5 ms·

> Research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself. Is th

> Research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself. Is this actually true? I'm curious if anybody has sources for this and if it's a common UX practice. I tend to use wider windows than traditional 8:9 half-screens and this max-width practice drives me nuts.

bearmode 4y ago
Yes, it's extremely common UX practice. Lines really should be no longer than 80 characters at an absolute maximum. 50-60 is ideal.
messe 4y ago
Anecdotal, but personally I can’t stand reading overly long lines and don’t keep my browser window maximised. I’ve written user styles for certain sites in order to keep lines sufficiently narrow, and I’m one of the few people I know to use an 12.9” iPad Pro in portrait mode regularly.
favorited 4y ago
It's a common accessibility requirement. For example, WCAG suggests limiting the max width of blocks of text to ~80 characters (40 for CJK). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#visual-presentation https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#visual-presentation
- Willish42 4y ago
  Aha, I was aware of the 80-character line limit for source code files, but wasn't aware it was a general accessibility recommendation. Thanks for the link!
  - favorited 4y ago
    Sure thing! I only know about it because I've worked on more AX bug reports related to text layout than I care to admit... I think the 80 characters-per-line for code was a holdover from when IBM punch cards had 80 CPL, but I could be wrong there. I know American typewriters had about 80 CPL, so from a typography perspective maybe that's why 80 is the accessibility sweet-spot? If it's the ballpark equivalent to what we'd see on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper?
pessimizer 4y ago
> Is this actually true? I'm curious if anybody has sources for this and if it's a common UX practice. As far as I can tell, the people who say this are citing each other. And can't wait to reply when you say you find it unpleasant that it's actually scientifically ideal.
duderific 4y ago
This is why newspapers and magazines (if you remember those) have a columnar layout instead of just filling the whole page side to side.
autoexec 4y ago
I guess it depends on the person. I'm happy to accept that I'm strange, but I'd much rather read lines that mostly fill my screen with normal margins on each side than short lines in a long narrow column surrounded by an ocean of empty whitespace. I can't be the only one who feels this way. I have yet to buy a book where 90% of each page is blank and there's just a tiny column of words down the middle of the page.
- Willish42 4y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I guess I am also strange, but I share your perspective. At the very least, I feel like responsive options to toggle some of the various max-width CSS settings as an opt-in feature is worthwhile at least for reading-heavy sites like getpocket.com and news websites. I end up toggling these in Firefox / Chrome debugger and wish I could install extensions to apply custom code automatically but my employer does not allow this.
- pyth0 4y ago
  To be fair, the book example isn't really a 1:1 comparison because white space on a page translates to wasted $$.
- robertoandred 4y ago
  Books aren’t as big as monitors. Long lines of text force you to move your eyes and/or head side to side every time you go from one line to the next.
- vel0city 4y ago
  I don't normally read books that are anywhere near as large as a 27" monitor, and when I do they often have pretty massive margins (or "whitespace"). I mean seriously, a 27" diagonal monitor is 24"x17". Do you routinely read on 12"x17" paper with near zero margin?
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I hold books much closer to my face making it much larger in my field of vision than my monitor ever gets. Maybe there are people who have to physically turn their head from side to side in order to see the edges of their screens, but I'm guessing that's not terribly common and the amount of effort involved in sweeping your eyes across a page in a book is pretty similar to moving them across a screen

bearmode 4y ago

Yes, it's extremely common UX practice. Lines really should be no longer than 80 characters at an absolute maximum. 50-60 is ideal.

messe 4y ago

Anecdotal, but personally I can’t stand reading overly long lines and don’t keep my browser window maximised. I’ve written user styles for certain sites in order to keep lines sufficiently narrow, and I’m one of the few people I know to use an 12.9” iPad Pro in portrait mode regularly.

favorited 4y ago

It's a common accessibility requirement. For example, WCAG suggests limiting the max width of blocks of text to ~80 characters (40 for CJK). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#visual-presentation https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#visual-presentation

Willish42 4y ago
Aha, I was aware of the 80-character line limit for source code files, but wasn't aware it was a general accessibility recommendation. Thanks for the link!
- favorited 4y ago
  Sure thing! I only know about it because I've worked on more AX bug reports related to text layout than I care to admit... I think the 80 characters-per-line for code was a holdover from when IBM punch cards had 80 CPL, but I could be wrong there. I know American typewriters had about 80 CPL, so from a typography perspective maybe that's why 80 is the accessibility sweet-spot? If it's the ballpark equivalent to what we'd see on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper?

pessimizer 4y ago

> Is this actually true? I'm curious if anybody has sources for this and if it's a common UX practice. As far as I can tell, the people who say this are citing each other. And can't wait to reply when you say you find it unpleasant that it's actually scientifically ideal.

duderific 4y ago

This is why newspapers and magazines (if you remember those) have a columnar layout instead of just filling the whole page side to side.

autoexec 4y ago

I guess it depends on the person. I'm happy to accept that I'm strange, but I'd much rather read lines that mostly fill my screen with normal margins on each side than short lines in a long narrow column surrounded by an ocean of empty whitespace. I can't be the only one who feels this way. I have yet to buy a book where 90% of each page is blank and there's just a tiny column of words down the middle of the page.

Willish42 4y ago
Thanks for the reply. I guess I am also strange, but I share your perspective. At the very least, I feel like responsive options to toggle some of the various max-width CSS settings as an opt-in feature is worthwhile at least for reading-heavy sites like getpocket.com and news websites. I end up toggling these in Firefox / Chrome debugger and wish I could install extensions to apply custom code automatically but my employer does not allow this.
pyth0 4y ago
To be fair, the book example isn't really a 1:1 comparison because white space on a page translates to wasted $$.
robertoandred 4y ago
Books aren’t as big as monitors. Long lines of text force you to move your eyes and/or head side to side every time you go from one line to the next.
vel0city 4y ago
I don't normally read books that are anywhere near as large as a 27" monitor, and when I do they often have pretty massive margins (or "whitespace"). I mean seriously, a 27" diagonal monitor is 24"x17". Do you routinely read on 12"x17" paper with near zero margin?
- autoexec 4y ago
  I hold books much closer to my face making it much larger in my field of vision than my monitor ever gets. Maybe there are people who have to physically turn their head from side to side in order to see the edges of their screens, but I'm guessing that's not terribly common and the amount of effort involved in sweeping your eyes across a page in a book is pretty similar to moving them across a screen