4 ms·

I mostly like your design, a nice clean look, but I have a couple of comments and a suggestion that you are free to ignore completely. Firstly, I hate sites th

I mostly like your design, a nice clean look, but I have a couple of comments and a suggestion that you are free to ignore completely. Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. The wall of text from the previous post is obviously too much and is far too difficult to read and keep track of where you are, but using only a third of the screen seem far too little. I'm sure you could double the width of your text without affecting readability. Secondly, I have really good distance vision but need reading glasses. I find the text on your site a bit small. From a distance it just a bit too small to read comfortably and from close with my reading glasses I feel like I need to get too close. Yes, I can increase the font size easily, but how about... My suggestion: decrease the size of your borders by about 50% on each side and then increase the font size by 1 or 2 points. The increased column size will give more text on screen, but the increased font size will make sure it is not too much.

dagoat 8y ago
Disagree slightly on the width. Perhaps a little wider, but I don't hate it. On the font size: Home page gets it, actual posts the font size is far too small IMO
- alanh 8y ago
  I actually agree and want to increase my main body font size. It’s also probably time to go serif, as sans-serifs are best suited for low resolutions (like for body text on all computers and mobile phones up to ~8 years ago) and serifs shine in high resolution (like on the printed page); today high-density screens are more common. Even “1x” monitors are wide enough that the increased font size they make possible increases the number of pixels available per rendered character. In the mean time, browser zoom will work well!
egypturnash 8y ago
> Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. FWIW most professional typographers recommend a column width of 30-40em. Much more than that seriously increases the distance the eye has to travel from the end of one line to the beginning of the next, and makes it harder to keep track of where you are. The max-width of this blog's main column is... 40em. And now you know why so many sites do this thing you hate. (An em, if you are not familiar with it, is a typographical measurement equal to "the width of an M in this font".)
- alanh 8y ago
  You’re exactly right. I have heard typographers express the maximum readable width as "two and a half alphabets," which is roughly 40em. A max-width of 40em is extremely responsive, making the most of your screen (on mobile) without overextending and compromising reading comfort (on desktop).
- Digit-Al 8y ago
  I am familiar with em thanks. I am a software developer and have done some web development in the past. Far be it from me to argue with professional typographers, but do you hear anyone saying "oh, the line lengths on paperbacks are far too long, I can't scan them"? Maybe it's just me but I'm a little tired of always having to cater the the very lowest common denominator. That narrow width seems almost ludicrously too narrow to me, it's like a childrens book. There has been research that suggests that most people don't finish articles, so it seems to me that maybe making columns so narrow is catering to the audience most likely to have such a short attention span that they probably won't finish your article anyway. Or maybe I'm just a moany old git :-)

dagoat 8y ago

Disagree slightly on the width. Perhaps a little wider, but I don't hate it. On the font size: Home page gets it, actual posts the font size is far too small IMO

alanh 8y ago
I actually agree and want to increase my main body font size. It’s also probably time to go serif, as sans-serifs are best suited for low resolutions (like for body text on all computers and mobile phones up to ~8 years ago) and serifs shine in high resolution (like on the printed page); today high-density screens are more common. Even “1x” monitors are wide enough that the increased font size they make possible increases the number of pixels available per rendered character. In the mean time, browser zoom will work well!

egypturnash 8y ago

> Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. FWIW most professional typographers recommend a column width of 30-40em. Much more than that seriously increases the distance the eye has to travel from the end of one line to the beginning of the next, and makes it harder to keep track of where you are. The max-width of this blog's main column is... 40em. And now you know why so many sites do this thing you hate. (An em, if you are not familiar with it, is a typographical measurement equal to "the width of an M in this font".)

alanh 8y ago
You’re exactly right. I have heard typographers express the maximum readable width as "two and a half alphabets," which is roughly 40em. A max-width of 40em is extremely responsive, making the most of your screen (on mobile) without overextending and compromising reading comfort (on desktop).
Digit-Al 8y ago
I am familiar with em thanks. I am a software developer and have done some web development in the past. Far be it from me to argue with professional typographers, but do you hear anyone saying "oh, the line lengths on paperbacks are far too long, I can't scan them"? Maybe it's just me but I'm a little tired of always having to cater the the very lowest common denominator. That narrow width seems almost ludicrously too narrow to me, it's like a childrens book. There has been research that suggests that most people don't finish articles, so it seems to me that maybe making columns so narrow is catering to the audience most likely to have such a short attention span that they probably won't finish your article anyway. Or maybe I'm just a moany old git :-)