3 ms·

Is it only me or the article font is really hard on the eyes? Why the web designers (looking at Microsoft as well) insist on using such thin fonts?

rusticpenn 7y ago
Damn, that article is hard to read.
factorialboy 7y ago
Looks great on my monitor. Designers always have the best hardware, perhaps that's why they overlook how their designs are rendered on 'typical' machines.
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
Because designers decided that this[0] is terribly ugly and instead we have to put up with all possible crap, with thin or small fonts, low contrast between the background and foreground, and otherwise unreadable text. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.or... https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.or...
chrismorgan 7y ago
Light font weights are often reasonable on Macs because of its stroke thickening, but for most fonts the light weight should never be used for body text other than on a Mac. Lato 300 is too light for body text.
- dmonn 7y ago
  Interesting to know! I switched to Open Sans 300 for now and looked at it from the phone, hope that makes it a little easier on the eyes!
dmonn 7y ago
I switched to Open Sans for now. It looked okay on my machine (also not really a web designer, forgive me!). I hope it's more readable now.
- Jefro118 7y ago
  Check out practical typography for some quick and easy tips to improve the typography: https://practicaltypography.com https://practicaltypography.com Personally, I would ditch the header typeface too. You can surely find something which is fairly unique while still being legible.
- chrismorgan 7y ago
  Looks like you only changed the font that will be loaded from Google Fonts; styles.css is still using Lato: * { font-family: 'Lato', sans-serif; } For clarity, the complaint is primarily about weight 300, not about the font family. Open Sans is a little better than Lato at weight 300, but it’ll still look quite poor on many devices.

rusticpenn 7y ago

Damn, that article is hard to read.

factorialboy 7y ago

Looks great on my monitor. Designers always have the best hardware, perhaps that's why they overlook how their designs are rendered on 'typical' machines.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

Because designers decided that this[0] is terribly ugly and instead we have to put up with all possible crap, with thin or small fonts, low contrast between the background and foreground, and otherwise unreadable text. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.or... https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185208/http://www.gnu.or...

chrismorgan 7y ago

Light font weights are often reasonable on Macs because of its stroke thickening, but for most fonts the light weight should never be used for body text other than on a Mac. Lato 300 is too light for body text.

dmonn 7y ago
Interesting to know! I switched to Open Sans 300 for now and looked at it from the phone, hope that makes it a little easier on the eyes!

dmonn 7y ago

I switched to Open Sans for now. It looked okay on my machine (also not really a web designer, forgive me!). I hope it's more readable now.

Jefro118 7y ago
Check out practical typography for some quick and easy tips to improve the typography: https://practicaltypography.com https://practicaltypography.com Personally, I would ditch the header typeface too. You can surely find something which is fairly unique while still being legible.
chrismorgan 7y ago
Looks like you only changed the font that will be loaded from Google Fonts; styles.css is still using Lato: * { font-family: 'Lato', sans-serif; } For clarity, the complaint is primarily about weight 300, not about the font family. Open Sans is a little better than Lato at weight 300, but it’ll still look quite poor on many devices.