3 ms·

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

by caslon 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
      I completely disagree! Monospaced text is far easier to skim by making the scanrate of content more constant.
      - phailhaus 5y 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

by caslon 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    I completely disagree! Monospaced text is far easier to skim by making the scanrate of content more constant.
    - phailhaus 5y 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