16 Pixels

For Body Copy. Anything Less Is
A Costly Mistake

I know what you’re thinking. “Did he just say 16 pixels? For body copy? Obnoxiously big! 12 pixels is ideal for most websites.”

I’d like to persuade you otherwise.

As usability expert Oliver Reichenstein says in “The 100% Easy-2-Read Standard”:

[16 pixels] is not big. It’s the text size browsers display by default. It’s the text size browsers were intended to display… It looks big at first, but once you use it you quickly realize why all browser makers chose this as the default text size.

In this article, I’ll explain why 16 pixels should generally be the minimum size for body copy in modern Web design. If I don’t change your mind, perhaps you could chip in at the end and let me know why.

You see, in most cases, if you’re building websites with the font size set between 10 and 15 pixels, you are costing your clients money. And I aim to prove it.

Readership = Revenue

If you’re building a website for someone — even yourself — chances are its purpose is to make money.

Perhaps it’s to sell a product directly, or to offer a service, or just to generate leads. Whatever the case, it’s a business asset, and ultimately it has to generate a return on investment. It has to fulfill a revenue goal.

So, every element should be designed to achieve that goal. Including the copy. Especially the copy — because the copy is what convinces visitors to do whatever it is you want them to do on the website.

Think about it. If you don’t explain what people should do, or why they should do it, then they certainly won’t. And the only way to tell them is with text. And text means reading.

Important Facts About Reading

There are some particular findings that are pivotal to issues such as readership and readability and comprehension, which is really what body copy is all about. If people won’t read it, or if they can’t read it or understand it, then what’s the point of having it?

  1. At age 40, only half the light gets through to the retina as it did at age 20. For 60-year-olds, it’s just 20%.
  2. Nearly 9% of Americans are visually impaired, meaning their vision cannot be completely corrected with lenses.
  3. The distance at which we can read letters is a common measure of both legibility and reading speed. The greater the distance, the higher the overall legibility and comprehension are considered to be. The biggest factor that determines how far this distance can increase is font size. Seen any billboards lately?
  4. Most people, when sitting comfortably, are about 20 to 23 inches from their computer screens. In fact, 28 inches is the recommended distance, because this is where vergence is sufficiently low to avoid eye strain. This is much further than the distance at which we read printed text — most people do not hold magazines at arm’s length!
  5. 16-pixel text on a screen is about the same size as text printed in a book or magazine; this is accounting for reading distance. Because we read books pretty close — often only a few inches away — they are typically set at about 10 points. If you were to read them at arm’s length, you’d want at least 12 points, which is about the same size as 16 pixels on most screens:
    16-pixel text displayed on a 24-inch screen, next to 12-point text printed on paper.

    16-pixel text displayed on a 15.4-inch screen, next to 12-point text printed on paper.
  6. In a 2005 survey of Web design problems, bad fonts got nearly twice as many votes as the next contender, with two-thirds of voters complaining about small font sizes. If you think the situation has improved since then, think again. I randomly sampled some new blog designs on SiteInspire and found that the average font size for body copy was a measly 12 pixels. Some designs even used a minuscule 10 pixels. And none were over a weaksauce 14 pixels. Similarly, if you randomly sampled offerings on the popular Elegant Themes and ThemeForest, you’d find that every single theme sets the main content at just 12 or 13 pixels.

Fact: Most Web Users Hate The “Normal” Font Size

With this research in mind, let me ask: how many of your client’s readers are around 40? Because they have to work twice as hard to read as 20-year-olds. If they’re closer to 60, they have to work four times as hard.

Almost 1 in 10 of your readers also has trouble with their eyes. Of the rest who don’t, most will still have to strain to read text smaller than 16 pixels, even if they don’t notice that they’re doing it. (How often do you find yourself hunching over the screen?) And that’s if they’re leaning close, which they would likely find awkward and unergonomic. Their natural sitting position will be at least an arm’s length from the screen!

In short, for the average Web user, reading most websites is not unlike taking an eye exam.

The harder your text is to read, the less of it will get read — and the less of what is read will be understood. 10 pixels is essentially pointless. 12 pixels is still much too small for most readers. Even 15 pixels will turn off visitors who might have otherwise converted.

Thus, we can conclude that if you want the maximum number of people to read, understand and act on your text, then you need to set it at a minimum size of 16 pixels.

“But Users Can Zoom”

If you code it right, people with vision issues can always use the Option and + keys to enlarge the text.

Thus spake one Web designer in a discussion I had on this very issue.

Not so. The users who will most need to adjust their settings usually don’t know how. And the users who do… well, they’ll probably just take the easier path by hitting the “Back” button. It goes without saying that we shouldn’t take our clients’ money and then design websites for them that will make their visitors uncomfortable. Our personal tastes are not more important than best practices in usability.

Web design is not about what designers like. It is about what users want and what will best achieve our client’s goals.

If the objective of a client’s website is to achieve some revenue goal, then our role as designers is to come up with something to achieve that goal as effectively as possible. Picking a font size that we know most users will struggle to read, a font size that will reduce readership, a font size that will ultimately cost conversions, is not good choice.

In print, type as small as 8 points is an ideal compromise between readability and cost, because you have to pay for every millimeter you use. On the Web, you pay nothing for using more space — provided that readers find your copy compelling, of course. What you do pay for is readers finding your compelling copy so hard to read that they click away instead of converting.

So, the question is, are you prepared to cost your clients money for the sake of what looks good to you?

16 Pixels Is Not Big

Our tastes and aesthetic preferences as designers are a lot more malleable than we think. What “looks good” to us is largely the result of what we’ve seen other designers doing and what we’ve come to expect.

Unfortunately, most of the websites we’ve seen are packed with tiny copy, because once upon a time screens were tiny, and so designers matched them with tiny text — but no one got out of the habit.

This article is set in TeX Gyre Schola at 19 pixels. I picked this size because 16 to 18 pixels looked too small to me: as I sat back comfortably in my chair, 28 inches from the screen, I found myself squinting to see it. If I’d used Georgia or Verdana, 16 pixels probably would have been fine: they were designed with a larger x-height and so display better on screen.

Now, check out the footer just below and see whether you don’t hunch forward automatically, screw up your eyes and furrow your brow. That’s 12 pixels for ya. And if you still disagree after that, tell me why in the comments.

Bnonn and his daughter

Bnonn is the author of a series of free videos on creating websites that capture readers and turn them into customers. Known in the boroughs as the Information Highwayman, he helps people sell more online by improving their copy and design. When he’s not knee-deep in the guts of someone’s home page, he is teaching his kids about steampunk, Nathan Fillion, and how to grapple a zombie without getting bit.

  1. 101

    These drop shadows are killing me.

    +1
  2. 102

    Looks like you hit a nerve on designers! The “funny” looking titles were not necessary nice but it was nice having something visually different for once..
    and yes copy should be very readable.. clients actually ask for it!

    +1
  3. 103

    Interesting.

    However, I think you are leaving out a lot of factors that make this suggestion questionable.

    (too many to go into)

    So it goes…

    -dp

    +1
  4. 104

    John Surdakowski

    October 7th, 2011 9:30 am

    We should NOT have a set font size to use. Different projects call for different font sizes. Maybe on a blog, 16px will always work. But certain web sites may require smaller fonts. But I do agree with you that 16px are easier to read. And I will try to keep that into consideration moving forward.

    +1
  5. 105

    Reading this article was a strain on my eyes, I’m on a 21.5″ monitor and I had to zoom out to be able to finish the article. Doubt I’ll be making the switch

    +2
  6. 106

    “#5) 16-pixel text on a screen is about the same size as text printed in a book or magazine;”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Screen text size compared to print has absolutely nothing to do with the specified font-size in pixels, and everything to do with the size and resolution of your monitor. That 16px is going to compare very differently to the book if I hold it up next to an iPhone, a netbook, or my HDTV.

    +3
  7. 107

    Justin Heideman

    October 7th, 2011 9:45 am

    I’m no fan of small fonts, but this article is merely the author’s opinion that less than 16px is costing you money. There is no data to back this up. There is some ancillary data, suggesting that users don’t like small fonts, but that doesn’t correlate into lost revenue. Unless the author can cite a specific A/B test that shows decreased revenue, this article is not very accurate.

    Again, I agree that small fonts are often bad. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as the author states. There’s more to readability than font-size. One must consider the face, line spacing, use of ligatures, etc. Size is merely one tool in the typographer’s toolbox.

    +7
    • 108

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:23 pm

      Howdy Justin, that’s a fair comment as far as it goes. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any A/B studies which have tested for font size specifically, and I haven’t had the opportunity to run any of my own.

      However, if it can be shown that reduced font size = reduced readability, and reduced readability = reduced readership, then logically reduced font size = reduced readership.

      Since readership is a necessary condition for conversion, in what sense have I not proved my point?

      I may not have employed the kind of proof you’d prefer, but the logic is still sound.

      0
  8. 109

    font-size should be based on screen-resolution and devices (such as laptops vs. mobiles). I can agree that a larger font is better to read, another thing they could do for instance is adjusting the scrollbar/mousewheel speed based upon the line-height that was declared in the css. So overall a nice statement that lacks at a few points….next topic should be “clean css w3c-coding” and hopefully this page wouldn’t show 557 css errors. ;-P

    And why if 16px for body text should be the golden standard is SM’s navigation only a mere “horrible” 13px?

    +2
  9. 110

    good points – although think the argument is flawed by the fact that most people do sit with their face squashed against the screen. 28 inches from the computer is straight through my back wall….

    0
  10. 111

    This article changed my life. Definitely taking your advice! Thanks!

    -2
  11. 112

    You make some excellent points. But doesn’t a larger font-size discourage users on lengthy articles?

    +1
    • 113

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:24 pm

      Hey Spyros—not as far as I know :) Why do you think it would?

      0
      • 114

        I’m 48 and the 19px you used discouraged me! It made the text “blacker”, the lines shorter in word length and the article feel longer.

        Ironically, I found it much more readable at 16px. :)

        +1
  12. 115

    Some users can zoom. Some cannot. But none of them can change a low-contrast font to black. (Or is there a way I don’t know about?) I find the low-contrast trend to be most annoying of all. Want something different? Fine. But use a color we can read.

    0
    • 116

      Patrick Samphire

      October 7th, 2011 11:10 am

      Well, you can change it if you really want. You can have a user stylesheet to override the page styles. You can even edit the css in something like FireBug. But generally you are right. Changing text color is a pain, and no one will do it.

      0
    • 117

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:26 pm

      Hey Celeste, are you referring to the font color I used here? I had thought #444 was generally accepted as the happy medium between too much contrast for long pieces (#000; hard on the eyes), and too little.

      Admittedly I have no research to back this up!

      Do you find #444 to be insufficient contrast?

      0
      • 118

        Actually, yes, I found it very difficult. However, I think YMMV depending on the monitor. Yesterday I was reading this at work and found it difficult to read, but my home laptop renders it better.

        0
  13. 119

    I have to say I find myself agreeing with you. If you’d asked me before reading this, what is the minimum font size you should use, I would have said 14px – but my reasoning for that would be identical to what you’ve written.

    I am frequently coming up against people who insist they don’t want the text on their site any larger than 12px as it means most people have to scroll. I’ve never met anyone with an aversion to scrolling.

    Great article, thanks.

    0
  14. 122

    I still completely disagree with this whole article. I’m 41 years old and yes I do wear contacts but I have absolutely no problem reading font on a computer monitor that is set at 12 pixels. None. I had no problem reading the footer text way up above. I did not get closer to the screen nor squint nor anything. It was just nice and easy reading.

    I also disagree because bigger fonts means you take up more room on the screen. Think about that for a second. No you do not have to pay for using more room like in the print world but it does mean something else. The more room you take up in a web page, the more the user will have to scroll to continue reading. I don’t know about anybody else but I was taught that users don’t like to scroll either. I was taught that the less you make a user scroll to read your website the better. I was taught that if users have to scroll a lot for your website that also can make them simply leave your website for a competitors that doesn’t make them scroll (or at least scroll so much).

    I’ve been a web developer for 6 years and in that time I have not once heard a user complain because a websites font that was set at 12 pixels is too small to read. Heck, even my mother who is 64 years old and wears some thick glasses doesn’t complain about the small text on websites and she also uses a 30 inch screen to surf the web.

    Then you’ve also got the problem of mobile devices with much much smaller screen real estate. If you design your website with a minimum of 16 pixel font and you did responsive web design so that your website can cater to the smaller screens on mobile devices, then with the bigger font you are forcing your sites users to scroll and scroll and scroll. I know that if I was a user and I had a mobile device and I was trying to read an article or do something on a website that had their font set to 16 pixels or larger and I was forced to continue scrolling, I would definitely leave that site and find some other site.

    +2
    • 123

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:29 pm

      Sean: are you basing your disagreement on anecdotal evidence and a self-conducted study with a sample size of 1?

      That seems strange.

      As regards being taught that users don’t like to scroll, perhaps you were taught that back in 1996, when it was still true. But since about 1997, it has been universally false. See http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scrolling-attention.html.

      Kind regards,
      Bnonn

      -2
    • 124

      Well I haven’t heard about a complaint about using smaller fonts either, but since I started my new blog at a ~16px font size, I’ve gotten a lot of comments about how easy it was to read.

      So I agree with this article.

      0
  15. 125

    “On the Web, you pay nothing for using more space ” -um not exactly… especially in an ever increasing mobile web consumption market which isn’t even considered in this article.

    +1
  16. 126

    Not to be harsh, but with the grabby article title I also half expected to see some sales statistics to back up the claims… not just a general “older people don’t see so well” theme.

    +1
  17. 127

    It’s ironic that this article shows up on my iPhone with a text size that is hard to read.

    +1
  18. 128

    …This article is weak.

    You can’t prove that 16pt performs better with just theory.

    Spending money on testing it. That is the ONLY way you can prove it.

    +2
    • 129

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:31 pm

      Mr Green, I haven’t just referenced theory. I’ve referenced plenty of facts.

      Of course, if you know of any studies that have been done on font size and sales, I’d love to see them.

      Failing that, unfortunately we have to go with what we know affects readership, and how we know readership affects conversions, and draw a logical connection between them.

      -1
      • 130

        As a performance marketer I find these assumptions hard to swallow.

        Is it possible that 16 px maybe may have an adverse effect for clients with a young demographic that do not have these sight problems?

        If I assumed things like these, I would be broke.

        I will run a study on font size and sales and post it on my blog.

        0
  19. 133

    I agree 100% with your points. As you also mentioned, it depends on what font you’re using since some fonts have higher x-heights.

    I believe that most importantly it depends on the content you’re reading. Reading this relatively long post, the font size made me sit back and read comfortably. I tend to use Readability on other sites as this gets rid of all the extra stuff, focuses on typography and gives you the option to resize the font to your own taste which I’ve set the default to something around the same size of this article.

    However having short paragraphs, on say a homepage is a different story. Readers don’t need to focus on the content but rather skim through it and continue to navigate through the site or reach a call to action. Using a smaller font makes more room for the other important elements on the page, which have higher priority and function.

    -1
  20. 134

    “What ‘looks good’ to us is largely the result of what we’ve seen other designers doing and what we’ve come to expect.”

    …and yet it’s important that our websites “look good” to customers as well. What’s just as likely to cause a user to hit the “back” button is a site that looks novice, which large font sizes tend to do. It’s not just other designers who are used to things the way they are.

    +3
  21. 135

    Smashing Magazine has text of 1em… which equals 12px for me. They use 0.75em for the body but the posts are 1em.

    Good article, but whatever happened to the whole “design in em” movement? I like to use ems so the user can determine this 12px or 16px argument. If they don’t know how to change the size, leave at 1em or 100% because that’s what they’re used to (by default).

    +1
  22. 136

    I think the comment font size is perfect.

    +4
  23. 137

    Hell, why stop there? Let’s catch all the people still with 640×480 screens and make all our sites fit that. Or, for that matter, let’s make all our pages greyscale so that we can pick up all the color blind users too. Geesh.

    Folks, eventually you have to just cut the corner. The majority of websites out there are 12 and 13px. I’ve done websites for years and my clients and myself have never reported a single incident of users saying they can’t read the sites. Those who have vision problems learn the keyboard shortcuts and get used to this. Now, for a blog article or sales copy, do I think it would benefit if the base font was 14px or higher? Sure, I do. You might get more conversions. But only split-testing can tell you for sure.

    +4
    • 138

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:34 pm

      I’ve done websites for years and my clients and myself have never reported a single incident of users saying they can’t read the sites.

      Do you have reason to expect that these users would let you know?

      All the research I’ve seen shows that if people have trouble reading a site, their immediate response is to leave. They feel no loyalty whatsoever, and have no concern for correcting the problem. They’ll just go to another site that suits them better.

      Seems to me you’re trying to create an argument from silence, based on anecdotal evidence, rather than listening to positive arguments based on scientific studies.

      +5
  24. 139

    Ever since reading up on responsive design, typography, and using readability (<- not advertising, I don't work with them), I started using a standard 1em for body text and .75em for footer/copyright. 1em = about 16px so I think it's a good standard size to go with.

    When using readability, I usually have it on 17 or 19px. And because I read a lot on the internet, it's really hard to read <16px font.

    0
  25. 140

    Very interesting read. I too find many sites, blogs etc hard to read because of font, font contrast vs bg, and size. Especially with bigger screens than 10yrs ago, space is not utilized very good. I too use 12px fonts a lot (set in ems), but you have me convinced..

    I’ve also taken a look at the wordpress’ latest default theme (twentyeleven), they use 15 for body copy, big headers and 12px for meta data.. It looks really nice and it’s very readable..

    Good article.

    ps: to the dimwits in the comments, confusing this blogpost with “an experiment in creating a masterpiece of layout art”, read the damn thing. It’s about content and readability… not “style”

    -1
  26. 141

    What? No, this is not what you should be teaching people. The standard size for font on a browser is 12pt, not 16px. Points are measured in physical units, which means that as pixel density increases, the displayed size will be the same.

    Pixel density used to be lower, which is why everyone uses 12px as their font size. Because when monitors displayed around 72dpi, 12pt, was 12px. Now monitors display around 96dpi, and guess what, 12px * (96/72) = 12px * (4/3) = 16px. Ignorant web designers who did not take the time to understand the difference between points and pixels assumed they were the same because coincidentally, at 72dpi they are the same.

    What you are encouraging people to do is not a solution. It’s the same problem that caused this, which is using a digital unit of measurement instead of a physical one. Once monitors inevitably improve and pixel density increases this problem will be the same again. Also, 16px fonts will look huge on old monitors. 12pt fonts will look the right size forever.

    P.S. Since computer dpi standards aren’t concretely set, the actual physical sizes will vary in practice. 72dpi, and 96dpi are just average approximations that are convenient to use for monitors in those ranges, but the principle still holds, even though it’s not exact.

    +9
    • 142

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 2:35 pm

      A good topic for a followup article perhaps Tim.

      +1
    • 143

      It turns out 16px really is forever and always equal to 12pt (not that is should be). I wrote about this here http://blakefrost.tumblr.com/post/10612682218/pixels

      That being said. Why would anybody want to say 16px when they can say 12pt. That’s a best practice for print too. It’s so elegant it hurts.

      Nobody should every use 12px, that is just too small as the author points out. It’s very clear why this is so, when it’s realize 12px equals 9pt. We all know 9pt is to small for body copy in print, and now we know it’s too small for body copy on the web as well.

      Great post!

      -1
      • 144

        D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

        October 9th, 2011 2:27 pm

        Blake, if I’m understanding the article you linked, 1px in CSS does not equal one actual pixel on a screen.

        But if you’ve done much tweaking with CSS, you’ll know this is simply false.

        1px in CSS is indeed equivalent to precisely 1 pixel on a screen. It’s a different amount of space on my 23″ screen as on my 15″ screen (both at 1920×1080).

        If it were true that a pixel was always 1/96 of an inch, or that 12pt always = 16px, then 16px on my laptop would appear as the same size at 16px on my desktop, since points are absolute units. 12 point is always 1/6 of an inch. But that’s not how it works on a computer, as you can see in the photos I took for this article: 16px on my laptop is significantly smaller than 16px on my desktop.

        -1
  27. 145

    I haven’t read all the comments, but has anyone pointed out that font size is dependent upon the font face?

    For instance, 16px Times New Roman on screen may be equivalent to reading book text, but 16px Arial is not. Take a look at this demo I put together: http://jsfiddle.net/q6fsz/embedded/result

    You can clearly see that 16px Times New Roman is more equivalent to 14px Arial (or even 13px), and 16px Arial (or 15px) is more equivalent to 18px Times New Roman.

    +1
  28. 146

    I’d say the comments at 15px are far more readable than the body text at 19px. And that’s on my notebook screen at 140dpi a good two and a half feet across the desk from me.

    +1
  29. 147

    Ha! I was just making a revision to my personal website upping the font size from 12px to 14px for body copy — as well as a general type size increase overall. I guess I’ll meet you half way, eh!? — Total agree!

    0
  30. 148

    Well, there is a reason that large print books have their own section in the library separate from other books; why there are still stairs in the world and not ramps everywhere; why the web is mostly dark text on white rather than yellow on navy blue (which studies say is the easiest to to read for vision impaired). It’s not that interesting to the general public. As a designer you need to have the ability to use contrast of size. All big type just looks horsy. You see lots of contrast of size on this page, to prove your example go ahead and make all the type a minimum of 16 pixels on this page! I just don’t agree with your provocative generalizations. I’m almost 40 now and I don’t have trouble reading the majority of text on the screen that I read. Sigh…this just feels like an inane thing to argue.

    +3
  31. 149

    Thank you for this amazing article! First I thought the font was a little too big, but the white space around it was very good so it was easy to accommodate with it from the beginning. After just a little it felt natural and COMFORTABLE reading the “not-too-big” font… And I just have to say that you absolutely made your point with the last part…

    Very nice and useful read!

    -1
  32. 150

    It would certainly make content producers think about using fewer words to greater effect. A fair argument – worth considering.

    0
  33. 151

    wow. That’s like saying 34″ is a great size for the waist band on a pair of pants. Really? what about the inseam? and skinny people. and thick people.
    My point being, to focus on pixel height alone isn’t an answer. Its not even the right question. You need to address everything as a whole. Character size, line height, letter spacing, line length… and what about the font itself? Whether it be a serif, sans serif, cursive, decorative or display font. I know you are talking about body copy hear, and not headlines, i’m just trying to drive home the point. Many people get too myopic when talking about type. Fixating on just the size of the characters when the whole gamut of type control should be addressed.

    +3
  34. 152

    “The users who will most need to adjust their settings usually don’t know how.”

    There certainly will be users who don’t know how to adjust font settings, but do these people ignore the BBC or Amazon websites because the default font is not to their liking!? Is a font under 16px costing these websites?

    And how many people turn on their internet device and consider it a mistake to see web text equal to (but less than) 16px and think … “Christ, I need to get out of here because some web designers want 16px (or higher) to be the new default standard.”

    As others have said, there is no correct default anything for websites. However, if we begin with the default system font size for a web device, we can’t go far wrong. Forcing a size would not be right though and goes against all that everyone is doing to help give users who truely need larger fonts the freedom to do so … freedom is key and browser vendors have great defaults that frankly get screwed by some of the lazy-ass web development frameworks out there.

    If some people want to undo all the hard work browser vendors have done for text defaults, then so be it. But to create something like a framework or methodology such as a fixed font size takes us back to before browser vendors had anything near a close standard between them like we do now. And that doesn’t help anyone that such measures are created to help in the first place, which makes no sense.

    All devices have a relative (to device) default and we should start with that like a few others have said. For good reason and with the ever-growing resolution of devices we cannot and should not assume a singular font size, for similar reasons to what you said in fact.

    +5
  35. 153

    While i agree with the premise in theory, let us not fprget the impact smartphones are having on web browsing. If there is an issue with text size a quick finger scissor zoom can work wonders.

    I’m more concerned about poor layout rendering non-mobile optimised sites impossible to navigate. Case in point, because this site loads all comments at once typing in this one had severe amounts of lag.

    0
  36. 154

    I agree. Thanks for this eye opening article… literally!

    -2
  37. 155

    view this page at 1024×768 and you’ll probably think you’re looking at a site for kids.

    Font size is dependent on screen resolution, especially if you use px declarations.

    You also make quite a few assumptions on users habits, I don’t believe that most people will simply click back or go somewhere else if the font size is a little small, especially if, as you say, most sites are like this. It’s the norm, so they won’t think anything of it. It’s also easy to make something look small when compared to something big. As a 6’2″ male, I still find myself feeling short when I stand next to some taller than me, yet I am above the average height.

    While I understand your reasoning and agree with it on some levels, I think you miss some key points about websites, like the fact that not everyone’s browser size and screen resolution will be the same, so something that works for one setup will not on another, where large fonts are concerned, I think that it would become too large at lower screen resolutions requiring people to scroll much more or reduce the font size, which is something you posed yourself as a failing of small font sizes.

    +4
  38. 156

    Hmmm… You *could* be right. I’m willing to take it for a test drive. I noticed, sitting here in my Morris chair, laptop in hand (or on lap), I sat with better posture reading your large text. I noticed that it was easy and quick to read. I noticed that, with some of the long blocks of text in some of the comments, I was ready to think: tl;dr

    You’ve left the input box for comments in large print. Now my comment will be converted to tiny print and sink into oblivion, eh?

    0
  39. 157

    Why does this article look so bad?

    +4
  40. 160

    Well said, and well done. For the first time in five years, I was able to extract information from a web page without putting on reading glasses.

    +2
  41. 161

    I think this is ideal when you’re using serif fonts, 14px would be ok when you’re using sans-serif

    0
  42. 162

    LOL. Why write an article to prove 16px and then set it 19px??

    And then say “look how small 12px looks now”. Well of course, when you’ve just been reading 19px!

    Like probably many others, until I read that paragraph saying it was set in 19px, I assumed the article was 16px. And I can tell from other readers’ comments they missed that paragraph altogether.

    The large font didn’t help me – I skimmed coz it was hard work. In fact, I missed that paragraph entirely. But was going to try different sizes via the debugger and then discovered the 19px.

    All that said, when I did set it to 16px, this font was a comfortable size then.

    +1
  43. 163

    You definetly make a good point, i read this article comfortably standing back on my chair. i will consider this when thinking and designing typographic elements.

    -1
  44. 164

    The article, and many of the comments, seem focused on web page like blog posts and other text-heavy pages. For that type of “design”, I agree that a large font size is appropriate. But most of the web pages I design for my clients have images, navigation, stylistic flourishes, forms, functional bits, and other things that, in total, almost out-weigh the amount of pure text. If I were to use 16px fonts for all text on the page, not only would the design look terrible, but the poor user would have to do much more scrolling to get to important parts of content.

    The point of the article seems akin to saying “Print-based periodicals should always use black ink”. That might be fine if you’re a daily newspaper concerned with costs, speed of printing, and the “disposability” of your product. But I’d bet a monthly magazine might think the “always use black ink” guideline to be quite limiting.

    Just my $0.02!…

    +1
    • 165

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 7:12 pm

      Scott, can you show me an example of what you mean? I’ve never seen a site that couldn’t be made to work very well with 16px text.

      And since text is what carries the actual propositional content users need (in most cases), other elements on the page should support it—not vice versa.

      Curious to see what you’re talking about.

      -1
      • 166

        Well, here’s an example that’s actually a text-heavy site: https://www.google.com/news

        When I view this page in Firefox v7.0.1 and use the “WhatFont” tool (see http://chengyinliu.com/whatfont.html), it shows the headlines being 16px and the body copy 13px. If the body copy were increased to 16px, as the article suggests, the headlines would have to go to at least 18px to be distinctive. I think those increases, while making the page readable from a further distance from the screen, would also force more scrolling.

        Another example most people would be familiar with is Facebook. I think their pages would look terrible (and the design would break) if the minimum font size was 16px.

        I know there’s a trend towards “minimal” web design, with very little text and “airy”, whitespace-laden layout. 16px (and larger) font sizes can work very nicely in those designs. But when we need to present more than a small amount of text, along with navigation and other page elements, I just think a 16px size is too large for some things.

        +1
        • 167

          D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

          October 9th, 2011 3:34 pm

          Hey Scott. Perhaps the solution to Google News is to stop using size as a differentiator for headings here. That’s often a poor practice anyway.

          Using color and bold face should work equally well.

          Also, since users don’t mind scrolling, I don’t see that as a problem.

          As regards Facebook, the design does look terrible at 16px—yet I force Facebook to show me fonts at that size anyway, because I find the default size incredibly hard on my eyes :)

          -2
  45. 168

    Great article – I’ven been wondering a long time now when the trend for small fonts finally is being discussed.
    The longer the text the harder it is to read in 12px. There is great content out there but it is just too hard to read. The trend for microblogs and Facebook like communication makes it possible to use small fonts but when confronted with longer texts larger fonts are needed.
    This article uses a 3px larger font then the 16px under discussion so people: please stop complaining about the text being too large – he is trying to make a point here.

    -2
  46. 169

    I run 1920×1200 on a 14.1″ Dell D830 laptop and triple 1920×1200 on 24″ LCDs for my desktop. I almost always enlarge font on sites, and I would go even further and say 18pt font MINIMUM, with 20-24 being more sensible. If you have a lot to say on your site, start a damn blog. If you’re trying to sell stuff, be concise and elegant.

    Need proof? http://www.apple.com/ipod/ . I’ll wait while you measure.

    +4
  47. 170

    This is the first time I’ve found myself sitting comfortably with my back against the back of my chair while reading an article on my computer EVER. You’ve made a great point here. Thanks.

    +1
  48. 171

    While I think that it might be another good “you should…” design principle, the fact is that you just can’t do everything.

    If you move the body to 16px, then hierarchy speaking your h2 or h1 might be in the 40px range. Combine that with the fact that many still advocate that you “should” use a 960 grid for people with low resolution screens and suddenly you’re in a layout nightmare. You have a top-level menu with size 32-40px font and only 960 pixels to spread it across? Yikes!

    I’ll just stick to the nice floating javascript withe +/- buttons.

    0
    • 172

      D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

      October 7th, 2011 7:15 pm

      Er, this might be stating the obvious, but you don’t actually need to use significantly larger font sizes for headings. In fact, differentiating headings based on font size is a poor practice, since readers can’t distinguish between different heading levels without direct comparison. So if you have an h3 in the middle of one section of copy, and an h2 further down, without them both being visible at once, a reader typically can’t tell the difference between them based on size alone.

      -1
      • 173

        Julian Gaviria

        October 9th, 2011 9:26 am

        You clearly don’t follow what you preach. Your h1′s and h2′s (you don’t have h3′s) are significantly larger than each other AND your body copy.

        I believe it should be a combination of color, size and weight. To distinguish headers solely on color is a poor practice itself.

        +1
        • 174

          D Bnonn Tennant, Information Highwayman

          October 9th, 2011 3:35 pm

          Julian, did I suggest that you should never use larger font sizes for headines? Or that I would never do it?

          I didn’t think I had. Merely that it wasn’t necessary.

          -2
      • 175

        So if your markup is correct, size wont matter to the screen reader.

        0
  49. 176

    I like the article, and I sometimes like 16px font, if done properly. But why does this article resemble a squeeze page?

    The red h2 tags? and ugly drop caps at the beginning of some paragraphs? Single column w/ no sidebar? Doesn’t seem like it belongs on smashing magazine.

    +1
  50. 177

    wow, wow very clean, great redesign mr Elliot :)

    +1
  51. 178

    And one of the BIG mistakes nowadays is using custom fonts that don’t have decent hinting, resulting in the need to increase the font-size to disproportionate sizes to assure readability. Seriously, a properly hinted font works ok from 12px to 14px. I personally like 13px on a 1440×900 19″ screen and on 1280×800 12″ laptop screens.

    Of course that given that pixel density is increasing quite a bit lately and OSs may not compensate for that well enough when displaying text. You have a good point, though I don’t agree with 16px, 14px is more than enough and pushing it towards big already. Again, use a properly hinted font which doesn’t require such huge font sizes for good readability and look at different OSs and hardware configurations.

    0
  52. 179

    I found your excellent article while researching for setting up my first website for a retired readership. Perfect advice for a newbie. Thanks so much!

    **I** will leave a website that has too-small print; so, yes, it’s costing them. If I don’t read, I won’t stay around to buy or become loyal, and I won’t recommend them; so it might be costing them twice… at least.

    I was thrilled to learn how to change the font size; so helpful for emergencies; but I really don’t want “one more thing to do”. It slows me down.

    I’ve notice that since about 2009, I get physically nauseous when reading Times New Roman (serif) font, in any size, in print or on screen. It feels “old school”, staid, and rigid; that doesn’t resonate with me, anymore, and I leave.

    When I have REALLY, REALLY wanted to read dinky-print or Times New Roman content, I have copied and pasted whole articles to an E-mail or Word document so I could enlarge the font size or change the font. No fun.

    -1
  53. 180

    While usability studies do show that 16px is a better size for reading on screens, the logic in this article is very poor, and does not consider all sorts of other things. For one, line length should be 12-15 words generally. in this article it is far shorter. that is why it is hard to read. It also ignores scrolling as a potential usability issue. As a web designer I identify other issues too. Websites are generally built at 960px wide or less. With a large point size and 12-15 point size, the width of this column is too large. Its impossible to have a proper 2 column design. images at the full column width end up too tall, requiring even more scrolling. Just my 2c

    +1
  54. 181

    I think the standard resolution for computer displays is considered to be 72-74 pixels per inch. My MacBook Pro is 133 ppi. My iPhone’s “retina” display is over 300 ppi.

    If you set the text based in pixels, it will vary greatly. If you could set it based on points or even inches/centimeters and know that it would be rendered with the display ppi taken into consideration so that the physical size is consistent, you would be much better off.

    Not sure if that’s even possible with current implementations.

    Anyway, all this talk of setting type by the number of pixels is kind of silly since the size and shape of pixels vary so greatly. We need a system that renders relatively before we can go around prescribing pixel sizes. Until then, some assumptions must be made about the content not only being capable of being dynamically altered, but also that the users will have some idea how to do so.

    PS—I read this re-formatted by Instapaper on my iPhone because everything was in 2 point type. …which was readable as long as the phone was three inches from my face :p

    +1
  55. 182

    Guilherme Almeida

    October 7th, 2011 10:24 pm

    I believe there is a crucial flaw on this article. Seems like if you set font size on 16px all readbility issues will be solved. It is so untrue. There are so many other things to take into consideration about readability other than font size. As mentioned in the article, x-height matters. You can pick a font that at 16px high looks like 12px high, and another can be 14px high and look like 16px. Line height is another factor. This article’s subheading is so messy with the line height seemingly of less than 1.0 em, one line merging with each other, it makes harder to read, even if it has 36px. Line lenght too. According to The Elements of Typographic Style, a satisfactory line lenght is 45 to 75 characters wide. Yet it’s so common to find lines with more than 150 characters (see Slashdot). Contrast also matters, colors and font weight wise. It is much more complex than just setting a certain font size.

    +1
  56. 183

    I would rather read smaller text with a larger line height than larger text with a tiny line height. As they say “It’s not the size that counts”. Yes body text on the web isn’t designed as well as it could be but there are technological restrictions. It’s up to the designer to choose a suitable font, colour and line height, AS WELL as size to make the text easy to read for their target demographic.
    Also I find it hard to believe a user would leave the site based purely on a couple of pixels in font height. I would like to see the study that produced the results of ‘Fact: Most Web Users Hate The “Normal” Font Size’.

    +2
  57. 184

    I agree with you. I’m thinking about increasing the font size of my current work.

    I like Forbes new design with big text sizes.

    0
  58. 185

    I think you are right…
    Just because we can fit 30 to 40 words to a line doesn’t mean we should.
    I do believe that we should consider the old print setting rules of font and line height etc. as well.
    I think I will push for bigger font sizes from clients

    -1
  59. 186

    Excellent, well written article. 60 year olds only receive 20% of the light as 20 year olds – that a sobering thought. I’m 62, so in 20 years time I’ll be groping around like a deaf bat!

    Our web site (www.HospitalRegisters.com) is mainly viewed by 30 to 50 year old corporate clients, probably using smaller monitors than I design on, so you message about font sizes is very appropriate.

    0
  60. 187

    After reading this article, I changed the base font size for my web development site at http://www.sacwebdev.com to 1em, and I’m quite pleased with the increased readability. Another tool in my arsenal to help my clients achieve their goals! Thanks Bnonn… this has been very, very helpful.

    0
  61. 188

    Well written! One more proof that webdesign is more craft than arts.

    -1
    • 189

      Not sure if trolling or just stupid. (Not seriously calling you stupid, just a meme)

      Web design is much more of an art than craft. One must understand the most basic principles of art such as line, shape, color, texture, and principles of design like balance, dominace, rhythm, etc.

      Web design requires skills that one can’t just pick up and start immediately. It takes time and an understanding of these principles in order to become a professional. My girlfriend does crafts; she knits, sews, and crochets. I design websites – still not a craft, and not necessarily art, but much more related to it than crafts are.

      0
  62. 190

    I know there are already a billion comments here, but I feel I must add something myself.

    A design instructor of mine told me that 12pt was slightly too big for body text (in print of course), and that he prefers to use 10pt or 11pt. That matches up roughly to 14px or 15px which I find to be just the perfect size for readability aesthetics.

    Just my two cents.

    -1
  63. 191

    I’m extremely annoyed at how much scrolling I needed to do to read this article…

    It may be easier when reading large amounts of copy once the user is interested in a story.. but could you image trying to navigate around a home page that needs to capture large amounts of content such as nhl.com, you’d be lost amidst all the large text.

    Only way I could see it work is giving users the option to make the text larger… at the same time, I don’t think it’s necessary as resolution options do exist on computers. People just need to set their resolution to what suits their needs.

    -1
  64. 192

    Way cool! I’m totally pleased to find someone of my opinion about type size. I just finished 2 new websites with themes from Themeforest and moved the text pt size up to 16, for readability. I didn’t know the scientific reasons, just the aesthetic and perception that I “felt” were right. Thanks !

    -1
    • 193

      Martin Silvertant

      October 9th, 2011 6:48 pm

      Then do use the correct units. 16pt is too large. 16px is quite the max.

      It’s best to set the font size to 16px and base all text sizes on that value by using the em unit.

      0
  65. 194

    For christ sake, use em… the world is mobile now.

    +3
  66. 195

    Mine is 16px;

    0
  67. 196

    well done! i’m changing the size on my blog asap

    -1
  68. 197

    Patricia Fieldwalker

    October 8th, 2011 10:21 am

    Took far too long to read and I am well over your 40+ group…felt like I was back reading night night stories to my preschoolers…must be a happy medium and this errs on the side of “too much of a good thing”.

    +1
  69. 198

    Funny, I think this is the first article I’ve read in a good couple of months. And I mean read, not scan. I’m not sure if it’s the font or the topic that kept me going until the end, but one thing’s for sure: for the next couple of websites I will make 3 versions (like media queries) for text, allow users to switch between them (with some clear call to action buttons) and see which resolutions is used the most.

    I am also thinking about randomly selecting one of the three (small – 12, normal – 16, large – 20) and see which one users drop most and which one users tend to go to the most.

    -1
  70. 199

    I have not read all the comments so maybe someone already pointed at this… I am experimenting with some flexible layouts and it occurred to me it is strange that you can make flexible images and boxes, but not flexible text sizes.
    Because it all depends on screen size of course. The 14px text right above this text box I am typing this is perfect readable on my home 20″ iMac. My eyes are 90 cm (35,4″) from the screen. And yes: I am ‘old’ (45), short-sighted and tired (at the moment).

    0
  71. 200

    I find this very interesting. I did not read everything of this article but had a quick scan of it and looked at the pictures.

    As I am currently working on a slightly new version of my portfolio I just gave it a try and set the font size to 16. It was much easier to read and I will stick to it.

    I think basically this 12px stuff is fixed in the head such as brushing your teeth at the end of the day before you go to bed.

    So anyways, thanks for this is trying to open the minds a little bit here : ) Great work.

    0
  72. 201

    As a few have mentioned before, a person with a 15″ 1920×XXX monitor is going to have a different experience than someone with a 21″ desktop monitor @ 1920 x XXXX.

    At the moment, I feel comfortable serving up an initial 13-14px san-serif for body text. 16px seems a bit too extreme at this time.

    On the other end of the spectrum, facebook needs a bump in font size. Style-wise, when compared to Google+, it feels small and cramped.

    0
  73. 202

    Scott Richardson

    October 8th, 2011 12:19 pm

    Sorry, but this article doesn’t take into account PPI of displays – a variable which differs a fair bit from computer to computer. My 13″ Macbook Air is far denser than my 24″ Apple Cinema Display. 16px on my ACD looks big, 16px on my MBA looks quite small.

    So sorry, it’s all relative. Sure 16px is bigger than 12px on ALL displays, but saying 16px is the same size as printed text is pretty vague when a screen’s PPI can vary by upwards of 40 PPI or 30 – 40%.

    +2
  74. 203

    I’m over the age of 40, wear glasses to correct farsightedness and astigmatism. I feel that there are limits on both ends. I agree with some that the body copy of this sight is too large. Even at the 24 inch distance I sit there is too much back and forth with the eye’s. And, yes the footer copy is too small, I had to lean in to read.

    But, has anyone noticed the other font size on this page? The comment thread is actually very comfortable for me to read which seems to be the average font size I see on the web. It’s the one I like to design with…

    +1
  75. 204

    This was a good read, I think what it lacked was context though. The argument made at the start is that in order to support the business needs of your clients you HAVE TO INCREASE SIZE OF TEXT. It is too simplistic. It ignores user personas, focuses too heavily on age demographics and accessibility, and doesn’t speak to the fundamental value of scanning. The average business site on the web sells MULTIPLE PRODUCTS. If you’re writing a blog post maybe this makes sense, but if you’re arguing for improving SALES then how easily the page is read is less important than how easily it is scanned. Only a certain user persona will actually care to read detail, if you’re trying to generate revenue you need to appeal to the masses more often than not.

    This doesn’t invalidate this post, it’s definitely a good thing to consider and would certainly apply wholesale once in a while – but it falls short by making too bold a business statement upfront.

    +5
  76. 205

    In some cases I agree with this article, the studies were interesting, and the fact that you pointed out some of the top theme sites are still using very small fonts. I believe that 12px is way to small for a website, I also agree that 16px is a very nice size for font, in some ways.

    I feel that not every website should be set at 16px. It all depends on length of content, and placement of content, I do believe some more important factors for readability would be line-height, as having your lines too close together can easily get the reader lost.

    Letter spacing is great for fonts like Times, as pointed out in some comments there are a lot of accents in this font that are not needed.

    And font use, while having “normal sized” font for body is good and easy to read, an input box where the user is proofing what they are actually typing having a larger than normal font is a better solution.

    In conclusion this article did exactly what it was intended to do, while we don’t all agree with the 16px font theory, we are all re-thinking our design habits and I know next time I work on a website I will think more about font size and readability. Nice work!

    0
  77. 206

    I don’t think I’d use Facebook, BBC, or CNN if they had 16px body font size.

    Interesting point of view. Thanks for the article.

    +3
  78. 207

    Some interesting facts in the article, however, saying a font is hard to read because it’s too small is a bit of a loose statement. Font family, color, line-height and width (anything over 500px wide is a strain) all contribute to the readability of text. So a pink font at 16px stretching the full width of the screen (let’s say 1400px) with default line-height might be easier to read if it were 13px, dark grey, 450px wide with 20px line-height.

    The article doesn’t target a specific type of site. Article sites or news sites rely on readability far more than startups. The article seems to suggest that you NEED copy to guide users. This statement is incorrect. You can guide users with whitespace, color, images, buttons, hover states etc.

    If you have a startup landing page with lots of copy on it, regardless of font-size…you’ve already failed.

    +4
  79. 208

    I like that you back your point with supporting facts. This is definitely worth consideration. Based on one’s primary target audience Font Size is always an area of much deliberation.

    -2
  80. 209

    People don’t read anymore.

    They are facebook people.

    The world goes mobile.

    Chat & Status update.

    That’s all now.

    +3
  81. 210

    David van Ballegooijen

    October 9th, 2011 1:03 am

    I can’t agree either.. I’ve experimented recently with bodytext fontsizes for our new upcoming website and 14px (arial) is the best choice for us. 15 or 16 px looked good on my 27″ iMac but even on our 24″ iMacs it’s already too big. On laptops it’s even worse and not acceptable imo. On tablets 16 px does read comfortable.

    0
  82. 211

    Wow. Great Article. Congratulations. What I think is that sometimes the text *has* to be small. For example, when we’re making a very professional website, the text simply cannot be large. What do you think?

    -4
  83. 212

    Steve Williams

    October 9th, 2011 4:17 am

    Two things stood out for me.

    1. All browers are 16 pixels by default.
    2. The printed copy compared to on screen.

    Thankfully font sizes have increased over the last few years and designers are no longer “scared” to use a larger and more readable font size.

    -4
  84. 213

    It would make more sense to say 16 points than pixels. Points are absolute units of measurement-1/72 of an inch. Pixels are relative-16 pixels on an iPhone is much smaller than 16 pixels on a 50″ TV.

    -1
  85. 214

    Chatsworth Marketing

    October 9th, 2011 5:11 am

    id rather choose pixels

    +1
  86. 215

    I develop websites where the audience is predominately older that 40, and many are in their 50′s, 60′s and 70′s… so I did an on the fly change to one of the sites up from 14 to 16px. I think I liked it and it might be very good for many of our readers.

    I think this 19px font is a bit large for me — and I am one who has to squint at the screen on far too many sites. I think I’ll give the 16px a shot.

    +1
  87. 216

    There are some really interesting points here, however I feel that in places this is a bit simplistic. Readability as opposed to simple legibility is a more complex construct.

    Good typography is not achieved simply by wanging all body copy to 16px. Other considerations include line lengths, leading (line-height), paragraph spacing and font choice.

    All in though, I think it is good to challenge the prevailing view that 11/12px is the ‘standard’ body copy size.

    0
  88. 217

    Great read , really enjoyed it.

    I will certainly include this on websites I create in the future.

    -1
  89. 218

    Martin Silvertant

    October 9th, 2011 6:44 pm

    To me this article doesn’t make much sense. If anything it’s just a reminder to be careful not to use text sizes too small. The 19px used for the article is absolutely absurd, and the very fact that 19px is used while 16px is advocated is amusing. I feel a bit like I’m reading a children’s book.

    The 12px at the end looks quite alright. I tend not to use fonts with a low x-height at smaller than 12px for body text, but for small portions of text 10px could even be fine. I think it’s a good practice to generally stay within 12 to 14px. If you’re heaving trouble reading 14px then the issue is probably with the line length, leading and tracking or your font features a low x-height (such as Garamond).

    I’m not 100% certain about this, but I believe people used to use larger text on the web but now that the screen resolution and font rendering techniques have been improved fonts will render just fine at 12px.

    You compare 16px web text with 12pt print text, which I think is a fair comparison but 12pt is quite big for text in print. It’s good for your thesis but definitely not for a reading book. So, if you take the correct size for print, then it would equal slightly more than 14px in web.

    I honestly also haven’t met any contemporary people who don’t know how to zoom text. It’s being mentioned how to do it so often on the Internet. Besides, is zooming so bad? Then why is it one of the primary features of smartphones? I understand they can’t exactly be compared, but my point is that text size on the web is becoming a very relative value which you can control, anyway. Even if you don’t use em values for text, I think you can still zoom on the text in every modern browser.

    What do people with bad eyesight have to do with how big I render my text? Ever seen books with 14pt text for old people? They don’t exist because there’s no market for it because we have glasses and contact lenses.

    By the way, people can set the minimum font size in their browsers, so even for older people all this really shouldn’t be an issue. That is, if the text is formatted correctly taking the rules of typography and CSS into consideration.

    I’ve been told that type designers and typographers tend to use smaller text, which I think has something to do with being familiar with the textures of type. Nevertheless, people read more text online every day and they’re becoming very familiar with it—even with small type. In some regard it’s actually a very amusing idea that people used to write and read blackletters, and now supposedly we’re having trouble reading a 12px sans serif. I mean, this article is just funny.

    +2
  90. 219

    Lots of comments on this article. I wonder if anyone will read them?

    +1
  91. 221

    I’ve had my site on 16px for a while now, totally used to it. Definitely a good move!

    0
  92. 222

    I’d argue for one that you shouldn’t be using pixels at all to set your text. Use points or Ems instead. I still often just use xx-small, x-small, small, medium, etc. Also, I find the size of the font you used to be fine, but I recall a general guideline (magazine layout I believe) that states your column width should be as many words wide as your font size. Font size is fine, but it feels too narrow. Using that guideline, the width of the article should accomodate, on average, 19 words. This seems to be about only 12 as is.

    0
  93. 223

    This is a good article, it promotes awareness of the importance of choosing a good font-size with the users in mind.

    As a web developer the main thing to consider is who the main users of the website are going to be and cater for their needs.

    On blog websites I tend to adopt larger fonts, 14 – 16px as it makes content quicker to take in and is easier to read through. The size usually depends on the font used along with the contrast of the font against the background.

    It’s important to remember that content should be made easy to read. Font alone cannot provide this, which is why many companies are now seeking copy strategists.

    0
  94. 224

    I think I missed the bit where it actually proved small text costs money.

    J.

    +2
  95. 225

    I think this is a compelling article and has certainly made me even more aware of font size than previsously. I have worked in a number of industry sectors from new born baby websites through to the older generation, I totally agree with tailoring the size to suite who your intended market it. However, having read the article I have now found it can suite all sites not just one sector in particular.

    Great read. Thanks for sharing.

    0
  96. 226

    I really don’t think many people resize the text on their browsers when they are not able to read with a little bit of stress. But I do agree that if it was unreadable or if the user actually wanted to read a complete long article, they would do so.

    0
  97. 227

    16px is fine for copy in small amounts.

    But this page? Butt ugly, and far too much scrolling required.

    Even filling in this feedback form is annoying; big ugly font – yuk! All modern browsers allow re-scaling of the screen with the Ctrl + and Ctrl – keys. Stick to a reasonable font size (12-14px) and ALLOW THE READER TO CHOOSE (after all, you want your readers to have a choice, don’t you?)

    The author seems to forget that minimalism doesn’t work for every scenario, especially e-commerce. It’s FAR more important to make sure that the content is relevant, well-written, and presented in a format that makes it easy to scan. This does not necessarily equate to using a ridiculously large font.

    +1
  98. 228

    I am very much over 40 and have all my browsers set permanently to zoom text. However, I think 16px is perhaps overdoing it. When I opened this article I had to go reset my Firefox because it was too big to read comfortably. The result (16 px) was tolerable but not all that comfortable – a lot of paging down involved, which upsets the flow of the argument. I think the comments are in a size that is pretty usable.
    Oh, and those drop caps with the drop shadow? AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH…!

    +1
  99. 229

    Have I missed something and has everyone been having an awful time understanding and using websites with 12px text? Bigger type can be a bit helpful but does take up so much space on a page, that’s a real drawback.

    Worse though is using fonts such as Impact, in red with drop caps. It’s snubbed ascenders and descenders, with machine-aesthetic letterforms make it ugly and really hard to read. The colour simply amplifies the issue.

    This feels like an all to familiar case of an on-screen typographer not getting how and why type works.

    0
  100. 230

    Interesting article, but I find Comic Sans just looks perfect regardless of the size :p

    0

  1. 1

    I’m not sure if it’s on purpose or not, maybe I’m missing something…

    BUT

    I find it hard to take the article seroiusly (even though I agree with the point being made) due to the styling used throughout;

    The Red Impact headers and the drop shadow & spacing on the first letter of the new paragraph. It’s horrible.

    I was also under the impression that Sans-serif font’s are easier to read on screen than serif fonts, so on an article about legibility, why choose a serif font (no matter the size?).

    Maybe it’s ironic? Maybe I’m dumb? Maybe I just missed an inside joke?

    +50
  2. 2

    There are so many things I take issue with here. One is that browsers’ default type being 16px means anything to a page design. How long have browsers been built that way? Why is 16px now the ideal body copy size as opposed to every other year they shipped this way?

    Not every site is a single column blog. You completely ignore the total design of the page (type hierarchy) in order to declare one size “best.” Your type is not well set enough to help your argument, either. Your line height makes this text *more* difficult to read than a smaller, well set size. The footnote bit is also set as #444 which makes it more difficult to read, but you’ve not written about contrast at all, only size.

    Further, you ignore mobile and focus on desktop only. How long will that be the prevalent browsing experience? Most of these devices are much closer to the eyes, and a properly set viewport clears up a lot of issues without going for 16px as a minimum.

    Lastly, you may think that just web designers read this. They’re not the only ones. So when I get a client who comes along and tells me every piece of text on the page must be at least 16px for a complex site, I’ll know where they got the idea. Should my H1 be 48px, too? I have had a client go back into a site design and restyle it for 16px minimum. It looks AWFUL. 16px type should not be a driving principle. Clear design thinking SHOULD be.

    +28
  3. 3

    For people like me who never read what Oliver Reichenstein essentially wrote 5 years ago.

    +18
  4. 4

    Thanks, B. Nonn, for putting forward some interesting arguments.

    I have to disagree with the idea that there is no cost involved in using larger fonts on the web. Designing an effective and appealing web page is about the careful balancing of a number of different factors, with font size being just one. Get this *balance* wrong, and there could be a severe cost.

    For example, using a larger font would make a form look much longer, and research shows that this perception can be enough to reduce response rates. And it’s pretty clear to me that the lack of contrast between text and background on Mark Boulton’s site (for instance — nothing against him personally!) would undermine the readability more than the large font improves it.

    So while it’s great to have the data to suggest we over-estimate our readers’ ability to see what we produce, I think this should just be part of what we consider when deciding font size.

    Thanks,
    Jessica Enders
    Principal, Formulate Information Design

    +18
  5. 5

    I find this article hard to take seriously.

    Font size should be determined by the nature of the site and the target audience.

    To say 16 pixels should be the minimum for all sites is a blinkered view.

    +17
  6. 6

    Hey, Kyle. Problem is, this post is actually set in 19px. A lot of people missed that in the article – which proves they were skimming, and prob coz it was hard reading.

    So, the font was too big. And that’s why it was hard work to read. At 16px it’s much more readable.

    I don’t understand how or why on earth he’d try to argue for 16px then not even use it! Totally undermined the credibility of his arguments. (Especially when he says “See how small 12px looks now. Well of effing course it looks small against **19px**!!)

    +15
  7. 7

    It’s a good rallying cry, but under the wrong flag I think.

    As designers we need to stop being such control freaks, and let the users define their own display.The most adaptive technique is using percentages, not points, and by no means pixels, especially in the world where every different device has different pixel (ppi) density.

    Do you remember the Dao of Web Design?
    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/

    +15
  8. 8

    My tests indicated younger viewers (< ~30) are less likely to read larger web copy. My guess to the reason was everything blends together and more scrolling is required.

    Personally, I've always found large text to look like an old school ebook sales page.

    +14
  9. 9

    16px != 16pt. 16px == 12pt.

    +13
  10. 10

    >I find it hard to take the article seroiusly (even though I agree with the point being made) due to the styling used throughout;

    Are you joking? He presents usability studies and examples, and you dismiss it because you don’t like the fonts he chose? *sigh* You’re not doing much to combat the combat the stereotype of the myopic, superficial designer. This is exactly the attitude an article like this is meant to combat; there’s more to usability than your personal opinion!

    +13
  11. 11

    Ingrid Kast Fuller (@ingridfuller)

    November 29th, 2011 9:43 am

    The comments on this article are a perfect size for me. The article text is a little too big and the footer was too small.

    I agree with Petar Subotic, using percentages especially because we should be looking toward Responsive Web Design now because we have so many devices out today.

    +13
  12. 12

    Richard Williams

    October 7th, 2011 6:22 am

    It is a good point, but I still don’t think a large font is suited to long pieces of text.

    When I got to the small text at the bottom I found it a relief to not have to move my eyes so far/quickly. I’m slower reading the large font.

    +12
  13. 13

    Funny thing – we always debate the ideal format for blogs and articles here (for ourselves and our clients). Our blog lacks readability and we’ve wanted to redesign it for 18 months now, we just never find the time! Hell, can’t even make the time to post blogs!! But, this is a design issue that we discuss for almost every site we create.

    Fundamentally though, the issues are:
    1) Too many words on a line is difficult for eyes to track – which leads to strain.
    2) Low contrast is difficult to read, which strains.
    3) Small font size is difficult to read, which strains causing squints, hunching, etc – and of course, also leads to #1.

    The fact is, while it looks large to us, the number of words per line is far closer to optimal – as opposed to 12, 15, or even 20 words in the worst cases. Part of the reason some college text books were so hard to read without falling asleep was the number of words per line. That and they were incredibly pointless and boring. However, in almost all printed material, you see pages broken into multi-column format. Why? It’s easier to read.

    And to keep the topic on track, this is about articles/blogs – copy intended for the user to read/consume. Forms are not included in this. However, the description of a form’s intent should be. (“Please fill out this handy contact form so we can send you a personalized design mug with accompanying vagrant sea bass!!”)

    Lotsa haters out here – but a good topic.

    Thanks,

    Greg of the OnWired clan.

    +12
  14. 14

    You make a good point. I’ll try that on the new website I’m working on.

    +11
  15. 15

    It’s not that I don’t like the chosen fonts, it’s that I think they adversely affect the legibility of the article.

    I’m using Firefox 7.1 (I’ve noticed in Chrome the font’s pulled in by the browser are different)

    Take for example the “But Users can Zoom” section.

    The styled “T” at the start of “Thus spake one Web desiginer…” the large red lettter and large grey drop shadow touches the “h” from thus. I find that difficult to read.

    The article is about making text easier to read… The next paragraph starting ‘Not so.” Is unstyled. I find it much easier to read.

    That was only my point. Not that it’s ugly – just it’s harder to read in that style.

    There are further comments below stating my thoughts on serif vs sans-serif for screen use are incorrect. I accept this and as mentioned would appreciate any links to research on these to read up on.

    +11
  16. 16

    Niels Matthijs

    October 7th, 2011 3:23 am

    Very (very) tiring article to read. Short reading lines + big font sizes don’t allow people to sit down and read the text comfortably. You know what doesn’t happen in books … scrolling and readjusting to your eyes to find the reading line again. Which I need to do like every 20 seconds when reading this article.

    Doesn’t help that the site is completely in shambles on FF7 (really??)

    +10
  17. 17

    Hey Scott, I know what you mean about the headers. The drop shadow is encroaching into the text and that does affect readability. I also understand where the others are coming from. I’m just writing to say I thought you handled all this well and the fact that you wrote back and requested documents to read further shows you love what you do and you have respect for the site in general.

    Cheers,

    +10
  18. 18

    Hi,

    I strongly disagree. You simply cannot generalise in such a manner. You should setup personas and test cases based on your target and current markets, if your set of personas does not (and will intentionally) contain anyone over the age of 28 why should your design consider that user secondary?

    Luckily I read this article in an RSS feed reader where I can choose my preferred font. after reading that you had intentionally styled your article in TeX Gyre Schola at 19 pixels I thought I would look at the article in its original format.

    The serif font strong colours and large font gives a childish impression and so it is much harder to take the article seriously.

    Additionally perhaps your lower contrast colour (#444) and hard to read serif font required you to select greater than 16px. Try #000 and a sans-serif font and I suspect that 14-15px will appear a lot more serious and having done so in both a feed reader and this webpage I can assure you it is definitely more readable.

    There are far more complex factors at work than just size and lack of structure in body copy is far more important than larger font sizes in improved readability. You are correct in identifying that font sizes are often too small for specific user segments, however, generalising to the extent that you do is a step too far. Fonts and users are veried and the appropriate design decision is a complex mix of this.

    PS your main heading is highly unreadable, if you changed it from its current:

    48px font size, 40px line height and centre alignment

    to

    14px sans-serif, 18px line height and left alignment

    it would be much easier to read for the majority of users…having overlapping line heights and center alignment is very poor for readability…

    +10
  19. 19

    I think you point at something interesting. The large font make us read it slower and the smaller to just go trough it and not really read it. To enlarge the font was a tip I got years ago when it comes to proofreading as it is to easy to just “skim” it when the text is small.

    +10
  20. 20

    Phil Middlemass

    October 7th, 2011 5:28 am

    With the variation in screen resolutions these day I find it hard to that this kind of research on board.

    Lets look at it like this:

    I have a laptop at home, 15.6″ display running at 1920×1080 = a pixel density of 141ppi

    My wife has a laptop, again 15.6″ display but at 1366×768 = pixel density of 100ppi

    So assuming the default dpi is set in the OS on both machines, my wife’s laptop will display browser text 40% larger than on my own laptop simply down to the resolution.

    Resolution = massive factor in readability for text on screen

    These kinds of articles can only be taken as a guidance, there are too many factors to consider to come to a single conclusion that can apply to all

    16px on my laptop looks OK, bigger than I’m used to, but on my wife’s machine is actually difficult to read, it is all subjective, everyone has a different comfortable reading size because of their respective screen sizes and resolution.

    +9
  21. 21

    What? No, this is not what you should be teaching people. The standard size for font on a browser is 12pt, not 16px. Points are measured in physical units, which means that as pixel density increases, the displayed size will be the same.

    Pixel density used to be lower, which is why everyone uses 12px as their font size. Because when monitors displayed around 72dpi, 12pt, was 12px. Now monitors display around 96dpi, and guess what, 12px * (96/72) = 12px * (4/3) = 16px. Ignorant web designers who did not take the time to understand the difference between points and pixels assumed they were the same because coincidentally, at 72dpi they are the same.

    What you are encouraging people to do is not a solution. It’s the same problem that caused this, which is using a digital unit of measurement instead of a physical one. Once monitors inevitably improve and pixel density increases this problem will be the same again. Also, 16px fonts will look huge on old monitors. 12pt fonts will look the right size forever.

    P.S. Since computer dpi standards aren’t concretely set, the actual physical sizes will vary in practice. 72dpi, and 96dpi are just average approximations that are convenient to use for monitors in those ranges, but the principle still holds, even though it’s not exact.

    +9
  22. 22

    I think in theory it’s a great idea, and would be great for certain situations, but I think to generalise would be a mistake and there’s much more to consider than just the size of font when you’re a designer.

    We don’t tend to plonk a large amount of text and leave it, we use other devices to make it easier to read such as segmenting, highlighting, making keypoints larger etc. In this page the font has proved to be easier to read I agree but wouldn’t work always.

    We don’t often get briefs that just feature the need to have as much text as a book would.

    I’m not disagreeing entirely, I just think the examples used in this piece are slightly biased, and don’t show the situations where it would make websites harder to use. It depends entirely on the website and this idea would be great for things like blogs but would make it especially hard to layout e-commerce and catalogue sites in a user friendly way and still get vital information in without the need to scroll constantly.

    Also a key thing is having easy to use navigation. With increased font sizes as standard your side navigation would constantly be falling onto 2 or three lines which would throw up lots of usability issues.

    +9
  23. 23

    Martin, I am glad that you are pursuing a degree in web development. I am a (young) college professor teaching web design and development, I can say that the number one issue beginning students have when designing web pages is making the font size too big. The article about using 16 pt/px font has some validity, but as with anything in design, there is no rule. Saying that you always have to use 12px is wrong, but saying that you always use bigger fonts could also be wrong. There are too many factors that go into any type of design to say that you should always use *this* for *that*.

    Good luck with your degree!

    +9
  24. 24

    Very good article and an even better message. 16 px is a perfect on-screen size, and more importantly also means that text renders at a relatively legible size on phones & tablets, for sites which aren’t designed responsively or with a mobile-specific version.

    Although I have to agree with others who have said that we ought really to be steering away from px measurements in favour of % or em.

    +9
  25. 25

    Interesting.

    Yet what font-size does Smashing Magazine use on their own site… ?

    :)

    +8
  26. 26

    Cameron Chapman

    October 7th, 2011 4:15 am

    Personally, I think line height and contrast are equally important to type size when it comes to readability. My personal favorite is to start with a text height of 14px and a line height of 24px. Depending on the particular font, I might go up or down from there. But having a line height that’s roughly 1.7x the font size does way more for readability than font size alone.

    +8
  27. 27

    Interesting points, it was definitely very easy to read this article.

    +8
  28. 28

    The first thing I did to read this was reduced the font size down to something around 12 point, then when I got to the comments I bumped the size back up sot that the comments are readable. I think 16 is a bit much, but a 14 or 15 might be an acceptable compromise. As pointed out in the article those that like a smaller font can probably more easily figure out how to reduce display size than those that prefer a larger font. I can’t help but wonder though that for those who override website settings to display fonts much larger than normal if when viewing a page like this they don’t get slapped in the face with 30 point fonts or something similar.

    +8
  29. 29

    Justin Heideman

    October 7th, 2011 9:45 am

    I’m no fan of small fonts, but this article is merely the author’s opinion that less than 16px is costing you money. There is no data to back this up. There is some ancillary data, suggesting that users don’t like small fonts, but that doesn’t correlate into lost revenue. Unless the author can cite a specific A/B test that shows decreased revenue, this article is not very accurate.

    Again, I agree that small fonts are often bad. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as the author states. There’s more to readability than font-size. One must consider the face, line spacing, use of ligatures, etc. Size is merely one tool in the typographer’s toolbox.

    +7
  30. 30

    Just the opposite – the larger font IS more suited to long text. How old are you? (as the article asks) – I actually found the body text of the article easier to scan/read than the smaller text below. AND, his points are valid – I’m so tired of needing to zoom in order to read simple text on web sites (especially some web development sites); AND, the web is becoming so full with alternate sources of information that you CAN read – I’ve just given up on making the attempt. I have found myself completely bailing on 4 or 5 sites a week when I’m confronted with small text. Much more cost effective of my time to scroll down the Google list to a new site.

    +7

Leave a Comment

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic! Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. So, please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name, or it will be deleted. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation instead. Thanks for dropping by!

↑ Back to top