5 ms·

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no probl

by mrob 11y ago

The most readable font is the the font you're most familiar with. Spencerian script is almost illegible to me, but for people who read it ever day it's no problem. The same is true of blackletter scripts. No matter how ugly the font, people can adapt to it, and once they've adapted they'll find it preferable. If you really care about prioritizing the text, you should leave the typography to the client. I do not care about your brand. I do not care about your fancy typography tricks. I override all your font choices because I want every website to look identical. This means I never have to spend any unnecessary mental effort interpreting your typography. If you're serious about typography you should respect your user's choices and leave it to the default.

digitalengineer 11y ago
> you should leave the typography to the client Who is 'you'? A back-end developer? Then, yes. A front-end developer or UX person with design background? Then: no. We don't make websites for 'the client', we make them for their clients.
- juliendorra 11y ago
  I think it meant the browser, as in "the web client". (There is a mention of overriding all websites fonts). So you basically agree on the goal: satisfying the end user.
  - mrob 11y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I was thinking of technical details not business details. I would edit my post but it is too old to edit now. Thanks for pointing this out.
  - digitalengineer 11y ago
    Thank you! We agree. This is a slide from my UX or Marketing presentation. I think you'll like it: http://imgur.com/ErR8JfJ http://imgur.com/ErR8JfJ
- mrob 11y ago
  The client is the person paying for the website. They want fancy fonts because they want a strong brand and all that bullshit. The client's client is the person reading the website. Fancy design is actively harmful to them. I make my "should" claim as somebody reading websites, not somebody paying for website design. I'm fully aware that designers are less likely to listen to me than to the client who's paying them, but if I can at least shame a few into reining in their worst excesses I've done some good.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- ommunist 11y ago
  Well, actually you do it for your customer, and if you are able to persuade your customer that this is for his clients, than yes, you can have it.
DasIch 11y ago
There are very few people who are able to make informed choices about typography to create a site that's most readable to them. You might be able to do that but you're the exception and not the rule.
- rmetzler 11y ago
  The very same link above is so much easier to read in Safari's "Reader" mode than in it's original "fancy webtypographer" design, that I wonder if the typographer actually understand what he does.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    It's easier to read but it also has an aesthetic that reminds me of the children's books I used to learn to read with in primary school. Comparing the text as-is and in reader mode, you see that the font the author choose is bolder (for lack of a fancy typography term) and the space between the letters seems to be smaller. If you increase the space between the letters with CSS using the letter-spacing property just a little bit, I think it's just as easy to read as in reader mode.
- mrob 11y ago
  In Firefox it's as simple as going to Edit, Preferences, Content, Fonts & Colors, Advanced..., and disabling "Allow pages to choose their own fonts". Whoever was responsible for setting up fonts in your OS already picked sane defaults so there's no need to change anything else there.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Most people are happy they can barely use their browser and have probably never seen any of these menus. They won't even think about opening the Preferences window to look around and they definitely won't consider that they could configure the fonts used by websites.
bigbugbag 11y ago
Are you saying that CSS should drop the author mode[1] for typography because you override it ? How does that make any sense ? The point of user mode in CSS is exactly to allow the user to put her own css into the mix. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#cascade http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#cascade
z3t4 11y ago
While I think this rant is valid. Many people care more about look then readability. If it looks boring, they might not read it. So I think it's up to the client to do the font override, etc.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  The rant is uninformed. Typographic design (which is the basis of all graphic design) is all about readability and reinforcing meaning of the text. The 75 character line thing for example is based on comfortable eye scanning for text at book distance from the viewer (rather than being some decorative notion). Typographic design has centuries of practise behind it and web typography is correctly considered crude and immature by trained typographers. It's the technology that causes the poor experience and one which typographers are in the early days of addressing.
userbinator 11y ago
Agree completely, in fact one of my favourite fonts is the non-antialiased monospaced 'Fixed' font that came with X: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html With a small tweak, adding a slash to the 0, it's perfect for reading source code all day long, and I've also started using it elsewhere including the browser.

by mrob 11y ago

digitalengineer 11y ago

> you should leave the typography to the client Who is 'you'? A back-end developer? Then, yes. A front-end developer or UX person with design background? Then: no. We don't make websites for 'the client', we make them for their clients.

juliendorra 11y ago
I think it meant the browser, as in "the web client". (There is a mention of overriding all websites fonts). So you basically agree on the goal: satisfying the end user.
- mrob 11y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I was thinking of technical details not business details. I would edit my post but it is too old to edit now. Thanks for pointing this out.
- digitalengineer 11y ago
  Thank you! We agree. This is a slide from my UX or Marketing presentation. I think you'll like it: http://imgur.com/ErR8JfJ http://imgur.com/ErR8JfJ
mrob 11y ago
The client is the person paying for the website. They want fancy fonts because they want a strong brand and all that bullshit. The client's client is the person reading the website. Fancy design is actively harmful to them. I make my "should" claim as somebody reading websites, not somebody paying for website design. I'm fully aware that designers are less likely to listen to me than to the client who's paying them, but if I can at least shame a few into reining in their worst excesses I've done some good.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ommunist 11y ago
Well, actually you do it for your customer, and if you are able to persuade your customer that this is for his clients, than yes, you can have it.

DasIch 11y ago

There are very few people who are able to make informed choices about typography to create a site that's most readable to them. You might be able to do that but you're the exception and not the rule.

rmetzler 11y ago
The very same link above is so much easier to read in Safari's "Reader" mode than in it's original "fancy webtypographer" design, that I wonder if the typographer actually understand what he does.
- DasIch 11y ago
  It's easier to read but it also has an aesthetic that reminds me of the children's books I used to learn to read with in primary school. Comparing the text as-is and in reader mode, you see that the font the author choose is bolder (for lack of a fancy typography term) and the space between the letters seems to be smaller. If you increase the space between the letters with CSS using the letter-spacing property just a little bit, I think it's just as easy to read as in reader mode.
mrob 11y ago
In Firefox it's as simple as going to Edit, Preferences, Content, Fonts & Colors, Advanced..., and disabling "Allow pages to choose their own fonts". Whoever was responsible for setting up fonts in your OS already picked sane defaults so there's no need to change anything else there.
- DasIch 11y ago
  Most people are happy they can barely use their browser and have probably never seen any of these menus. They won't even think about opening the Preferences window to look around and they definitely won't consider that they could configure the fonts used by websites.

bigbugbag 11y ago

Are you saying that CSS should drop the author mode[1] for typography because you override it ? How does that make any sense ? The point of user mode in CSS is exactly to allow the user to put her own css into the mix. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#cascade http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#cascade

z3t4 11y ago

While I think this rant is valid. Many people care more about look then readability. If it looks boring, they might not read it. So I think it's up to the client to do the font override, etc.

dreamfactory2 11y ago
The rant is uninformed. Typographic design (which is the basis of all graphic design) is all about readability and reinforcing meaning of the text. The 75 character line thing for example is based on comfortable eye scanning for text at book distance from the viewer (rather than being some decorative notion). Typographic design has centuries of practise behind it and web typography is correctly considered crude and immature by trained typographers. It's the technology that causes the poor experience and one which typographers are in the early days of addressing.

userbinator 11y ago

Agree completely, in fact one of my favourite fonts is the non-antialiased monospaced 'Fixed' font that came with X: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html With a small tweak, adding a slash to the 0, it's perfect for reading source code all day long, and I've also started using it elsewhere including the browser.