5 ms·

On a unrelated note. Adding a few lines of css (setting body width, font-size to 16, line-height to 1.4, Georgia for font and larger font size for headings ) m

• afandian 13y ago
  Or just resize your window and increase the font size.
  • jamesrcole 13y ago
    Yes, though it's slightly more complex than that: if you've got multiple tabs open, you'll probably want to resize the window again to view the other tabs, and (at least in Chrome) if you open a new tab or window it'll also have that increased font-size which you'll have to decrease again.
  • nrbafna 13y ago
    It does work as a one time thing. But, having an extension like Stylebot installed and using a tiny custom CSS does offer an advantage - the CSS applies across the domain and takes effect every time the page is loaded. For example, see this gallery - http://imgur.com/a/MxFtD http://imgur.com/a/MxFtD
• nodesocket 13y ago
  My recommendations, for a more pleasurable reading experience: body { width: 70%; font-size: 20px; margin: auto; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 30px; }
  • huhtenberg 13y ago
    Pedantic nitpick incoming Sans-serifs are generally harder to read. Note, for example, how virtually all books are set in serifs. The primary reason sans-serifs are widely used in computers is the lack of decent display resolution required to display the actual serifs. So if you are using a larger font size to read something off the screen, there is no reason not to use a serifed typeface.
    • gliptic 13y ago
      This might very well be a myth. See e.g. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/#part2 http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s....
      • huhtenberg 13y ago
        Everything that has to do with the perception might very well be a myth :) However, in typography and type designer circles it is commonly accepted that Serifs are superior for consuming large quantities of text. Also in layman terms - serifs make the glyphs more distinct and easier to recognize at a glance, in contrast to the sans where there are several glyph pairs that look virtually the same.
        • dpark 13y ago
          "Commonly accepted" isn't worth much when it conflicts with actual science. Lots of things commonly accepted are simply incorrect.
          • huhtenberg 13y ago
            Please don't pull a Wikipedia on me here. As an old physicist joke goes - Experimental physicist comes to a theoretical physicist office, bring a graph from a recent experiment and asks for a help with interpreting the results. - Well, it's all rather obvious. Here's a peak, here's a dip, because of this, that and third. - Hold it, hold it... you are looking at it upside down. - Ah, right, right. *Rotates the graph*. Oh, it's now even more obvious than before. In other words, the "actual science" you are referring to frequently ends up to be nothing more than a matter of interpretation and a subject to all sorts of biases. Especially when it concerns something as unquantifiable as "comfort of reading". Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself.
            • dpark 13y ago
  • paulnechifor 13y ago
    I think `width: 70%;` is a bad idea. If you have a very wide screen, 70% of it is too much and on a mobile device you don't want to waste 30%.
    • noinsight 13y ago
      It's a catch-22 pretty much. If you set it as pixels, it can be either too narrow (600 px on a full hd in full screen, though lines that are too wide/long suck too) or too wide (which leads to scroll bars). Setting it as a percentage will obviously always make it look the same since it scales. However, a percentage on a huge screen usually makes it too wide to read lines comfortably. You pretty much have to pick your poison, though IMO about 600 px is the maximum width for a line before it's horrible to read on a full hd screen.
      • dpark 13y ago
        This is a solved problem. max-width: 600px; This stops your text from being excessively wide, but also doesn't prevent smaller screens from making it more narrow.
        • montecarl 13y ago
          Thats a pretty good way, but it's not dpi independent.
          • dpark 13y ago
            That's partially true. A CSS pixel isn't necessarily the same as a screen pixel. A Mac with a retina display set to "native" resolution, for example, should actually make that 1200 pixels wide (max). In general, though, I think most browsers will treat a css pixel as a screen pixel. Of course you could also use points or ems if you prefer.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]