Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
pearsonified.com
Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#2I really wish this was baked into some SASS framework so I could get this for free.
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#3As far as I can tell, the following assertion (which is the basis for the rest of the math) is something we are to take on faith. How was it determined that this is the optimal ratio? That seems to me the most important question here, yet it is mentioned almost as an aside.
"""In the equation above, the optimal line height is produced when h equals the golden ratio (φ). """
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#4This is great. I love when people take common sense and apply it in uncommon ways. This would be very useful for responsive/adaptive designs.
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#5As far as I can tell, the following assertion (which is the basis for the rest of the math) is something we are to take on faith. How was it determined that this is the optimal ratio? That seems to me the most important question here, yet it is mentioned almost as an aside. """In the equation above, the optimal line height is produced when h equals the golden ratio (φ). """
The lowercase phi (φ) is the accepted standard denotation for the golden ratio.
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#6As far as I can tell, the following assertion (which is the basis for the rest of the math) is something we are to take on faith. How was it determined that this is the optimal ratio? That seems to me the most important question here, yet it is mentioned almost as an aside. """In the equation above, the optimal line height is produced when h equals the golden ratio (φ). """
The lowercase phi (φ) is the accepted standard denotation for the golden ratio.
ok, but how do we know that the golden ratio is the optimal ratio for lines of text?
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#7As far as I can tell, the following assertion (which is the basis for the rest of the math) is something we are to take on faith. How was it determined that this is the optimal ratio? That seems to me the most important question here, yet it is mentioned almost as an aside. """In the equation above, the optimal line height is produced when h equals the golden ratio (φ). """
Especially as the line height recommended usually depends on the typeface as some are taller or shorter than others.
And then squaring to get the width has no basis at all. Its numerical bullshit.
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#8I thought that design (blindly) based on Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci-Series was frowned upon here on HN
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#9The author's results and auto-ratio-maker are based on an assumption ("educated guess") he makes in the middle about the ratio between line-height and line-width:
"With the help of basic mathematical modeling, you can make an educated guess that the relationship between the optimal line height and line width is exponential. Here’s the simplest equation to express that:"
The author chooses to square height to determine the "optimal" width, as the "simplest equation to express" the exponential.
But obviously the best educated guess would be W = Lh^GOLDEN RATIO
Re: Golden Ratio for Readable Web Typography
#10I love the golden ratio. It has many applications in design. In fact, right now I’m writing a blog post about using it to cheaply generate non-repeating sequences of distinct colors.[0] And I have some background in typography; I’m conversant with things like Tschichold’s golden section.
But this is ridiculous. It’s making very broad claims without evidence. If it cited studies or provided compelling side-by-side comparisons, that would be one thing, but it’s just a bunch of assertions.
Design on a grid is good: it gives the reader a sense of neatness and improves legibility in a measurable way. And the specific proportions the author proposes for line height and length aren’t bad: following this advice blindly would actually give you something pretty okay. But it’s lazy. The author does nothing to show that φ is necessary at any point.
It isn’t shown that, let alone why, 1:φ would make a better base ratio than, say, 1:3/2 or 1:5/3.
It’s like one of those rhapsodic pseudoscientific health articles about how great some food is that never makes an actual claim beyond “said to be beneficial” and “may have restorative properties”.
0. Draft visualization: http://vimeo.com/34069290