guys why dont you use the betaX45 algorithm??!!
Good choice..!!
Balancing text for better readability
61–70 of 92 posts
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm on a MacbookAir(OSX) running Chrome, looks fine to me.
That's because you have OSX font rendering, here is what it looks like on ubuntu: http://i.imgur.com/YysUNuX.png I'd hate to see what it looks like on windows (especially chrome which makes fonts even thinner).
Chrome on Win 7: http://screencast.com/t/S6OTjtWpKI
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#63Re: Balancing text for better readability
#64Chrome still doesn't support CSS3 hyphenation. I wish they would, because it has a huge impact in web typography. http://caniuse.com/css-hyphens
I agree, hyphenation is crucial to proper line breaking. If you don't mind a JavaScript solution you can have a look at:
* http://code.google.com/p/hyphenator/ * https://github.com/bramstein/hypher/
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#65Yes, the website is ironically displaying text in an inconvenient way for a bunch of users.
But as for the content itself: why not just use left align justify? I understand that justify asymmetrically inserts spacing to apply a balanced center throughout, but is this really an issue? In what context are users so hypersensitive to readability issues that they need the justify spacing to not only balance the entire text but evenly balance each space within the text in reference to one another?
Pardon me for not finding this significant. I just think it's a bit anal when we have a solution already.
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The font is the issue, not so much the color. Light fonts as the bread font are just a bad idea. Not that it matters even a little bit in this case. It's an irrelevant diversion of the worst kind. It's ignorant and foolish, something for small minds.
Why then, people insist in using those light fonts? Yes, it looks "clean" and "modern" but they are too hard to read!
Because many people who design webpages aren’t very great when it comes to typography?
It’s just a bad idea to use those light fonts for anything but headlines or other kinds of large type. For the headline that light font is absolutely ok. For the body text it’s just embarrassing (especially since this is from Adobe).
I have to say, though, this blog is written by those at Adobe who develop new standards (for HTML/CSS/JS), so probably very technical people who are more often than not not very knowledgeable about design – that is to say, those involved here do not necessarily have a strong design focus (and neither do they necessarily have to have that).
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback. I just fixed it.
It's still nearly unreadable for me. http://i.imgur.com/Xu13n7j.png The typophiles here will surely yell at me for getting the terminology wrong, but my experience is that fonts are heavier on OS X and whenever I see a site with whisper-thin text like the above I suspect it was tested on OS X only. Edit: removing the font-weight CSS attribute makes the page legible. The issue is that you specified a font-weight under…
Nah, it’s still too light on OS X with Safari. And on a Retina screen, no less. If this would work anywhere, it would work on that combination of screen, OS and browser. But no, it does not.
It’s just bad design.
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contrast ratio is 5.57:1 well above the 4:5:1 requirement. It seems that they're using Adobe Clean Light ( Helvetica Neue Light as a fallback). This must be the source of your readibility problem. Depending on browser/platform font-weight: 300 can be a huge problem. [1] http://juicystudio.com/services/luminositycontrastratio.php#...
You hit the nail on the head: The font-weight:300 is killing the readability in Chrome on Windows. When I toggle it off the text becomes readable. I don't know what this 4:5:1 requirement is, but it also looks better to my eyes with the color:#444 toggled off so I get black text. But it's not as huge a difference as turning off the width.
The "4.5:1 requirement" can be found in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, part of a series of Web accessibility guidelines published by the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative:
Here is a detailed explanation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contr...
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The font is the issue, not so much the color. Light fonts as the bread font are just a bad idea. Not that it matters even a little bit in this case. It's an irrelevant diversion of the worst kind. It's ignorant and foolish, something for small minds.
Why then, people insist in using those light fonts? Yes, it looks "clean" and "modern" but they are too hard to read!
I have been told that it looks "expensive".
Re: Balancing text for better readability
#70For subtitles and ledes, or really anything larger than the main body text, I actually prefer the solution. It's important not only to break in a pleasing shape, but also to break at grammatically-sensible points. So it's better to say: Take the blue car to the shop vs Take the blue car to the shop or Take the blue car to the shop
These latter two examples are worse because the first splits up the subject and the latter splits up the prepositional phrase.
That was his/her point.