5 ms·

Interesting that the demo page is using one of those super thin fonts my eyes have trouble focusing on and reading. http://devinhunt.github.io/typebase.css/ ht

Interesting that the demo page is using one of those super thin fonts my eyes have trouble focusing on and reading. http://devinhunt.github.io/typebase.css/ http://devinhunt.github.io/typebase.css/ PS: I'm on a retina MBP in 1680 mode so your results (and eyes) will vary

teamhappy 11y ago
It's probably -webkit-font-smoothing's fault. Source Sans Pro Light is quite readable.
captainill 11y ago
He's using -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; With this sort of font it looks terribad. You see this way to often. I've been guilty of it by proxy when another dev comes in and applies this style to the <body>
Springtime 11y ago
There was a time in the 19th century where thin, spindly fonts where in vogue for printed books. They were later criticized by typographers and general readers for making books harder to read [1]. The web is experiencing a similar scenario where thin typefaces are being used for body type as it looks modern even though it's making body text less easy on the eyes. In small paragraphs I personally don't mind it, but many sites are now using it for long articles where it's not ideal. [1] Daniel Updike's 'Printing Types, Their History, Forms, And Use; A Study In Survivals' is a great read. Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe01updi https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe01updi Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe02updi https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe02updi
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  Everything old is modern again. Cool links. I spent weeks fighting (and mostly losing) to a designer that wanted every website to use no more than a 300 font weight and no italics or other differentiating typography, all because it was "modern and light and airy". Wish I could have been like "Nope, here's people in the 19th century complaining about it" back at that point.

teamhappy 11y ago

It's probably -webkit-font-smoothing's fault. Source Sans Pro Light is quite readable.

captainill 11y ago

He's using -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; With this sort of font it looks terribad. You see this way to often. I've been guilty of it by proxy when another dev comes in and applies this style to the <body>

Springtime 11y ago

There was a time in the 19th century where thin, spindly fonts where in vogue for printed books. They were later criticized by typographers and general readers for making books harder to read [1]. The web is experiencing a similar scenario where thin typefaces are being used for body type as it looks modern even though it's making body text less easy on the eyes. In small paragraphs I personally don't mind it, but many sites are now using it for long articles where it's not ideal. [1] Daniel Updike's 'Printing Types, Their History, Forms, And Use; A Study In Survivals' is a great read. Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe01updi https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe01updi Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe02updi https://archive.org/details/printingtypesthe02updi

WorldMaker 11y ago
Everything old is modern again. Cool links. I spent weeks fighting (and mostly losing) to a designer that wanted every website to use no more than a 300 font weight and no italics or other differentiating typography, all because it was "modern and light and airy". Wish I could have been like "Nope, here's people in the 19th century complaining about it" back at that point.