7 ms·

> You either end up with insufficient distinction, or grossly excessive variation. That’s the point of scales — to provide structure to any scale of values so

> You either end up with insufficient distinction, or grossly excessive variation. That’s the point of scales — to provide structure to any scale of values so there’s distinction without excessive variation.

chrismorgan 3y ago
I’m saying that geometrical scales are precisely what end up with at least one of those two problems. If the ratio at each level is too small, then the first few up from your base text size are too close to body text to be usable, and so people go skipping levels, even though that obviously corrupts the mathematical purity of the concept. If the ratio at each level is enough to make them useful, then you get too big (and too small) too quickly. The only reason their values might seem to make any sense is if you have this weird idea that you should support at least five or six levels of headings. You actively shouldn’t. Take the scale of 1.250 (the default of this tool). −1 is riskily small for any purpose, and −2 should never be used. +1 isn’t big enough for any kind of heading. +2 to +4 are reasonable heading sizes, but aren’t different enough from each other. +5 might be OK as a title, but very often you’ll want to go bigger. Depending on content, it might do for a heading style too. Another mildly popular value: φ, 1.618. −1 is already too small for any purpose. +1 is decent for a subheading level, and +2 for a heading, and +3 for a title. (+3 is normally too big for any sort of heading; +4 could also be reasonable for a title.) But at that point you have only about four usable values, and where was the virtue in using a scale for them? You could have chosen more suitable values manually.
- leroy-is-here 3y ago
  Yeah, that’s probably true. I only use 3 levels of headers on my website.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mikojan 3y ago
  > But at that point you have only about four usable values, and where was the virtue in using a scale for them? The virtue was in drastically reducing the space of correct answers. How long would it take the average developer to pick sizes out of an infinite number of sizes? And how long would it take them to pick sizes out of a small number of sizes? I know I do not want to fiddle with an infinitely large problem space.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    It reduced the space by arbitrary choice. You are just as capable of arbitrarily choosing four numbers as one ratio. I believe in you, though I don’t know you. In fact, I believe you will do a better job in your arbitrary choice of four numbers than in your choice of one scaling factor. Although the four values from φ are usable, they’re unlikely to be excellent for the purposes of anyone in particular. You can easily choose more suitable, and will if you consider your content and intended design rather than just slapping a number on it.
    - mikojan 3y ago
      > Although the four values from φ are usable, they’re unlikely to be excellent I am not a designer. Excellence is not for me by any stretch of the imagination. It sounds like you have not yet figured that one out for yourself and are maybe severely misjudging your own capabilities. It is just absolutely, completely bonkers to suggest anybody can "easily" pull off "excellent" rhythm, space, dimensions, design. "Just pick up the saxophone, wiggle your fingers, and off you go, Coltrane!" What in the actual what are you talking about
      - chrismorgan 3y ago
        Very well then, I shall call the four values from φ lacklustre and uninspired; yet people have occasionally presented them as though they have objective value or virtue, which I deny. I say that if you possess the wherewithal to choose that value to compute your font-sizes from (which is far from trivial, and there’s no reason why you would think it’s any good unless someone told you it was and you believed them), you can choose four values that look good to you, possibly based on recommendations from others just like you surelyl did with φ, and get a result that is likely to be at least as good. We’re comparing font-size values for headings, not anything more in the design. I didn’t say anything about pulling off excellent rhythm, space, dimensions or design, nor would I.

chrismorgan 3y ago

I’m saying that geometrical scales are precisely what end up with at least one of those two problems. If the ratio at each level is too small, then the first few up from your base text size are too close to body text to be usable, and so people go skipping levels, even though that obviously corrupts the mathematical purity of the concept. If the ratio at each level is enough to make them useful, then you get too big (and too small) too quickly. The only reason their values might seem to make any sense is if you have this weird idea that you should support at least five or six levels of headings. You actively shouldn’t. Take the scale of 1.250 (the default of this tool). −1 is riskily small for any purpose, and −2 should never be used. +1 isn’t big enough for any kind of heading. +2 to +4 are reasonable heading sizes, but aren’t different enough from each other. +5 might be OK as a title, but very often you’ll want to go bigger. Depending on content, it might do for a heading style too. Another mildly popular value: φ, 1.618. −1 is already too small for any purpose. +1 is decent for a subheading level, and +2 for a heading, and +3 for a title. (+3 is normally too big for any sort of heading; +4 could also be reasonable for a title.) But at that point you have only about four usable values, and where was the virtue in using a scale for them? You could have chosen more suitable values manually.

leroy-is-here 3y ago
Yeah, that’s probably true. I only use 3 levels of headers on my website.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mikojan 3y ago
> But at that point you have only about four usable values, and where was the virtue in using a scale for them? The virtue was in drastically reducing the space of correct answers. How long would it take the average developer to pick sizes out of an infinite number of sizes? And how long would it take them to pick sizes out of a small number of sizes? I know I do not want to fiddle with an infinitely large problem space.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  It reduced the space by arbitrary choice. You are just as capable of arbitrarily choosing four numbers as one ratio. I believe in you, though I don’t know you. In fact, I believe you will do a better job in your arbitrary choice of four numbers than in your choice of one scaling factor. Although the four values from φ are usable, they’re unlikely to be excellent for the purposes of anyone in particular. You can easily choose more suitable, and will if you consider your content and intended design rather than just slapping a number on it.
  - mikojan 3y ago
    > Although the four values from φ are usable, they’re unlikely to be excellent I am not a designer. Excellence is not for me by any stretch of the imagination. It sounds like you have not yet figured that one out for yourself and are maybe severely misjudging your own capabilities. It is just absolutely, completely bonkers to suggest anybody can "easily" pull off "excellent" rhythm, space, dimensions, design. "Just pick up the saxophone, wiggle your fingers, and off you go, Coltrane!" What in the actual what are you talking about
    - chrismorgan 3y ago
      Very well then, I shall call the four values from φ lacklustre and uninspired; yet people have occasionally presented them as though they have objective value or virtue, which I deny. I say that if you possess the wherewithal to choose that value to compute your font-sizes from (which is far from trivial, and there’s no reason why you would think it’s any good unless someone told you it was and you believed them), you can choose four values that look good to you, possibly based on recommendations from others just like you surelyl did with φ, and get a result that is likely to be at least as good. We’re comparing font-size values for headings, not anything more in the design. I didn’t say anything about pulling off excellent rhythm, space, dimensions or design, nor would I.