Not close at hand. You may reasonably consider my claim to be undefended for now. When I have the time, I’ll try to put together a bit of a lit survey on this topic.
LesserWrong has what looks to me like a weird multiplicity of different text sizes. Some of the text is clearly too small (personally I like small text, but I am aware that my taste is not universally shared). However—and I must stress again that here I am merely describing my own experience of the site—if I go to, say, this post on the Unix box at my desk right now then (1) the size of the type at my typical viewing distance is about the same as that of a decently typeset paperback book at its typical viewing distance, and (2) I find the text ugly and harder to read than it should be because various features of the typeface (not only the serifs) are poorly represented—for me, on that monitor, after rendering by my particular machine—at the available resolution. (The text is very similar in size and appearance to that on readthesequences.com; LW2.0 appears to be using—for me, etc., etc. -- ETBembo Roman LF at 19.2px actual size, whereas RTS is using GaramondPrmrPro at 21px actual size. ETBembo has a bigger x-height relative to its nominal size and most lowercase letters are almost exactly the same size in each.)
Right you are. The 16px size is what I saw on the front page.
Even on my machines, ET Book (source) does not seem to render as well as Garamond Premier Pro (in a browser).
Though it would, despite their hypothetical ignorance, be evidence. Someone who says “this text is hard to read because of the serifs” may be wrong, but I claim they are more likely to say it in the face of text that’s hard to read because of its serifs than of text that’s hard to read for some other reason.
I think this is literally true but relevantly false; specifically, I think this is false once you condition on the cause of the text’s unreadability not being some gross and obvious circumstance (like, it’s neon purple on a fuchsia background, or it’s set at 2px size, etc.)
I think that someone who is ignorant of typography is no more likely to blame serifs in the case of the serifs being to blame than in the case of the text rendering or line length being to blame.
But the thing that actually matters here is not the general proposition about serifs, but a more specific question about the type used on LesserWrong. I wasn’t equivocating between this and the general claim about serifs, nor was I unaware of the difference; I was deliberately attempting to redirect discussion to the more relevant point.
Noted. I was responding to the general claim.
As to the specific question, the matter of serifs is moot, because (as with all specific design decisions), each designer decision should be comprehensively user-tested and environment-tested, and as much user choice should be offered as possible.
Of course much of what I wrote before was about the general proposition. Whether I agree with you about that depends on exactly what version of the general proposition we’re discussing—I take it you would agree with me that many are possible, and some might be true while others are false.
Indeed.
In particular, I am somewhat willing to defend the claim that there are otherwise reasonable choices of text size for which typical seriffed typefaces make for a worse reading experience than typical sans-serif typefaces for people using 100ish-ppi displays … I am also willing to be convinced to stop defending that claim, if there is really good evidence against it.
Nope, the claim is reasonable. Websites where information density is more important than long-form readability, or where text comes in small chunks and a user is expected not to read straight through but to extract those chunks, may be like this. For that use case, a smaller point size of “body” text may be called for, and a well-chosen sans font may be a better fit.
LessWrong is not such a website, though a hypothetical LessWrong community wiki may be (or it may not be; it depends on what sort of content it mostly contains).
(Aside: I somewhat object to speaking of “typical” serif typefaces, because that’s hard to resolve nowadays. I suspect that you know that, and I know that, but in a public discussion it pays to be careful with language like this.)
However:
very careful choice of […] typefaces and careful working around the quirks of the different text rendering users on different platforms will experience
… is always advisable, regardless of typographic or other design choices.
Not close at hand. You may reasonably consider my claim to be undefended for now. When I have the time, I’ll try to put together a bit of a lit survey on this topic.
Right you are. The 16px size is what I saw on the front page.
Even on my machines, ET Book (source) does not seem to render as well as Garamond Premier Pro (in a browser).
I think this is literally true but relevantly false; specifically, I think this is false once you condition on the cause of the text’s unreadability not being some gross and obvious circumstance (like, it’s neon purple on a fuchsia background, or it’s set at 2px size, etc.)
I think that someone who is ignorant of typography is no more likely to blame serifs in the case of the serifs being to blame than in the case of the text rendering or line length being to blame.
Noted. I was responding to the general claim.
As to the specific question, the matter of serifs is moot, because (as with all specific design decisions), each designer decision should be comprehensively user-tested and environment-tested, and as much user choice should be offered as possible.
Indeed.
Nope, the claim is reasonable. Websites where information density is more important than long-form readability, or where text comes in small chunks and a user is expected not to read straight through but to extract those chunks, may be like this. For that use case, a smaller point size of “body” text may be called for, and a well-chosen sans font may be a better fit.
LessWrong is not such a website, though a hypothetical LessWrong community wiki may be (or it may not be; it depends on what sort of content it mostly contains).
(Aside: I somewhat object to speaking of “typical” serif typefaces, because that’s hard to resolve nowadays. I suspect that you know that, and I know that, but in a public discussion it pays to be careful with language like this.)
However:
… is always advisable, regardless of typographic or other design choices.