Live data from Hacker News

16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

smashingmagazine.com

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, CSS has an unhelpful definition of pixels, which AFAICS is almost universally ignored. No doubt it was well-intentioned, but in the real world, pixels have fixed sizes and display devices do not have infinite resolutions. The difference between professional quality web design and an amateurish mess can be as simple as paying attention to the real pixel grid that your beautiful vector icon/font/whatever will be d…

> which AFAICS is almost universally ignored. Safari on iPhone uses that definition (that's the whole "resolution doubling" thing, in a nutshell). Gecko uses that definition, including on mobile devices. In fact, that definition is almost universally _used_ in cases where it matters (i.e. high-dpi displays). > Given that CSS also recognises length units such as pt Which are nowadays defined in terms of CSS px, becaus…

> Safari on iPhone uses that definition (that's the whole "resolution doubling" thing, in a nutshell).

That's my point, though: no-one is really implementing CSS-px. What they're doing is implementing approximations, like doubling everything up on a high-dpi screen because the pixel pitch is roughly twice what you get on a typical desktop monitor, which is close enough to be workable.

If browsers implemented CSS-px as specified, then on all the monitors in front of me, the text on most pages I have open right now would look the same size in Firefox, and not noticeably smaller on some monitors than others. Also, all those beautiful, crisp n-pixel borders on mobile-friendly sites would look terrible (because they would be rendered with different degrees of fuzziness due to the antialiasing on different mobile devices) and everyone's photographs on Facebook would be blurry. Of course, that's a silly idea, and no browser actually does it (other than when zooming).

Most of the major mobile browsers (possibly all by now) support restricting the viewport and zoom so you can match your site to real, physical screen properties instead of whatever virtual viewport size they pretend to have by default. IME, a fairly high proportion of mobile-specific and responsive pages now start by switching this on. No-one's going to change this functionality any time soon, because vast numbers of mobile-optimised sites would immediately break. Fortunately, that means we can go into real-physical-dimensions modes and then use media queries to select an appropriate layout (including text sizes) for smaller, high-dpi devices as part of a design, without sacrificing precision in cases where the time and money is there to work on the fine details for best results on that kind of device.

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#103
I installed the https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/ addon for firefox and have set news.yc to use the following stylesheet:

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

@-moz-document domain("news.ycombinator.com") {

    .title{
        font-size: 16px !important;
        padding: 0.5em !important;
    }

    .subtext{
         font-size: .8em !important;
         padding-left: 0.5em !important;
    }

    .comment {
         font-size: 16px !important;
    }

    .comhead{
        font-size: 1em !important;
    }

    .pagetop{
        font-size: 16px !important;
    }
}

I mixed px and em as I tried different settings, but just stopped when I found something I liked.

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#105
post #98

On the surface the statements seems to make sense and the arguments are well put across, but unless someone actually A/B tests it and proves that it makes a difference to readership, or conversions (or whatever your goal is) then it's currently just unsubstantiated theory.

5 points of karma says null result, but I'll have at least one anecdotal data point for you in a few days.

Awesome. I'd be interested to see results. Email me if you get any data your happy to share (details in my profile).

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#106

On the surface the statements seems to make sense and the arguments are well put across, but unless someone actually A/B tests it and proves that it makes a difference to readership, or conversions (or whatever your goal is) then it's currently just unsubstantiated theory.

One little known tip that I've been using for years to reduce bounce rates is to increase the text size by a few pixels.

I've successfully reduced the bounce rates on a few sites with that hack alone. On others it made little difference. I guess the older the audience, the more pronounced the effect.

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#107

I'm 37 and I zoom almost every website I use - I also like to be distant enough from the screen. I also very often use ctrl+A to have white text on blue background (I know, most designers will hate me at this point - but keep in mind that I usually sit in front of a screen 12 hours a day, 10 hours a day on weekends...). Last thing, I just hate sites that use facebook comments - eg techcrunch - because fonts don't sca…

Here's a userstyle for you:

http://userstyles.org/styles/54719/ctrl-plus-text-resizing-f...

This fixes Ctrl+Plus on LinkedIn as well as sites using Facebook comments.

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#108
post #51
post #10

I agree completely with this article. As I've gotten older (now 43) I have had more and more trouble reading web sites. In fact, I've noticed lately that I don't even try on some sites that have "small" fonts, I just close the tab. There are some sites that I really like and I generally depend on my browser to help me out. Chrome has a good habit of remembering my page zoom on a particular site so I don't even notice…

I'm 23 and I zoom in on plenty of sites.

Get glasses!

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#109
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 23 and I zoom in on plenty of sites.

Get glasses!

I have contacts that correct my vision to just about 20/20. Maybe I just have higher than average DPI screens, but most sites (hn included especially) are simply too small for me to sit at a comfortable distance and read comfortably. I don't know where the rest of you eagles come from.

Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

#110
post #28

Maybe I'm just different, but I like smaller font sizes. It makes it easier to take in more text quicker and do it with less scrolling. I am 26 though. I'll probably change that opinion when I'm 40. I think having the browser zoomed out one level looks best to me on some sites.

I'm 41 and I've not changed my mind yet. But I guess I've been lucky with my eyesight so far.

I'm also 41, and I've recently had to take my glasses (for near-sightedness) off for anything at reading distance.

But I still prefer the smallest fonts on my e-reader, and relatively small fonts on my iPad and laptop computer.

While I don't mind larger fonts at 16px, I'm not willing to make that tradeoff for improved readability vs. not having to scroll as much.

Post reply on HN