3 ms·
That is irony, your comment's contrast being the result of your complaint. :) In general, I don't think webfonts are yet appropriate for body text. headlines,
by function_seven 12y ago
That is irony, your comment's contrast being the result of your complaint. :)
In general, I don't think webfonts are yet appropriate for body text. headlines, maybe. But it's a crap shoot if your reader's UA will render them right or not it seems.
- currysausage 12y ago> In general, I don't think webfonts are yet appropriate for body text. Personally, I would agree with that, yes. For body text, I highly prefer a screen-optimized Arial or Georgia over any oh-so-trendy webfont. But I acknowledge that this is the fault of Windows' subpar font rendering. I understand it if designers who have access to a OS with better rendering, and probably even to a hi-res display, don't want to be stuck with "font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" for life. But this is not the point that I was trying to make. Here, they choose a font-face/font-size combination that makes the strokes 0.5px thick. It just physically can't work. What I see on the screen is probably just the artifacts of subpixel hinting. It will look better or worse depending on the rendering engine, but it's still a terrible design to rely on the half-pixels.
- aikah 12y agoI agree, the site is just not readable on my windows machine. If one is going to use thin fonts, he should use it on titles ,not in the body of the text. I'm really suprised at people telling you to "buy glasses or change computer screen",this is typography 101,and this website (HN) often boast about taking UI/UX seriously. Designers,dont do fancy stuffs unless you test them on a wide range of browser or devices.This is a design fail.