3 ms·

I much prefer the default styling other than that the margins are nearly nonexistent. Any time I come across a site that uses mostly default styling (such as s

I much prefer the default styling other than that the margins are nearly nonexistent. Any time I come across a site that uses mostly default styling (such as some academic webpages from the 90s), I always think to myself "wow, this is pleasant to read." > Text also gets easier to read when more spaced out; the default line height makes the text too close together. The opposite is easily true in my experience. Making text large, using ample line height, and even greater spacing between paragraphs, makes for text that is more readable but makes the experience of reading much worse. This is of course entirely subjective unless someone comes up with measurable evidence, like a study on the sentiment of users. Something tells me that designers have been taking principles that are appropriate to hero page sections, advertisements, magazine covers and such, and applying them inappropriately to bodies of prose. Larger text with spacing and huge margins (or smaller max width) helps the reading impaired, but I don't really buy that people actually prefer it.

roelschroeven 4y ago
I feel that large text with large line heights makes small pieces of text (maybe a couple paragraphs maximum) easier to read, but makes comprehension of a larger piece of text more difficult. It makes you loose overview of the larger structure. It's very well possible that it's all different for different people, but I much prefer having a larger piece of text in view; smaller font, smaller margins and smaller line height all help with that. Longer lines of text too. All within reason, of course. You know how books for children have ridiculously large fonts and spacing, in stark contrast with (most) books for grown ups? It seems there is a trend now to make websites look like the books I had when I was just a little kid. I don't like it.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  I was just thinking; maybe large font size, wide margins, and bigger line height may serve to inflate "engagement" because they make it more difficult for a user to be able to glance at the majority of the page and get a sense of whether it's worth reading. If scrolling and getting a big picture view of an article takes some effort, users may be more likely to either read through the content or scroll slowly. Either way, it's a win for the designers because whatever tracker being employed will provide some fancy charts to convince the suits and ties that their work "increased engagement." It may also get users to look at more ads. All of which will certainly be pitched under the idea that it's accessible. I really hate this if that's true, because the net effect does seem to be that I have to spend more time on a page to determine if the content is garbage or not. With physical books, you could flip through pages and catch things you're interested in by glancing over large areas. The modern web, for whatever reason, is doing quite a bit to prevent that from being possible on our screens without hacking our own browsers to fix the mess.

roelschroeven 4y ago

I feel that large text with large line heights makes small pieces of text (maybe a couple paragraphs maximum) easier to read, but makes comprehension of a larger piece of text more difficult. It makes you loose overview of the larger structure. It's very well possible that it's all different for different people, but I much prefer having a larger piece of text in view; smaller font, smaller margins and smaller line height all help with that. Longer lines of text too. All within reason, of course. You know how books for children have ridiculously large fonts and spacing, in stark contrast with (most) books for grown ups? It seems there is a trend now to make websites look like the books I had when I was just a little kid. I don't like it.

ravenstine 4y ago
I was just thinking; maybe large font size, wide margins, and bigger line height may serve to inflate "engagement" because they make it more difficult for a user to be able to glance at the majority of the page and get a sense of whether it's worth reading. If scrolling and getting a big picture view of an article takes some effort, users may be more likely to either read through the content or scroll slowly. Either way, it's a win for the designers because whatever tracker being employed will provide some fancy charts to convince the suits and ties that their work "increased engagement." It may also get users to look at more ads. All of which will certainly be pitched under the idea that it's accessible. I really hate this if that's true, because the net effect does seem to be that I have to spend more time on a page to determine if the content is garbage or not. With physical books, you could flip through pages and catch things you're interested in by glancing over large areas. The modern web, for whatever reason, is doing quite a bit to prevent that from being possible on our screens without hacking our own browsers to fix the mess.