Live data from Hacker News

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

smashingmagazine.com

81–90 of 146 posts

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

#81
post #79
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Display PostScript - circa 1987 (thanks, Steve Jobs). I know there isn't a good current alternative in the web world, but shouldn't it be a goal to not have to specify pixels anymore? Obviously mobile browsers already largely ignore/change pixel font sizes.

It’s a valuable goal but just that. A goal. It’s necessary to be pragmatic in the meantime. No point in dreaming. (If you didn’t notice, we are talking about the web here.)

I understand the difference between pragmatism and dreaming.

In the short term, that pragmatism should include web devs not trying to lay everything out pixel-perfect so it breaks if the user hits "zoom". The diversity of screen sizes and browsers and DPIs is greater than it has ever been, and will only increase.

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

#82
post #66
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What’s the alternative? I know of no PPI-aware way of specifying font size.

CSS3 media queries can help with this:

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/

A realistic strategy today is to assume a typical desktop monitor by default, since not all popular desktop browsers implement media queries to a useful extent. Then you can add specific CSS sections for hardware with very different parameters, such as screens on mobile devices. Usually being both newer and more in need, mobile OSes and the browsers running on them typically support media queries better, so while not always ideal, this approach works fairly well in practice.

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

#83
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 a big fan of the Readability bookmarklet (readability.com/bookmarklets), which lets you set the page's font, size, colors, etc. As a bonus, it nukes most of the clutter such as ads and sidebars.

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

#84
post #81
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a valuable goal but just that. A goal. It’s necessary to be pragmatic in the meantime. No point in dreaming. (If you didn’t notice, we are talking about the web here.)

I understand the difference between pragmatism and dreaming. In the short term, that pragmatism should include web devs not trying to lay everything out pixel-perfect so it breaks if the user hits "zoom". The diversity of screen sizes and browsers and DPIs is greater than it has ever been, and will only increase.

> The diversity of screen sizes and browsers and DPIs is greater than it has ever been, and will only increase.

That may be true, but beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter.

In terms of physical size, it makes sense to have a single-column layout for small devices, where layout techniques like using multiple columns are never going to be very useful no matter how high the resolution gets. You might prioritise some content more highly and reduce or eliminate less valuable material to go with this. It also makes sense to allow for layouts that do have wider areas and/or multiple columns if the content can benefit and the display medium can support it. I doubt anyone is going to want to render most web pages with dozens of columns any time soon, though, no matter what physical size a screen might reach. Most content isn't going to benefit from that, because the human eye and brain can only take in so much at once anyway. So the big question here is how many discrete layouts are useful in practice, with a whole load of secondary questions about the balance between showing more content at once vs. allowing user interaction to navigate content in different ways.

In terms of resolution, the consideration is different, but there is still a general case. At low resolutions, it is worth having specific, pixel-perfect designs. At somewhat higher resolutions, it is worth having different pixel-perfect designs, to give sharper results at a similar physical size. Sometimes it is best if pixel-based designs don't try to copy all the detail of the "true" designs as they get smaller, but present simpler, cleaner versions of the same basic idea instead. At some point, your resolution gets high enough that scaling vectors representing the "true" designs by default and using techniques like antialiasing and font hinting becomes a viable alternative. Somewhere beyond that, vectors alone would be sufficient, as the eye isn't powerful enough to see any more detail anyway. The big questions are where on this scale you change from one pixel-perfect format to another, and how many such formats you produce before you switch to using scalable vectors.

In the real world, of course, these two ideas interact at times, and there is a cost/benefit trade-off as well. Perhaps you would prefer to have three sizes of pixel-perfect versions of all your custom graphics plus a vector, but in reality you might have only one or two and accept that content will appear at significantly different physical sizes on different devices. Perhaps you would like to have a responsive design with four different layouts, but in reality a mobile-friendly version and a regular site will do. You'll still be able to cater well to many different devices with only a small number of combinations if they are well thought-out, though.

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

#85
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 with you; I had great vision until i hit my forties and now at 45, I'm squinting more and more. With the aging baby boomers I'm surprised there isn't an uprising of discontent over this issue.

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

#86

"At age 40, only half the light gets through to the retina as it did at age 20." Well, 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.

Is there a reference for this? The link on the site only goes to another site that makes the claim. I'm very close to 40 and haven't noticed this... though perhaps the brain compensates for it.

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

#88

Interesting, 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.

I feel the presentation and line breaking has a lot more to do with that than the point size.

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

#90
I generally agree with his argument, but I don't appreciate the way some of the examples were framed. They were a bit misleading.

Specifically the paragraph where he inserts smaller fonts into the middle of his paragraph, hoping to shock you with the difference in size.

Here is a screenshot of that paragraph with the body text actually set to 16px: http://i.imgur.com/mcdNI.png

10px is still tiny, but 14px doesn't appear nearly so 'weaksauce' any more.

As I said, I DO like larger font sizes and think he has a good point. But misleading comparisons like this bug me and I felt I had to set it straight.

Post reply on HN