5 ms·

Grids From Typography

57 points by Ashuu 13y ago

Ingon 13y ago
I'm really happy when I see bigger fonts promoted. I zoom in on most pages no matter if I'm on my big monitor on my phone.
- tech-no-logical 13y ago
  I'm not, I'm always zooming out on those hipster sites. So I guess both paradigms are incorrect.
  - e12e 13y ago
    I guess the correct paradigm is to have a format that [ed: allows] simple semantic markup and simple aesthetic markup to combine with user preferences. Like html, css and user styles in browsers. We had it good there, for a few years around y2k. People don't distribute letters and books for consumption in Eclipse and Visual Studio, I don't see why we should distribute blogs and web sites that way, just because a small percentage of sites are more like applications than just a collection of hypermedia.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  Me too. For far too long there was a 'smaller looks nicer' attitude which completely ignored comfort and readability. Glad to see more thought going into typography.
camillomiller 13y ago
Ironically enough, I was reading the article on my iPad and I immediately moved the display to an arms-distance to ease the reading of such a futilely big font. Ok, hipster typography. I get it. Then I read this: "The idea is that since text is meant to be read, our task is to make the process of reading it as comfortable as possible. This means that whoever reading should be able to do so without straining their eyes or having to move closer to (or further from) the screen. Just as if they were comfortably reading a book from their favorite armchair." Enough with this bullshit. If you make an assertion this bold, you back it up. For real. I completely lost interest in what the essay was really about and left.
- morsch 13y ago
  Where is this bold assertion? I find it hard to see how one could feel so strongly one way or another about the quoted sentences. For real.
- adrianhoward 13y ago
  No design will please everybody of course. For me it was just about right. So the question becomes - what is the best for the majority. What makes a useful default. Over the years doing usability tests I've seen far more complaints about text being too small, along with no complaints but obvious problems (watching people move their head closer to the screen, etc.). Putting that together with the fact that almost nobody in the "real world" knows how to zoom in or out. That there are lots and lots of people whose eyesight is not even close 20/20. That as age your pupil size decreases and you just get less light into the eye (see http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran-Neuro-opth/id/105 http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran-Ne... for example). That a bunch of research work on font size and legibility has been done (see the sources on http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113 http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113 for example.)... and I'd rather err on the size of slightly too large than slightly too small. Again and again I come across designs put together by a designer in their twenties with 20/20 or better vision that just fails miserably when used by "normal" people. And it will certainly not please everybody. No design pleases everybody. There's a huge amount of non-utilitarian stuff around how people react to designs. Just having things be different from "normal" can cause folk to react badly against something. I sometimes wonder if the approach some developers have to typography is driven from us spending so much time looking at code full of of long lines where getting the most text possible on the page is utilitarian in ways unrelated to just reading from top-to-bottom.
- noir_lord 13y ago
  As someone who is in his mid-30's and wears spectacles I absolutely adore the type on this site. In fact with the exception of the font used by Readability I can't think of one clearer I've seen recently.
- wingerlang 13y ago
  It was the opposite for me, even before reading I thought about how the site seemed very easy to read. Macbook on my knees though, I will have a look at it on my iPad later.
kalms 13y ago
»Currently we find between 18 and 22 px to be reasonable for desktop webpages« - and why is that? Sounds like a horrible reading experience. Browsers "default" to 16px.
- imdsm 13y ago
  You answered your own question.
  - kalms 13y ago
    I challenge you to answer it anyway.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  For how long have browsers defaulted to 16px? By how much has the average resolution increased in that time? I agree that it's best to leave the base font size at the default, but I also think there's an argument for that default to be increased.
  - kalms 13y ago
    That might be true, but I have yet to find a compelling argument for it. Personally, I dislike reading at that size (> 18px), and every time I ran tests, the users were more inclined towards using a smaller font size, usually at around 14/16px. In the end, I suppose it's more about using a proper baseline, and making sure the grid hold up, when users feel compelled to enlarge the text size themselves. Opinion pieces: http://ia.net/blog/100e2r http://ia.net/blog/100e2r & http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-copy-anything-less-costly-mistake/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-co...
roryokane 13y ago
If you use Firefox and use the page zoom feature a lot, I recommend the add-on NoSquint (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/). It gives you more control over zooming, most significantly the ability to choose between text zoom and full-page zoom on a per-site basis.
imdsm 13y ago
Lots of hate for this here, but I have to say I actually like this blog. +1 from me.
- noir_lord 13y ago
  Agreed, The design and particulary the feeling of precision on the entire site is just lovely, it sells the content really well.
- jonathanjaeger 13y ago
  I also like their design a lot, that's why I work with Stellan from 1910 on HypedSound.com :) Oh and I enjoy their blog too. Love their tumblr weare1910.tumblr.com
Shamanmuni 13y ago
I get that it can be a bit easier in the eye, but for me this style doesn't work on many levels. 1) You have to scroll a lot, and scrolling means a tiny pause, move to the next point and resume reading; which done regularly becomes distracting. 2) You see the text in pretty tiny amounts. Maybe it's fine for a short and simple blog post like this one, but if it was displaying a complex text in longform this style would make it harder for you to understand it. 3) Finally, from a purely aesthetic and subjective point of view, a text with a very big font, lineheight and short lines looks like a book for children. I think the optimal the solution is easy, let the user at least choose the font size he prefers. Line-height and width would be great, but just the font size should be enough. Of course, having a good default is very nice, but an opinionated design which gives you no way to tweak it is a nightmare when you feel uncomfortable with it.

57 points by Ashuu 13y ago

Ingon 13y ago

I'm really happy when I see bigger fonts promoted. I zoom in on most pages no matter if I'm on my big monitor on my phone.

tech-no-logical 13y ago
I'm not, I'm always zooming out on those hipster sites. So I guess both paradigms are incorrect.
- e12e 13y ago
  I guess the correct paradigm is to have a format that [ed: allows] simple semantic markup and simple aesthetic markup to combine with user preferences. Like html, css and user styles in browsers. We had it good there, for a few years around y2k. People don't distribute letters and books for consumption in Eclipse and Visual Studio, I don't see why we should distribute blogs and web sites that way, just because a small percentage of sites are more like applications than just a collection of hypermedia.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
Me too. For far too long there was a 'smaller looks nicer' attitude which completely ignored comfort and readability. Glad to see more thought going into typography.

camillomiller 13y ago

Ironically enough, I was reading the article on my iPad and I immediately moved the display to an arms-distance to ease the reading of such a futilely big font. Ok, hipster typography. I get it. Then I read this: "The idea is that since text is meant to be read, our task is to make the process of reading it as comfortable as possible. This means that whoever reading should be able to do so without straining their eyes or having to move closer to (or further from) the screen. Just as if they were comfortably reading a book from their favorite armchair." Enough with this bullshit. If you make an assertion this bold, you back it up. For real. I completely lost interest in what the essay was really about and left.

morsch 13y ago
Where is this bold assertion? I find it hard to see how one could feel so strongly one way or another about the quoted sentences. For real.
adrianhoward 13y ago
No design will please everybody of course. For me it was just about right. So the question becomes - what is the best for the majority. What makes a useful default. Over the years doing usability tests I've seen far more complaints about text being too small, along with no complaints but obvious problems (watching people move their head closer to the screen, etc.). Putting that together with the fact that almost nobody in the "real world" knows how to zoom in or out. That there are lots and lots of people whose eyesight is not even close 20/20. That as age your pupil size decreases and you just get less light into the eye (see http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran-Neuro-opth/id/105 http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran-Ne... for example). That a bunch of research work on font size and legibility has been done (see the sources on http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113 http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113 for example.)... and I'd rather err on the size of slightly too large than slightly too small. Again and again I come across designs put together by a designer in their twenties with 20/20 or better vision that just fails miserably when used by "normal" people. And it will certainly not please everybody. No design pleases everybody. There's a huge amount of non-utilitarian stuff around how people react to designs. Just having things be different from "normal" can cause folk to react badly against something. I sometimes wonder if the approach some developers have to typography is driven from us spending so much time looking at code full of of long lines where getting the most text possible on the page is utilitarian in ways unrelated to just reading from top-to-bottom.
noir_lord 13y ago
As someone who is in his mid-30's and wears spectacles I absolutely adore the type on this site. In fact with the exception of the font used by Readability I can't think of one clearer I've seen recently.
wingerlang 13y ago
It was the opposite for me, even before reading I thought about how the site seemed very easy to read. Macbook on my knees though, I will have a look at it on my iPad later.

kalms 13y ago

»Currently we find between 18 and 22 px to be reasonable for desktop webpages« - and why is that? Sounds like a horrible reading experience. Browsers "default" to 16px.

imdsm 13y ago
You answered your own question.
- kalms 13y ago
  I challenge you to answer it anyway.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
For how long have browsers defaulted to 16px? By how much has the average resolution increased in that time? I agree that it's best to leave the base font size at the default, but I also think there's an argument for that default to be increased.
- kalms 13y ago
  That might be true, but I have yet to find a compelling argument for it. Personally, I dislike reading at that size (> 18px), and every time I ran tests, the users were more inclined towards using a smaller font size, usually at around 14/16px. In the end, I suppose it's more about using a proper baseline, and making sure the grid hold up, when users feel compelled to enlarge the text size themselves. Opinion pieces: http://ia.net/blog/100e2r http://ia.net/blog/100e2r & http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-copy-anything-less-costly-mistake/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-co...

roryokane 13y ago

If you use Firefox and use the page zoom feature a lot, I recommend the add-on NoSquint (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/). It gives you more control over zooming, most significantly the ability to choose between text zoom and full-page zoom on a per-site basis.

imdsm 13y ago

Lots of hate for this here, but I have to say I actually like this blog. +1 from me.

noir_lord 13y ago
Agreed, The design and particulary the feeling of precision on the entire site is just lovely, it sells the content really well.
jonathanjaeger 13y ago
I also like their design a lot, that's why I work with Stellan from 1910 on HypedSound.com :) Oh and I enjoy their blog too. Love their tumblr weare1910.tumblr.com

Shamanmuni 13y ago

I get that it can be a bit easier in the eye, but for me this style doesn't work on many levels. 1) You have to scroll a lot, and scrolling means a tiny pause, move to the next point and resume reading; which done regularly becomes distracting. 2) You see the text in pretty tiny amounts. Maybe it's fine for a short and simple blog post like this one, but if it was displaying a complex text in longform this style would make it harder for you to understand it. 3) Finally, from a purely aesthetic and subjective point of view, a text with a very big font, lineheight and short lines looks like a book for children. I think the optimal the solution is easy, let the user at least choose the font size he prefers. Line-height and width would be great, but just the font size should be enough. Of course, having a good default is very nice, but an opinionated design which gives you no way to tweak it is a nightmare when you feel uncomfortable with it.