4 ms·

It can be interesting to explore what makes good typography, but we should be cautious. Typography is a field surrounded by an awful lot of dogma but very littl

It can be interesting to explore what makes good typography, but we should be cautious. Typography is a field surrounded by an awful lot of dogma but very little science, particularly in the context of web pages. In this case, while I appreciate the author’s efforts, I will respectfully disagree with the conclusion: I don’t think a strict vertical rhythm matched to a baseline grid is a good idea for a lot of text on the Web. Unlike a printed page, there is no concern on a screen about text on the other side showing through. There is therefore no possibility that mismatched baselines will reduce the contrast in leading areas between lines as a result. For a single-column article such as the one we’re discussing here, there is no concern about whether text in adjacent columns may look untidy if the baselines are slightly misaligned. Nor is there any concern that a reader may inadvertently continue reading across columns if baselines do line up and there isn’t a clear enough separation between columns. (However, these might be relevant concerns in other layouts.) But mostly, by trying to keep to some artificial mathematical pattern, we might actually be making the reader’s experience worse. Spacing between paragraphs usually winds up much wider than it traditionally has been when this kind of strict baseline grid is present. The same goes double for headings being moved further away from the material they introduce. We know human perception is influenced by proximity, and if spacing between related items becomes too great, that connection can start to weaken. That might become an issue here. (If you’re familiar with your browser’s developer tools, you can go ahead and try this for yourself: there are p+p and h2+p rules for this article, which you can vary to see whether you prefer tighter spacing even though it doesn’t follow the baseline grid.) Despite huge amounts of advocacy, there seems to be little evidence that the kind of strictly uniform baseline grid recommended in this article actually makes anything better. Does it improve readers’ subjective personal reaction to a text? Does it improve objective reading performance in some way? I’d be interested in any relevant research, and very willing to revise my opinions if proper studies say I’m wrong, but sadly in typography hard data is often hard to find.

ThomPete 11y ago
Agree For web it's more important to have vertical element rhythm.
RobertKerans 11y ago
++ on this. I used to be quite dogmatic about baseline rhythm when the distance between me being a print designer and a developer was a lot shorter, responsive was the thing that finally killed it for me, for the better. I'd just add though that the almost pseudoscientific magic numbers part of it is more than a little silly, for heavily text-based sites the general principles + a good font can produce aesthetically very beautiful typography without a great deal of effort (just the normal plug the ratios into a stylesheet, and then take the base value and reuse it everywhere for margins/padding etc)
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I think typography, like any other aesthetic scheme, is probably irrelevant to 1/3 of the population, mildly interesting to another 1/3, and only noticed by the third that has a feel for it. (Numbers 100% made up and metaphorical, not scientific.) I'm one of those who cares. I used to flick through Letraset catalogs before I even knew what typography was, because I thought the different effects of the letter shapes were fascinating. But I'm perfectly fine with the understanding that a lot of people really don't notice the difference between SvelteStylishFontX and Comic Sans. So... it's hard to get clean data about this, because if you take the population as a whole you may not see much of an effect. But in web design, your target audience won't usually be the population as a whole. Design effort matters if your audience is more likely to include those who appreciate it. Finding and testing that audience scientifically is damn near impossible. So if you think it may matter, it's best to add design sugar and then check the analytics to see what happens. That's going to tell you a lot more about your customers than a theoretical study in a journal.
- Supraperplex 11y ago
  > and only noticed by the third that has a feel for it. Everybody feels something. It's just that most people don't realize what it is what they are feeling. But subconsciously they feel a difference. And that diference may (or may not) influence the buying decision.
  - Chris_Newton 11y ago
    It’s also interesting that in studies of typographical variations like fonts and line lengths, significant differences have been found in metrics like reading speed and in measured retention, even when the readers either did not realise there was a difference or even subjectively preferred a style that was objectively inferior in some ways. Moreover, while a lot of readers may not notice or distinguish details to the extent that a trained designer would, there are often very clear and consistent patterns in their general preferences. So while it’s often true that the best typography is “invisible”, that doesn’t mean it has no effect on either the reader’s subconscious perception of the text or on more practical matters like how quickly and accurately they will read it.

ThomPete 11y ago

Agree For web it's more important to have vertical element rhythm.

RobertKerans 11y ago

++ on this. I used to be quite dogmatic about baseline rhythm when the distance between me being a print designer and a developer was a lot shorter, responsive was the thing that finally killed it for me, for the better. I'd just add though that the almost pseudoscientific magic numbers part of it is more than a little silly, for heavily text-based sites the general principles + a good font can produce aesthetically very beautiful typography without a great deal of effort (just the normal plug the ratios into a stylesheet, and then take the base value and reuse it everywhere for margins/padding etc)

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I think typography, like any other aesthetic scheme, is probably irrelevant to 1/3 of the population, mildly interesting to another 1/3, and only noticed by the third that has a feel for it. (Numbers 100% made up and metaphorical, not scientific.) I'm one of those who cares. I used to flick through Letraset catalogs before I even knew what typography was, because I thought the different effects of the letter shapes were fascinating. But I'm perfectly fine with the understanding that a lot of people really don't notice the difference between SvelteStylishFontX and Comic Sans. So... it's hard to get clean data about this, because if you take the population as a whole you may not see much of an effect. But in web design, your target audience won't usually be the population as a whole. Design effort matters if your audience is more likely to include those who appreciate it. Finding and testing that audience scientifically is damn near impossible. So if you think it may matter, it's best to add design sugar and then check the analytics to see what happens. That's going to tell you a lot more about your customers than a theoretical study in a journal.

Supraperplex 11y ago
> and only noticed by the third that has a feel for it. Everybody feels something. It's just that most people don't realize what it is what they are feeling. But subconsciously they feel a difference. And that diference may (or may not) influence the buying decision.
- Chris_Newton 11y ago
  It’s also interesting that in studies of typographical variations like fonts and line lengths, significant differences have been found in metrics like reading speed and in measured retention, even when the readers either did not realise there was a difference or even subjectively preferred a style that was objectively inferior in some ways. Moreover, while a lot of readers may not notice or distinguish details to the extent that a trained designer would, there are often very clear and consistent patterns in their general preferences. So while it’s often true that the best typography is “invisible”, that doesn’t mean it has no effect on either the reader’s subconscious perception of the text or on more practical matters like how quickly and accurately they will read it.