Is the Commentary font now also bigger!?!?

[Garvarn]

Is the Commentary font also bigger now!?!?

I'm aware that people with little knowledge of typography often make the mistake of thinking that a bigger font is easier to read. This is now a mistake that has appeared on last Friday's Commentary page. Why? Why mess with something that was good in the first place? First the blue bold font -- which makes it harder to read, and now an increased size, which makes it kindergarden reading.

Is it possible to get the Commentary by e-mail in PDF-format and typed for grown-ups?

OK, I'm getting grumpy but the Commentary used to be the Friday highlight -- now it looks like a joke. I want the serious Randi back...

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[Jeff Wagg]

We've received a fair amount of mail on the blue text. It's balanced between those they like it and those that don't. For now, we're keeping it.

If it really bothers you, you can select the text, which will turn it black with a gray background.

Starting 7/29, you can adjust the size of the font in the commentary with your browser's text size setting. Many readers with less than perfect eyesight appreciate this. If you find the font too big, you can adjust it yourself by clicking on VIEW and then TEXT SIZE.

 

[Garvarn]

Hi Jeff,

Ah, so it's a question of democracy - how fortunate that we live in a time when it don't matter what you think, just how many that agrees with you.

I'm sorry, Jeff, but I sort of do typography for a living, and have taught it on college level on occasion, and your answer is as much a display of wrong thinking as the "new" Commentary page is of bad setting -- so I think I will have to do without reading the Randi Commentary on Friday's.

It's funny that a man who fights incompetence in investigations of paranormal claims, let's that very same flaw rule his website.

Oh, and I don't care how many that share my "beliefs", as long as every Beginner's Guide in Typography do.

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[Number Six]

The font size is fine. If they're too big or too small then they can be easily adjusted anyway, which is a lot better than some sites where you're stuck with whatever they decide you should have.

The font colors is a bit different. I don't know if the current version of blue being Randi and black being someone else is optimal or not but I know that before when everything was the same color it was sometimes hard to keep track of who was speaking so some change to aid in that is a good thing IMO. Exactly what kind of change would be best I don't know but I like that someone has at least thought to consider it.

In general I find the typography set up on this website and especially this forum very good. There are some other sites that I'd like to read but can't because they're awful...a yellow font on a black background or tiny fonts with everything scrunched together or whatever. Readabilitiy in general is a big issue with me. When the forum had its split a year or so ago and SC became a separate site I planned to surf both this forum and the SC forum equally but instead I rarely go to SC because it is harder to read than this forum.

 

[Darat]

Jeff, just throwing in a suggestion, currently the summary header is fully justified and that results in some quite ugly spacing, what about just making left justified?


e.g. Current:


<p align="justify"><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">
</font><span class="style2"><font face="arial, helvetica"><font face="arial, helvetica"><font face="arial, helvetica">

</font></font></font><span class="style18">Been There & Dunne That, Ancient Flummery, Divine Wrath?, Transforming Your Money Into Theirs, Up One Scale and Down Another, Religious Extremes, Error, Angel School, A Contrary Opinion, Re-Writing Astrology, Epiphany Time, Challenging Homeopathy, Do This, and In Closing….

</span></span><span class="style2"><span class="style18">

</span></span><span class="style16">The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here before and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Read More.
</span>

</p>


Left justified:


<p align="left"><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">
</font><span class="style2"><font face="arial, helvetica"><font face="arial, helvetica"><font face="arial, helvetica">

</font></font></font><span class="style18">Been There & Dunne That, Ancient Flummery, Divine Wrath?, Transforming Your Money Into Theirs, Up One Scale and Down Another, Religious Extremes, Error, Angel School, A Contrary Opinion, Re-Writing Astrology, Epiphany Time, Challenging Homeopathy, Do This, and In Closing….

</span></span><span class="style2"><span class="style18">

</span></span><span class="style16">The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here before and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Read More.
</span>

</p>


I speculate you've done it so that the text forms a block between the two images but I think the resulting “ugliness” caused by the unevenness of the spacing of the words isn't worth that visual effect.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

That is, in fact, a bona fide, official, Grade A Prime bug.

I'll have it fixed shortly.

Thanks for pointing that out!