Make it 22 posts and 12 posters, which one more not happy with the font.
Yeah but one of those 22 was a joke about comic sans and another one was someone not able to identify a joke when they see one.
They may change it, they may not. I don’t particularly care either way, but I did feel it worth pointing out when someone used the mere existence of this thread as evidence that a company should change its branding identity that, well, you can find more than 22 people on any internet forum these days who think the Earth is flat and that toothpaste is a government plot.
Of course, it’s possible that the individual was themself just telling a joke and I also am unable to identify one when I see it.
How is “hard to read” a fitting branding identity for a company that sells a product aimed at writers? I’m exaggerating here a bit, of course. It’s still less than ideal, though. Objectively. No matter how many or few people complain. If this was the superior design, then why doesn’t the Scrivener manual look that way? Can’t be that hard to optimize it for landscape orientation…
I disagree with the premise that anything about font choice is objective. You might personally not like it, and that’s fine. You might personally find it harder to read than other fonts, and that’s also fine. But no creative choice will please everyone… And that’s also fine.
1 Like
Not my premise. That’s why I wrote:
I don’t even dislike this font per se. Although I wouldn’t use it. But that’s not the point.
I’m pretty sure it was you that said that it was objectively less than ideal. Hang on, I’ll check…
Yup. It was you.
If you quote me out of context this way you could also prove that I just said earth is objectively flat. I didn’t. Read it again, please.
1 Like
I’m afraid I simply don’t get what is out of context about that. Apologies if I’m being a little slow. Can you explain? Are you saying you don’t think the font is objectively less than ideal? Sorry, but I am definitely missing your point here.
My point is:
That is objectively not ideal. (Way less problematic when reading on an smartphone, by the way, because of the very short lines. So it’s not primarily a “font” problem. Maybe a font weight problem.)
If that wasn’t clear enough: It’d even say “keep the font”. Maybe crank up the weight (if possible), shorten the lines (wayyyy less than 100 characters), and it will be an objectively better reading experience. It’s not a question of Sans vs. Serif or whatever or any specific font.
Nope, wasn’t telling a joke. Your humor detection is still online. 
Your statement about few complaints is well-taken; just comparing this thread with the numerous threads begging for something, anything, other than Dropbox for iOS sync tells that story. Nor do I demand that L&L change the forum/website font; obviously they’re getting lots of traffic despite the hard-to-read (for me) font. But every once in a while someone pops in here who a) doesn’t know about the workarounds above or, b) isn’t willing to use them, and c) can’t read the danged font.
The question is: How many folks just blow past the website and the forums without bothering to complain because it’s too hard to read? People who complain about iOS sync for the most part have already bought the software, and have to tolerate (or workaround) the website font because there’s no other way besides social media to complain. But new customers? Why would they become customers if the site is too hard to read?
As Devin said 5 years ago, it’s not necessarily an easy problem. I have no idea what would be involved – and L&L may not want to open this can of worms (opening a can of engineering worms always costs money and requires making a bigger can.) Yes, there is little that’s objective about selecting a website font. But I still find it hard to read, and evidence is that I’m not alone. What’s bad about asking (again) that L&L consider changing it? Especially when they’ve proven themselves quite capable of saying “No.” Firmly.
1 Like
You think someone deliberately decided to make something harder to read as a positive choice?
Or you think that the site is objectively harder to read?
You (and others) may subjectively find that to be true — and be absolutely correct — but I don’t find it harder to read than other sites, and don’t believe it comes across like anyone has tried to make it so. Which is pretty much by definition ruling out it being objective.
Dislike whatever you like, but it weakens your argument to try to deputise the whole planet into your viewpoint with words like “objectively”.
Wow, you really think it’s that bad? Are you lot seeing a different font to me?!
I didn’t say positive…
Well, what am I supposed to think? If a design blatantly ignores widely accepted best practices, that’s either the outcome of incompetency or a choice. Since L&L is definitely capable of producing very readable text (as shown above), the last remaining possibility is choice. One that I don’t understand.
“Longer lines (85–90 cpl) may be acceptable”. That is what Wikipedia considers “longer” lines. Not 120 characters and beyond.
That people generally do things for reasons that genuinely make sense to them, that people generally make aesthetic decisions because they genuinely prefer that aesthetic, and that people are generally genuinely nice people doing things for positive reasons.
Also, the Wikipedia article you link makes the distinction between printed typography and electronic typography. It notes that for electronic typography, longer lines make quick scanning easier. I don’t know if that is actually true, but it sounds like a useful quality for a website (as opposed to a novel).
Also, LL is hardly responsible for how you resize your browser windows to wrap text to suit your preferences, nor for how good your glasses prescription is.
Genuinely nice people are capable of making bad decisions and still like the outcome.
You could build a car with square tires and love it. Doesn’t mean you’re a bad person or something is wrong with your esthetics. I’d still tell you it’s a pretty stupid idea if you plan to mass produce such a car.
If longer lines worked better, at least for texts that benefited from easier scanning (why would this be necessary for a longer blog article? Say in comparison to a news article…) – most books and websites would look like this (left) instead of that (right):
But they don’t.
Nonsensical comment. As I already said:
If I have to resize my browser or excessively zoom or install addons or change settings, chances are there’s probably more wrong with the website than with my browser or my eyes. (Unless it happens all the time! ;-))
Yeah, but I’m still not seeing any evidence that it’s more than a very very small number of people having this allergic reaction.
Oh, for sure. For sure.
I see the same. (And also not a lot of people in love with it.) But I suspect:
No hard science, but I also can’t think of any case where I went out of my way to create an account to complain about a site’s design or typography.
1 Like
But toothpaste IS a government plot.
(Admittedly, a plot to reduce tooth decay, but a plot nonetheless)
1 Like
I doubt that “average” users would be bothered either way. On the other hand those of us with Scotopic sensitivity syndrome or other visual perception issues need to be in control and therefore we override the choices of fonts and colour. Choices made by “UXers” and “designers” who do not understand the issues and select what they think looks good.
2 Likes
I get your point, but I’m not sure about the “not bothered” part. Average users may be unable to tell what exactly bothers them (and therefore how to change it), true. But it affects them. You can measure it. Show random visitors design A or design B. You’ll see a difference in reading time, if they even make it to the end of an article, if they continue reading other posts, if they come back frequently. The results will – given those designs are different enough in terms of legibility – show a clear preference for one over the other. But we don’t have that data.