dynamic support for user preferences was more of a thing. I like really dense displays of information with small text. Basically, the more a UI resembles a spreadsheet the better. Mobile interfaces almost universally have far too much white space for my taste, so I’m one of those people that’s pretty much always going to want the PDF even on a phone screen. I recognize why that would suck for a lot of people though.

    • Problem-based person@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Also, PDFs exported for printing are full-quality without lossy compression. I once downloaded a 150 MB menu because the graphic designer exported the PDF with images without any compression or resizing whatsoever.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Which is funny because the quality you want for print is usually like ~75dpi whereas web viewing you want more like ~300dpi so if anything the print version of the menu should be smaller