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…
16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
41–50 of 146 posts
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#42For one thing, different fonts have different design characteristics. In particular, the x-height of one sensible body font at a nominal 16px could easily be 50% more than the x-height of another. Sadly, while CSS lets us specify a stack of fonts to try, it doesn't yet let us specify a different size to go with each one so we can achieve a similar optical result. (CSS3's font-size-adjust might be intended to help here, but seems overcomplicated and underpowered to me.)
For another thing, these days pixel densities can vary by at least a factor of 3 between devices. The latest iThings sometimes do better than the 300dpi that used to the be benchmark for a laser printer. For a classic CRT or cheap and cheerful TFT, something more like 96dpi is common. At least you can detect this to some extent in CSS, because the new devices with very high densities also tend to support media queries so you can present larger text (in pixel terms) and higher resolution graphics accordingly.
If we're going to improve the way we present text (and graphics) on the web for people whose vision isn't perfect, it's going to take a much more flexible styling system for the web and probably a lot more real world experience of what works and what doesn't as well. As much as I respect people taking a stand on behalf of those who can't see as well as some, I'm not sure advocating a fairly arbitrary 16px guideline is helping.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#43Personally I'm a fan of bigger font sizes. Interesting though that Facebook actually reduced their body copy down to 11px, and apparently they are doing pretty well ;)
A counterpoint: NYTimes.com sets their article paragraph font size at 1.5em (with a roughly equal line height).
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#44And that is by the way another reason I love fixed size layouts: you can zoom them however you like.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#45Last thing, I just hate sites that use facebook comments - eg techcrunch - because fonts don't scale there. As a matter of fact, I never read comments on those websites.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#46Interesting, but at that size of font used on that webpage I read at half speed and I'm 37. For the hacker news site I can read a full line in 3 focus movements. It's much easier to switch focus to the right than to find the next row in text. Not convinced but YMMV.
For what it's wortjh, I used to be able to read small fonts comfortably when I was 37. Not that I'm 44, I can't. I read Hacker News with Ctrl-+, and I'm happy that Chrome remembers my zoom setting between visits, or I probably wouldn't have visited very often.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
He means "for the most common monitor DPIs", duh. The problem is: due to the need to mix and align with bitmap graphics, web design is most convenient when specifying font sizes in pixels (except for simple pages, like HN and such, fluid designs cannot cover most cases in a mainstream enough fashion). So, given that, he had to mention a specific pixel setting. But he took into account most common DPIs. For the majori…
Can we get over specifying text size by pixels already? You don't know what DPI monitor I will have when I look at your pages.
Maybe for copy text it's ok, but not for other page elements, ones that we want to align in a specific way to bitmap images, no.
The page-zoom style resizing is our best bet --it's the "resolution independent" way to have your pixels and eat them too.
Now, if we could provide bitmap assets that could be zoomed in the same way, instead of just showing bigger but more pixelated (as we can in application icons in OS X), we would be done.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#48Well, at least now I know why I'm constantly having to turn the fucking lights on when reading something on paper - that seemed like a new development. I'm 42.
Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#49Re: 16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake
#50Why "16 pixels"? Wouldn't scaling fonts based in cm/inch make more sense to be resolution independent, especially important on mobile devices?
Crazy-speak IMO, and I suspect I'm not the only one... perhaps someone in the standards community could explain the rationale.