Why worry about small font sizes?
Every now and then I get an email about font sizes (I wrote some articles about it in the past). But why worry about it in the first place?
We all know that tiny fonts are bad for you. It puts unnecessary strain on our eyes, which after a while evolves into a headache, feeling miserable and generally having a bad day. So why try to get as close to that as possible?
Here is an idea:
Why not try to make people feel as comfortable as possible? Try to find out what font size that gives people the best possible reading experience. What size would that be?
Forget "what is the smallest font size I can use".
Think "what is the most comfortable size to use".
Comments
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 6, 2008
Tijn, Thanks :)
I didn't post any numbers because it differs (in my experience) depending on what it is used for.
E.g. label fonts are comfortable at smaller sizes than text in an article.
As for the 10 point; I seem to remember that the smallest "comfortable" size in printed material is 11pt - and that was the "smallest" size within the sphere of comfortability. On a screen we need to make it 25% bigger (which is why the body text on this site is 13px).
The size of text is also depended on the format. Text on a A5 size paper may be slightly smaller than text on A4 size paper - but only if the amount of text is above a certain level (for which I cannot remember). The reason being that the "ucomfortability " of either having the text cramped on the page, or excessive use of paging.
On a computer screen this is even more problematic. Smaller screens needs smaller text, and larger screens needs larger text - but it depends on the physical size of the screen, not the screen resolution.
Of course, you can also make it too big...
In any case, I don't even think we should use the "smallest comfortable size", but the "most" comfortable size.
Bjarga - Aug. 6, 2008
What we really need to do is to teach users the secret of CTRL+ and CTRL-...
It's not just font size either, it's font face, kerning, colors, line height etc etc and these are more important IMO - make good screen typography, then let the users adapt by personal settings or zoom.
Trav - Aug. 6, 2008
Usually I agree with you Thomas, but in this case I think that Bjarga may have it: in an era of user-defined, user-generated and user-configurable, I tend to fall towards letting the user decide what's comfortable. If I design to what's comfortable to my eyes, my Parents would squint at it for a bit, and then find some other page to view. Any thoughts on user-defined design?
Trav
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 6, 2008
Bjarga, Trav. I actually agree with both of you.
I think it is very important that we try to make our sites as comfortable for our visitors as possible. We must not just say "people can always change the settings, so I don't have to take font sizes into consideration".
We should not put the burden of making stuff usable upon our visitors unless they represent an something out of the ordinary.
But I support the notion that people should be able overwrite the designed look - and force the site into submission. If you have a special screen or a very high-resolution on a laptop, then the default design is going to be almost impossible to use - even for people with 100% perfect eye-sight.
3 things though:
- It must be a browser setting. It would be bad if we forced people to make "custom font changes" on all the sites independently.
- The setting they should be able to change is not the font-size, but the default zoom setting. If you have a hard time reading text, you will also have a hard time seeing all the other elements on a given site.
- We have a responsibility to make our sites in such a way that it would work well - even when people change it. This is, I think, where the real problem is.
bjarga - Aug. 7, 2008
Thomas,
Indeed. This is why the future is so exciting - I can't wait to see what's in store for us w regards to zooming. The latest browsers get it right, now we just need true vector graphics, and image-resizing plugins that recognize the zoom-levels and it will be joy all over as long as us developers make good designs - no matter what the scale.
I'd like to see a nice, big zoom in/zoom out icon in the top bar of my beloved Firefox. Even my old man would understand that (he rebels if he can't have a netscape skin on his browser - he taught himself netscape 4, and doesn't want to learn anything else )
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 8, 2008
now we just need true vector graphics, and image-resizing plugins that recognize the zoom-levels and it will be joy all over as long as us developers make good designs - no matter what the scale- Bjarga
Exactly :)
Lin - Aug. 9, 2008
What is the font, font size, line height, etc., that you use for the body text on this site? I really like the look of it.
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 11, 2008
Lin, that depends on what kind of operating system you use. Using Windows Vista, it is a font size of 15px, with 22px line-height using Segoe UI.
On all other platforms it is Arial
Bad Credit - Aug. 21, 2008
Here is the problem, most people have to make a trade-off when it comes to fonts. Small fonts generally look nicer in the whole design perspective however are not as user friendly. However larger fonts are more user friendly but make a site look a little less attractive.
The best way to do it is to determine what your site is for. If it is for this site which I think usability is more important then having larger fonts definitely is better. If however there is another site that is used to promote a off-line product or is a platform to show-case certain design elements then the font should be smaller to make the site look nicer.
Thomas Baekdal - Aug. 21, 2008
I disagree with the notion that small text looks better. Graphic designers don't design posters with tiny text, they make the text look good at a readable size.
I see no reason that we cannot do the same on the web.
Jen - Sep. 20, 2008
Thank you so much for this tip, it is just what I needed and I appreciate it so much!
Jen
Published: Aug. 5, 2008 in notes
FaceBook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Flickr
Tijn - Aug. 6, 2008
Great idea! Those small fonts everyone around me seems to use are indeed headache inducing for me.
We actually calculated this during our perception-classes using the numbers of rods in the eye. It's conveniently about 10 points at a normal arm-length reading distance for a young adult; not so accidently the same size as newspapers. For screens you have to use a slightly bigger size since the resolution is much lower than paper.
I thought that this was common designer-knowledge, but since you didn't explicitly post the number I started to doubt; anyways: if it is commonly known then.. eh... sorry for repeating the obvious.