21–30 of 159 posts
The tight line spacing has a negative impact on readability. It’s hard to read long paragraphs of dense body text like this. But the tables and other character graphics require this tight leading. That’s the problem with using the same character grid for both graphics and text. It could be alleviated with a font that has a particularly low x-height (leaving more margin above and below the letters).
It looks nice, and I'm glad that it's semantic and responsive, but the fundamental problem is that monospace just isn't great for body text. I've read blog posts on multiple sites with monospaced body text, it's okay, but proportional really is the way to go in my opinion.
The tight line spacing has a negative impact on readability. It’s hard to read long paragraphs of dense body text like this. But the tables and other character graphics require this tight leading. That’s the problem with using the same character grid for both graphics and text. It could be alleviated with a font that has a particularly low x-height (leaving more margin above and below the letters).
I thought you meant line width and was confused because it's in the generally accepted range (~70 characters). The line height, I agree, is too tight. 19.2px at 16px font size is too cramped at only 1.2x. Making it 24px is a big improvement. To my eye, however, a taller line height doesn't affect the tables and other character graphics. With some tweaks like this I think the monospace style comes across quite well. *…
Spacing is a challenge. And you lose some legibility giving up proportional fonts. I think kerning in proportional fonts makes a big difference, letting your eyes recognize the shape of different letter groupings.
Monospace text is fine if you avoid long-form text, like when it's structured and highlighted in a code editor.
But it sure is pretty! Especially with Unicode charts and ASCII art.
Main problem is I guess the website would be broken the moment the user choose the setting to use his preferred font on the browser and do not use a monospace one.
Eh, I dunno. Websites have definitely gotten over-complicated and quite annoying. But this retro “look like a terminal” style seems like the wrong direction. I like fixed width fonts in a terminal where it is very likely that I’ll have to interact with columns of text as a thing. For reading, I mean, LaTeX was invented a million years ago, and can produce nicely formatted text. That should be the target IMO. If you w…
The tight line spacing has a negative impact on readability. It’s hard to read long paragraphs of dense body text like this. But the tables and other character graphics require this tight leading. That’s the problem with using the same character grid for both graphics and text. It could be alleviated with a font that has a particularly low x-height (leaving more margin above and below the letters).
How does it compare to the tightness of comments here in HN?
Anyone know what I'm talking about and have a link?
Ooh, this is the thread to ask my question in. A few years ago I ran across a ... I think a video game walkthrough? maybe? which was written to be read in monospace font, and it was full justified perfectly all the way through (thousands of lines!) SOLELY through word choice. Anyone know what I'm talking about and have a link?