4 ms·

This is so hard to read. The font size is so small that the serifs make it cluttered, monospaced fonts are terrible for readability, and it's hard to read succe

This is so hard to read. The font size is so small that the serifs make it cluttered, monospaced fonts are terrible for readability, and it's hard to read successive lines since they span the whole width of the page. I think it's ironic that other commenters praise this as "HN-friendly", when HN itself uses a sans-serif proportional font at a reasonable size, limited width and margins for legibility, and background color to reduce contrast.

caslon 6y ago
12px monospaced is really easy to read. The problem is not the website in this case. The website is fine. Consider pressing CTRL+ a few times if it is too small for you in particular.
- phailhaus 6y ago
  It's pretty well known that monospaced fonts are harder for reading prose.[1] Why do you think that no books are ever written that way? [1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/48777 https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/48777
  - caslon 6y ago
    I actually have at least three books on my shelf right now that have monospaced fonts! Pre-TeX computer/engineering books tend to be that way. Monospace is legible, and 12px is a great size for web content.
    - phailhaus 6y ago
      It's just not very convincing given that basically no site, even the one that you're on right now, uses monospaced fonts for prose. By putting every character on a grid with each getting the same weight (even punctuation!), it makes text harder to skim.
      - caslon 6y ago
        I completely disagree! Monospaced text is far easier to skim by making the scanrate of content more constant.
        phailhaus 6y ago
        You keep making these assertions, but do you have any sources? Again, there's a reason why monospaced fonts are used almost nowhere. Think about it: monospaced fonts are much easier to typeset, and yet English texts almost universally use proportional fonts. Proportional fonts give each word a unique width and shape, which makes them easier to skim; monospaced text is so grid-like that you have to actually read the word to skim it (there is no "flow"). There are actual studies that have shown that monospaced fonts are worse for legibility and comprehension, and take longer to read.[1] [2] [1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/comparing-font-legibility/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/comparing-font-legibility/ [2] http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/273.full.pdf http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/273.full.pdf
dflock 6y ago
It's interesting, and rather ironic, that this use of monospace is an affectation that makes the site's HTML _more complicated_! It's been done by wrapping everything in <tt> elements, adding an extra layer of indentation and more code. If that was simply left out, the browser would use its default stylesheets - and the preferences of the reader - to display the text.

caslon 6y ago

12px monospaced is really easy to read. The problem is not the website in this case. The website is fine. Consider pressing CTRL+ a few times if it is too small for you in particular.

phailhaus 6y ago
It's pretty well known that monospaced fonts are harder for reading prose.[1] Why do you think that no books are ever written that way? [1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/48777 https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/48777
- caslon 6y ago
  I actually have at least three books on my shelf right now that have monospaced fonts! Pre-TeX computer/engineering books tend to be that way. Monospace is legible, and 12px is a great size for web content.
  - phailhaus 6y ago
    It's just not very convincing given that basically no site, even the one that you're on right now, uses monospaced fonts for prose. By putting every character on a grid with each getting the same weight (even punctuation!), it makes text harder to skim.
    - caslon 6y ago
      I completely disagree! Monospaced text is far easier to skim by making the scanrate of content more constant.
      - phailhaus 6y ago
        You keep making these assertions, but do you have any sources? Again, there's a reason why monospaced fonts are used almost nowhere. Think about it: monospaced fonts are much easier to typeset, and yet English texts almost universally use proportional fonts. Proportional fonts give each word a unique width and shape, which makes them easier to skim; monospaced text is so grid-like that you have to actually read the word to skim it (there is no "flow"). There are actual studies that have shown that monospaced fonts are worse for legibility and comprehension, and take longer to read.[1] [2] [1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/comparing-font-legibility/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/comparing-font-legibility/ [2] http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/273.full.pdf http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/273.full.pdf

dflock 6y ago

It's interesting, and rather ironic, that this use of monospace is an affectation that makes the site's HTML _more complicated_! It's been done by wrapping everything in <tt> elements, adding an extra layer of indentation and more code. If that was simply left out, the browser would use its default stylesheets - and the preferences of the reader - to display the text.