4 ms·
Does anyone else find this to be quite hard to read? Just visually. Especially length of the lines and thinness of the font.
by huhtenberg 12y ago
Does anyone else find this to be quite hard to read? Just visually. Especially length of the lines and thinness of the font.
- kevinpaladin 12y agoIn chrome I changed the font-weight property to bold and width to 70% for the body tag, if you're curious how I managed to read it ;)
- J_Darnley 12y agoNo. You mean it uses all (well nearly all) the width of the screen? I am pleased to see that for once rather than stuffing it into some narrow column, the width of which I would have complained about 10 years ago.
- huhtenberg 12y agoHow big is your screen?
- dspillett 12y agoNo so big that resizing a window when content is too wide for comfort stops working... Less facetiously: I wish more pages would give me the choice rather than forcing the content into a fixed-width format unnecessarily, or if they don't mind the extra coding (especially if their design is well thought out enough to make it easy) have a fixed width setting by default with the option to turn it off (I've seen this done by giving the user the option flipping stylesheets via a control at the top of a page) like some support different font size and colour/contrast options.
- J_Darnley 12y ago19 inch
- cabalamat 12y agoI do as well.
- augustk 12y agoYes, the site designer could (should) have used the CSS setting `max-width` for paragraphs (specifying `width` for paragraphs is, however, a big no-no in web design).
- SimeVidas 12y agoHere's how to fix it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIeCs8xwEzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIeCs8xwEzo Steps: 1. max-width: 40em on wrapper element 2. font-weight increase from 300 to 400 3. include @font-face rules for Open Sans 400