Web designers should get good training in typography (2006)
Typography remains central to how people experience the web, even as many sites have evolved into complex applications. Commenters argue that basic typographic competence—layout, font sizing, line length, contrast, and respecting browser defaults—often does more for readability and professionalism than flashy visuals, yet is frequently neglected or misapplied. There is tension between giving designers control versus leaving more to browsers and user preferences, as well as between investing in typography versus focusing on interactivity and performance.
Value of Typography & Training
- Many argue web designers—and even all word processor users—should grasp basic typography: readability, hierarchy, spacing, and layout.
- Some suggest it should be a short high-school course; others push back that it’s just another niche subject.
- Typography is framed as fundamental even for interactive apps because almost all UI is still text: labels, buttons, error messages, etc.
- Recommended resources include online practical typography guides, classic typography books, and layout systems based on typographic scales.
Minimalism, Defaults, and “No Styling”
- Several people prefer very simple sites (e.g., browser defaults) and find heavily styled pages harder to read.
- Others note that “no styling” is still a typographic choice: browser defaults are designed and often decent.
- A recurring suggestion: for acceptable readability, you mostly just need a narrower text column; many sites get worse by overriding good defaults.
Typography vs Interactivity and Performance
- One camp says typography is central; another argues that today interactivity, responsiveness, and performance are more important for non-trivial sites.
- There’s tension between flashy effects and solid fundamentals: poorly designed interactive elements often result from rushed, top‑down decisions.
Color Schemes, Contrast, and Dark Mode
- Strong disagreement over white-on-black text: some report eye strain and ghosting, others find it more comfortable and use dark mode everywhere.
- High contrast is criticized as leaving “no room for emphasis”; counterarguments point to other emphasis tools (bold, italics, color).
- Several note that “dark mode” does not require pure white on pure black; many prefer softer contrasts.
Font Size, Spacing, and Responsiveness
- Many find the article’s current text comically large on desktops and especially on laptops; others argue users are just habituated to tiny fonts.
- Discussion references typical comfortable body sizes around 16–20px and criticizes both undersized (like HN itself) and oversized implementations.
- There is debate about whether large sizes are justified by viewing distance; some point out CSS’s reference pixel already accounts for this.
User vs Designer Control
- Some argue typography and font choices should default to the user agent and user stylesheets; pixel-perfect, print-like control is seen as harmful.
- Others find this vision “boring” and defend the web as a visual medium where authors shape look and feel.
- It’s noted that only a tiny fraction of users are likely to create custom stylesheets, though browser “reader modes” effectively do this for many.
Typography in Everyday Tools
- Participants lament how easy it is to produce ugly documents in common word processors.
- Styles in these tools are seen as powerful (semantic structure, auto-TOC, better ebook conversion) but poorly taught and often misused.
Critique of the Article’s Current Presentation
- Multiple comments highlight irony: an article about typography now uses huge fonts, odd spacing, dark themes, and decorative type that some find less readable.
- Archived versions from earlier years showed simpler, more restrained typography (e.g., Georgia at moderate sizes) that many consider better.
- Some attribute current issues to later site-wide redesigns that didn’t respect the original content or today’s diverse devices.