2 ms·
> 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 th
by 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 agoYou’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 agoI 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 :-)