47 ms·

Alright, before I continue my comment. I love the look and overall feel of the website. From an aesthetics point of view, I think it looks awesome. However... t

Alright, before I continue my comment. I love the look and overall feel of the website. From an aesthetics point of view, I think it looks awesome. However... this sentence > Maybe we’re just brainwashed from spending years in terminals? Made me go ... Ugh... Yes, I very much think so. To be fair, they do a fairly good job with the monospaced font they are using on this website, which is fairly legible. They also seem to actually have put thought into it, other than just doing monospaced fonts for aesthetics. But, if your main content is semi long form text, then a monospaced font is simply not a good choice. Certainly not when the majority of people who use it on their blog don't give it nearly as much thought and attention as the author of this website. I know many people on HN don't see it as an issue, certainly not people responding in this thread. However, there are decades worth of research into typography and typesetting on displays that makes it clear that a sans serif font (or even a serif font on modern displays) works better for readability. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

082349872349872 2y ago
OTOH, I spend way more time per week reading typewritten mss (some with handwritten greek) that have something to say, than I do reading typographically best-practiced word salads...
- creesch 2y ago
  > typewritten mss (some with handwritten greek) Not sure what you mean by that. Also, just because you spend a lot of time reading information formatted with monospaced fonts doesn't mean they are the best way for you to receive that information.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    They may not be the theoretical best way, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you have something to say, I have nothing against improving its typography. If not, I'd argue for concentrating on spending effort finding, not a better typography, but better words. :: :: :: > Not sure what you mean by that. Older research papers were often written with typewriters, leaving blank spots on the page for formulae, which were then (to a greater or lesser degree) put in in a second pass, with methods ranging from straight freehand to using drafting tools for lettering them. eg (1951) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM704.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand... p13
    - creesch 2y ago
      > They may not be the theoretical best way, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sure, but this being the web and the font choice literally being one line of CSS it is not that hard to make things slightly better for everyone involved. Even more so when a lot of the blogs I have in mind also try to appeal to a slightly broader audience than just the nerds used to monospaced fonts. > Older research papers were often written with typewriters, leaving blank spots on the page for formulae, Well, if you read them on paper it is a slightly different story. That is one of the main issues, fonts work differently on displays than on paper. If you mean that you read these scanned papers, then I'd say that your argument mostly boils down to you being used to it by now. People can get used to a lot of things, to the point that they think they prefer it out of habit. That doesn't mean that they are actually better and can't be made better for other people starting out who are not used to these things.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        See sibling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41383534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41383534 For instance, in this very convo what matters is that we're talking past each other, and I think that'd likely happen regardless of whether our comments were in fixed or proportional fonts, regardless of what other typographical choices might be made.
        creesch 2y ago
        Well, you presented your use case as an "on the other hand" counter argument for me saying what sort of fonts generally work better. Which it isn't, it is just a specific use case where monospaced fonts happen to be used and it is difficult to change them. That doesn't change the fact that in environments where there is control over all that monospaced fonts rarely are the best choice for large bodies of text.
    - Clamchop 2y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say about TFA. Where monospace was pragmatic for the typewriter era because of the limitations of the technology, proportional is the pragmatic _and default_ styling of the web. Choosing monospace today for prose is an opinionated, and in my opinion suboptimal, choice.
prmoustache 2y ago
Maybe decades worth of research aren't worth anything and it all comes down to personal preferences and what you are used too (i.e. resistance to change)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- creesch 2y ago
  Your comment is a perfect example of why the wheel gets reinvented so often. Part of it is preference, sort of. A specific crowd of people, many of who visit HN, are used to looking at monospaced fonts. So, they have effectively been trained to be able to deal with it more. That still doesn't mean that, even for them, the text done with best practices wouldn't be easier to read. Finally, as you might have noticed I also explicitly mentioned writing for a broader audience. Because people that are not working with code, terminals, etc all are not used to monospaced fonts.

082349872349872 2y ago

OTOH, I spend way more time per week reading typewritten mss (some with handwritten greek) that have something to say, than I do reading typographically best-practiced word salads...

creesch 2y ago
> typewritten mss (some with handwritten greek) Not sure what you mean by that. Also, just because you spend a lot of time reading information formatted with monospaced fonts doesn't mean they are the best way for you to receive that information.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  They may not be the theoretical best way, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you have something to say, I have nothing against improving its typography. If not, I'd argue for concentrating on spending effort finding, not a better typography, but better words. :: :: :: > Not sure what you mean by that. Older research papers were often written with typewriters, leaving blank spots on the page for formulae, which were then (to a greater or lesser degree) put in in a second pass, with methods ranging from straight freehand to using drafting tools for lettering them. eg (1951) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM704.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand... p13
  - creesch 2y ago
    > They may not be the theoretical best way, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sure, but this being the web and the font choice literally being one line of CSS it is not that hard to make things slightly better for everyone involved. Even more so when a lot of the blogs I have in mind also try to appeal to a slightly broader audience than just the nerds used to monospaced fonts. > Older research papers were often written with typewriters, leaving blank spots on the page for formulae, Well, if you read them on paper it is a slightly different story. That is one of the main issues, fonts work differently on displays than on paper. If you mean that you read these scanned papers, then I'd say that your argument mostly boils down to you being used to it by now. People can get used to a lot of things, to the point that they think they prefer it out of habit. That doesn't mean that they are actually better and can't be made better for other people starting out who are not used to these things.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      See sibling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41383534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41383534 For instance, in this very convo what matters is that we're talking past each other, and I think that'd likely happen regardless of whether our comments were in fixed or proportional fonts, regardless of what other typographical choices might be made.
      - creesch 2y ago
        Well, you presented your use case as an "on the other hand" counter argument for me saying what sort of fonts generally work better. Which it isn't, it is just a specific use case where monospaced fonts happen to be used and it is difficult to change them. That doesn't change the fact that in environments where there is control over all that monospaced fonts rarely are the best choice for large bodies of text.
  - Clamchop 2y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say about TFA. Where monospace was pragmatic for the typewriter era because of the limitations of the technology, proportional is the pragmatic _and default_ styling of the web. Choosing monospace today for prose is an opinionated, and in my opinion suboptimal, choice.

prmoustache 2y ago

Maybe decades worth of research aren't worth anything and it all comes down to personal preferences and what you are used too (i.e. resistance to change)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

creesch 2y ago
Your comment is a perfect example of why the wheel gets reinvented so often. Part of it is preference, sort of. A specific crowd of people, many of who visit HN, are used to looking at monospaced fonts. So, they have effectively been trained to be able to deal with it more. That still doesn't mean that, even for them, the text done with best practices wouldn't be easier to read. Finally, as you might have noticed I also explicitly mentioned writing for a broader audience. Because people that are not working with code, terminals, etc all are not used to monospaced fonts.