-
They haven't got comments enabled either, so they're a terrible analogue to a discussion forum.
All of the chat about "fonts are better if they're big!" seems to centre around what's best for articles and blog posts, rather than what's best for a collection of (often very short) comments from multiple people who are taking part in a conversation, sometimes with each other and sometimes around each other. I still haven't seen any genuinely convincing arguments in that respect - people just don't sit down and read forums in the same way that they'll read magazine articles or books.
bothwell-
All of the chat about "fonts are better if they're big!" seems to centre around what's best for articles and blog posts, rather than what's best for a collection of (often very short) comments from multiple people who are taking part in a conversation, sometimes with each other and sometimes around each other. I still haven't seen any genuinely convincing arguments in that respect - people just don't sit down and read forums in the same way that they'll read magazine articles or books.
Basically, people have gotten very used to reading terribly-typeset text in all sorts of media and contexts, and filtering out the noise and clutter. (In the 1950s people used to complain about paper being too white to read comfortably outdoors, for example.)
Teeny tiny text is fine for a lot of people (power user types like us who spend all day using computers/smartphones/tablets) but there really are a very large number of people – e.g. with less than optimal eyesight – for whom larger text in shorter lines is immediately more comfortable and natural, and those people may also not be tech-savvy and not know how to increase the text size.
FWIW I think I preferred the even-larger text that Microcosm-LFGSS launched with.
Regal
No worries.
Was just reading an article totally unrelated to his on New Yorker, would you believe they use a font almost 10% larger than ours?