Re: Perfect Width for Your Online Content

[David Neeley <dbneeley -at- gmail -dot- com>]

Sandy,

While I'm in general agreement that text width should ideally be able to 
be reset by the user, I disagree that it is particularly useful for the 
"text should flow to fill" a very wide screen width at high resolution.

That is because there is indeed a limit to the ability of the eye to 
track a line of text easily and comfortably without getting lost and 
moving to another line, or having to strive to refocus on the original 
place where you were reading.

This varies with the font, the point size, and the leading between lines 
of text and is not a hard and fast rule for every given reader in terms 
of what is "ideal."

It remains true, though, that as the line width increases the line 
leading and font size should also increase. I always pay attention to 
the readability of a given font; some are easier to read than others at 
any given point size. As a general proposition, I tend to prefer fonts 
with relatively large x-height instead of the ones with very long 
ascenders and descenders coupled with small x-height--so long as we are 
speaking of body text.

This kind of typographic control is only now making its way to the Web, 
however.

Often, these kinds of considerations become somewhat subliminal. 
However, we've had many centuries to work out these kinds of 
relationships in the printed typography arena, and it is not for nothing 
that most books fall within a relatively small area of line width choices.

For example, I am composing this in the Eudora OSE email client. The 
text flows to suit the size of the composition window. Just now, I 
resized it back and forth to find the area in which I was most 
comfortable reading--and, strangely enough, it resulted in a width very 
similar to what is commonly used in books. I believe this is not simply 
because of what I am used to, but also because it is so much simpler to 
keep track of the lines as I read them.

David

On 03/23/2011 07:55 AM, techwr-l-request -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com wrote: