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?
- 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%.
- Nearly 9% of Americans are visually impaired, meaning their vision cannot be completely corrected with lenses.
- 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?
- 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!
- 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:

- 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.
Tweet

Brett
October 10th, 2011 4:31 amGood points, I will think about this on my next web project, maybe even on my personal site.
Maykel
October 10th, 2011 6:33 amPeople here fail to understand what this article is all about. Sometimes what we like is not entirely the right thing to do. I don’t understand why he advocates on using 16px while using 19px, however; I think he is in the right path. I quickly moved to change his styling on my browser to convert the font to 16px and immediately it became easy to read and it felt like reading a newspaper at the distance and screen resolution I’m using. I do agree with some folks that the width of the lines is a bit too short as I found myself jumping the lines too quickly. In my personal opinion the font size is dependent on the font itself and what you want to accomplish. He was right to say designers follow other designer’s path and all becomes a trend of acceptance. I think if you follow the trends you can be a good designer, but if you set the trends you are great designer. That in my humble opinion set the difference between us the mean design community and those who are famous making millions every time they lift a finger.
LSF
October 10th, 2011 6:38 amOliver Reichenstein is many talented things, but he’s not a usability expert.
Alberto Restifo
October 10th, 2011 6:40 amWoow….
I never thinked to design a website with 16px as minimum size…
Actaully, it looks very big… But it’s also true, that you wrote down a really god list of reasons to use 16px instead of 12px.
Ok, I will try to develop a 16px website.
Steve
October 10th, 2011 7:01 amI really like this article because I think it’s about time we rethink “standard” font sizes.
Debate all you want about the minutia of font size being dependent on screen size and resolution, but I think it really boils down to this: screen resolutions are increasing in all devices. Being able to cram more pixels into the same space means that the 12px body copy of yesteryear ‘s 1024×768 15″ laptop monitor will look proportionately smaller in the same monitor rocking 1680×1050 (or more) today.
Now that I think about it, maybe we’d be better off using a more fluid measurement system like em or percent.
José Luis
October 10th, 2011 7:48 amAgreed.
I relocated and sadly left my 1680×1050 20.5″ desktop for a 1920×1080 15.4″ laptop and there is a notable number of sites that I have to zoom in because they are completely unreadable. As screens grow on density (but not necessarily size) small text sizes are going to become a serious hindrance. Even new smartphones like the Nexus Prime, Samsung S III or HTC Sensation XE show a ridiculously high dpi density on a 4.x” screen, which, if any, will only aggravate the problem in the future.
I’ve had sight problems in the past and always been fighting against this “design trend” of ridiculously small font sizes. When I (re)designed my blog I struggled to not use a small size and after some testing at 14px finally set it at 15px. Might be interesting to change to 16px, after all it’s the default at every single web browser for a reason.
Also, as important as the text size is the distribution of the text. I have a small cheatsheet on my corkboard:
- line height ~= body * 1.5
- line length / line height ~= 25 to 30
- 55 to 75 chars per line
- 10 to 15 words per line
And lots of whitespace everywhere.
JJ
October 10th, 2011 7:35 amThis is a really helpful (and timely!) post for me. Especially as I’ve been having to keep mobile environments in mind with recent web design work. The one thing I take issue with is the following and similar comments in the article:
“Web design is not about what designers like. It is about what users want and what will best achieve our client’s goals.”
It’s just not productive to think of designer preferences and monetary goals as being mutually exclusive. That sort of idea only pushes designers further away from your initial theory by then equating the use of a 16pt font with a result that is automatically not aesthetically pleasing than therefore a design blight.
There are excellent examples of using large size type (in both web and print) so this idea is merely a good challenge to break a longstanding habit/trend of using slightly illegible fonts so frequently.
Pavlos Linos
October 10th, 2011 7:54 amThis was a very interesting read, both the article and the comments.
I can’t say that I agree 100%, meaning that I don’t believe that one size fits all kind of logic.
Of course we want people to read and understand our copy, but bigger font-size doesn’t necessary means easier to get. Surrounding elements, color contrast, white space etc play a big part.
Personally I don’t like small font-size, by small I mean 11px, but I believe that depend on the font, 12px-14px content is usually easy and comfortable to read.
Clark
October 10th, 2011 9:21 amI agree that this font is much easier on my eyes. How about also making the left and right margins smaller so my eyes changes line less often?
Michael Dunbar
October 10th, 2011 9:32 amI commend you for trying bring the focus of designing for the web to be the content itself.
I agree guidelines are generally a good thing, but in this case I’m not convinced a 16px rule could be applied unless you assume the use of a particular font.
With regards to the comments on making typography responsive to the device it is being viewed on… media queries are your friend.
LucidGal
October 10th, 2011 10:14 amUgly is ugly…haven’t seen that headline font used since, oh, 1980? Lots of good info in the article, but it’s too long by half or more. People will read online if the subject is interesting. Leading (the space between lines) affects readability tremendously…12 pt type with 18 pts leading is easier to read than 12 pt type with 12 pts of leading. As for the line length, shorter is better. The eye begins to get tired at about 36 characters.
karleen hubley
October 10th, 2011 10:25 amThat was great. And, it was easy for a non techie like me to put into action by sharing with my web master, if I dare.
Most of my customers on-line are middle age woman and it is time to help their eyes as well as help their horses:)
Yes, I hunched over when I read the bottom piece in 12.
Thanks to Chad Mandal for tweeting this.
Clark
October 10th, 2011 11:58 amWhat about auto zooming the whole page as an alternative to enlarging fonts?
http://clarkli.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/auto-zooming-browser-for-better-accessibility/
Wendy Walton
October 10th, 2011 12:31 pmAt last someone else thinks the way I do!! Great article – keep pushing the point. I get very frustrated with small font – and Yes, I am slightly older, but still want to enjoy the web – without feeling tired trying to read small blurb.
Joe Jollands
October 10th, 2011 12:44 pmNot that this article needs another comment but you really should have used 16px while making your argument.
Darren
October 10th, 2011 4:54 pmI wonder how many people use their computer on a desk that allows their eyes to be 28 inches away from their monitor and still use their keyboard and mouse in a comfortable fashion? In the real world, where people’s desks, office and study spaces don’t allow that sort of distance, 16px is too big. At average screen distances, the equivalent would probably be 13-15px.
Okibi
October 10th, 2011 4:55 pmDesign fail. This page doesn’t have a default page color set.
Elliot
October 10th, 2011 8:02 pmAre you gonna be ok?
Okibi
October 10th, 2011 8:53 pmYup, fine. You?
Okibi
October 10th, 2011 5:09 pm“16 pixels”, at what resolution?
Elliot
October 10th, 2011 6:05 pmYou certainly make some good points in this article. It was a great read. I don’t exactly agree with you on everything but it is definitely food for thought.
I found the 19px font size a tad too big. I dropped it down to 16px and found it more acceptable and readable. This being said I am 24 years of age and you did mention that the older you are the less light your eyes let in. So perhaps 16 is the ideal pixel size for me.
In terms of increasing font size in the browser, I certainly don’t think it is up to the designer to create a site that some how magically is the best for every user. There will always be some give. If someone outside your demographic does happen to come across your site they should be able to use it perfectly regardless of how you built it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they site should be built for them.
Anyway, great article :)
Elliot
nelson
October 10th, 2011 8:28 pmNice article. question. When you tested this, which screen resolution did you try? I find that at 1024×768 which in the main site I work on is a good 40% of our users 14px, 12 depending of the fonts works well. This is after a user focus group, but after reading this I will test this further.
Mike
October 10th, 2011 9:55 pm“16-pixel text on a screen is about the same size as text printed in a book or magazine;”
That statement is so hilariously flawed I don’t know where to begin explaining everything that’s wrong with it.
Kaushik Panchal
October 10th, 2011 11:03 pmPoint proven very well, M going to change my portfolio’s font size to 16px or more :)
Matthias
October 11th, 2011 12:13 amWhat about wikipedia? Text is definitely smaller than 16px but very well readable.
jkregala
October 11th, 2011 12:30 am16px, yeah probably, if the aim for the website is to make it look like a children’s book.
Palle Zingmark
October 11th, 2011 1:01 amInteresting discussion and I totally think that 10-12px is just way too small. But personally, I think that 16px is too big .. it actually takes me longer to read a long text sized 16px, versus a size of 14px. I’ll have to move my eyes a lot more, for the same piece of text, when it is so big.
I guess it differs a lot from person to person if 16 really is the ultimate size (age, vision problems, etc.), but that a text size should be greater than 12px, I think we all agree on.
Note: I’m 34 and use glasses.
Martin Barker
October 11th, 2011 3:22 amYour wrong even by your pictures most users now have a widescreen monitor as such web sites are not confined to the space of 1024 by 768,
As me and most designers of web sites we build a site at 1000 PX wide witch means there is plenty of room to zoom the site and it not break a design,
What your doing is saying building for Accessibly of all user is bad and building for the minority is good well your wrong build a site to work with zoom (all browser have) and your fine as user will just zoom the site that are having problems reading
Jordan Moore
October 11th, 2011 4:04 amWhy not 1em (which usually equates to 16px)? Style relatively to the user’s default browser setting for what they feel is most comfortable.
Let your design respond to their needs.
Chris Gillis
October 11th, 2011 5:37 amWouldn’t it depend on the font you are using? There are plenty of fonts that display in different sizes in the same pixels.
Sorry if this was mentioned in the above comments (not reading all of them)
Ryde
October 11th, 2011 5:41 amDid anyone else experience that the text in the article felt annoyingly big?
The statement “at 40 only half the light gets through to the retina as it did at age 20″ is bull***.
And you cant compare fineprint to screen size.
Adeel
October 11th, 2011 5:59 amI still would say, yes! you’ve raised very good points but still can’t be done for all web designs. it’s good in many cases but not all.
Frank Wehrmann
October 11th, 2011 6:01 amI agree with the spirit of this argument. Right now I’m sitting using two monitors: 17″ and 22″. I’m 57, do webdesign and strategy all day and am ‘most comfortable’ with 16+ fonts. When I retire to my macbook air or iphone for quick busts of personal work or information I’m working with the technology I craved in my 30′s – when my eye-sight was FAR better. When I do mobile designs I also keep the big type or icon idea in mind.
Paceaux
October 11th, 2011 6:27 amArticle was very good and informative. I’ve already been in the habit of using 16px for font-size – but I always got feedback from clients that the text was too big. I think 16px is a case where usability is losing to trendability.
And to the other points about ems – I agree that it’s best to use ems – not just for font-size but layout, because everything becomes proportionate to the typography, more or less.
Oh, the site flowed much better once I set the font size to 16px through Chrome’s developer tool.
johndoe
October 11th, 2011 7:03 amFunny how the rest of this website has smaller fonts and not 16px. Obviously you don’t practise what you preach.
Yikes
October 11th, 2011 7:17 am“(Command) -” x1
Luke
October 11th, 2011 8:08 amFACT: using Limelight and Impact tightly tracked in red over white for headline are super hard to read. Kind of weakens your argument right from the start. Pretty funny, the entire article itself was very hard to read.
Heidi
October 11th, 2011 9:08 amI think the difference between usability and familiarity pointed out in previous comments sums up the argument over the article. When I first started reading I was uncomfortable with the size of the font. It was unfamiliar and looked just plain bad. But as I kept reading I got used to it. I leaned back in my chair. I started imagining larger fonts on the website I’m currently working on. The idea grew on me and I’ll probably try it out.
There are some points on each side for which I would like to add my two cents.
Zooming: I’m quite young, but still have to zoom in on certain sites to avoid eye strain and headaches. As a college student, I was embarrassed that I needed to zoom. I would imagine that as others grow older and would benefit from zooming, they will feel similarly uncomfortable with this “proof” that their bodies are aging. Zooming may be an admission that we don’t belong on some site, that we aren’t at home there.
Glasses: Some rather rude commenters said that if an individual has difficulty reading then he or she should get lenses. “If you struggle to read 12px font then you obviously require reading glasses or contact lenses and to read without corrective measures would only be damaging your eyes further!” In my case, my prescription perfectly corrects my near-sightedness, yet there are still times when it hurts to read small font. Probably not 12px, but having vision correction doesn’t mean I have super-eyes.
Scrolling: Someone mentioned that increased size means increased scrolling, which is bad and hurts the wrist. I totally agree, but luckily read this article on a large screen. On a similar note, another person mentions reading space. If you don’t have room to lean back from the screen, as I did, then a larger font becomes painful to read and the back button looks pretty enticing.
Michael Clowney
October 11th, 2011 9:28 amGreat Read!
BrianMc
October 11th, 2011 9:35 amSo your argument for larger font size is money. Basically your theory is, if the font size is larger people will read more. If people read more, they will spend more time on your site and or buy your products or service.
You then go on to give evidence as to why this is true. However, all of the evidence you supply is circumstantial at best. Have you done a scientific study to prove your theory true. This would require a website that is currently generating revenue that has 12pt. text. You would then have to modify the text to your recommended 16pt. size and compare revenue for a set period of time. You would also have to take into account the time of year and any special circumstances that might account for the increased revenue.
It would probably be best to test this on several different sites as well. You would also have to measure if time on the site went up as well as compare bounce rates. Another criteria to measure would be the age of the users. How many users over the age of 40 are buying more or spending more time on the site after the increase in font size?
So my point is, you can’t just go and say that 16pt text is better because it’s easier to read. And if the text is easier to read, you’ll make more money. That is a very big jump. What about 18pt. type? Will that make me even more money? What about different fonts? Some are easier to read than others. Will the easier ones make me more money?
In the end, because there is no real evidence to support your claims, this is just your opinion. It’s interesting but still just an opinion.
Tim Holleman
October 11th, 2011 9:55 amGreat thoughts! My dad was always criticizing the font-sizes I used when designing sites as a wee young lad back in the days when IE6 and Netscape were cool. I always thought he was just being old and not in tune with the upcoming age of the internet and the websites designed for it…which, at that time were really using a lot of smaller font-sizes to pack more information into smaller spaces for our 15-17″ CRT monitors. Oh how the times have changed my perception of font-sizes used, even though our viewports have increased dramatically as well as the devices we use to surf.
I very much agree with this article. We use 16px as our font-size:100%; when designing for mobile devices, (phones in particular) and make ems of that base unit.
Tan
October 11th, 2011 10:06 amIm going to give 1em a go for my next wp theme’s body.
As far as the readability of this article, I found it rather easy to read sitting back.
I will never resize text on a website unless the content is very important to me and my goal. Else I would just hit back btn and choose a more readable article.
I always say less is more and keep it simple stupid. to myself. Your publishing content to the web, it is important that the user recieves the appropiate message, no matter how.
Thanks for taking the time to write this article, I learned that I like 16px size.
Andreas
October 11th, 2011 11:32 amI’m thirty and now and I find myself time and again hitting Strg + in Opera whenever I want to read a longer news item. 10px was really cool when I was younger, I even went for 9px just to put more content on one screen. Important text deserves space.
Now I’ll go and try changing the default-templates that I use on posterous and tumblr…
Adam
October 11th, 2011 12:02 pmCompletely agree. I’ve been using 15px since about 2008 or 2009 because I had too many complaints from people having trouble reading my websites (at 12px). After I adopted the standard of 15px, I had literally NO complaints. I now use 100% as my default font size, which, as you pointed out, is 16px in modern browsers. Great read and info! Thanks!
Tony
October 11th, 2011 12:50 pmI’m not a fan of the serif fonts when reading online; I find them harder to read.
I find that font size used for these comments is a perfect size for how I sit at my laptop; the article body is too darned big for me to read comfortably.
And who the hell uses pixels these days? I thought it was all about the ems… :p
Carl Jones
October 11th, 2011 2:19 pmThe line-height should be as important as the font size, and don’t forget ample margins (whitespace). I agree the majority of web pages are hard to read . I am 55 and wear reading glasses but find the text in this article a tad too big for the column width on my 1920×1080 screen. Yes, in addition to font size, line height and margins the length of the line is also important. They all combine to make good typography and thus readability. I think you should have stuck with 16px rather than the 19px for all the reasons I mentioned.
peteski
October 11th, 2011 3:01 pmThis is article is a major fail. It barely mentions other factors which are just as important as font size – line height, font selection, contrast, kerning, line length etc. These have just as important a role to play and it is the interplay of each of these variables which make the art of typography such a subtle and difficult art to master.
Reductive, simplistic and poorly researched.
LucidGal
October 11th, 2011 7:00 pmAmen.
Nigel
October 12th, 2011 10:23 amAll of those certainly factor into legibility and are what set apart a typographer from a web designer. I think the article is a good start but could easily be refined and expanded upon to include the remaining typographic settings overlooked.
Alex
October 11th, 2011 5:50 pmSorry, I couldn’t read this article till the end and the reason is awful typography. IMHO that looks like cheap website copy kind of those selling ebooks “100 ways to get rich fast’.
Just my 2 cents
Marty
October 11th, 2011 8:47 pmThis is almost as ridiculous as trying to prove why it is better to park a car by “backing” into a parking space.
Your article is completely flawed because almost all of the points you make do not apply to computer screens.
- At age 40, only half the light gets through to the retina as it did at age 20. WOW, really? Too bad that has nothing to do with reading on a display. It actually has to do with the aperture of the eye which I would argue does not really translate to how we see on displays. Besides, ever watch a baseball game in 1080p and notice that you can see the people in the stands way better than you could if you were sitting there? Your eyes taking in light does not translate to your eyes taking in light from a display. Your TV would be 25% larger than mine and then people would have to stand back 25% further wouldn’t they. So I have to get a really long monitor to see your entire page or get used to a lot of scrolling. People can actually change the brightness and contrast, maybe you did not know there’s fine tuning like that on almost all monitors these days and the monitors today are a lot better than the old CRTs we had in the early 80s.
- Nearly 9% of Americans are visually impaired. So they can’t read a monitor? Maybe they have larger issues like learning how to change the zoom level on most browsers now with ctrl-mouse wheel. Your point works great for PHONES, not displays. You can zoom the text on a display but you can’t on a phone. So instead of making everyone read like they were 60 why don’t we just use technology that we already have. In fact, we can use 8px and force people to zoom but they would end up with something around 10-12pt depending on the content. Notice I said depending on the content which was missing from your article.
- 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. Hey, as we get older we need to hold things further away, wouldn’t that make print smaller, like regular web sites? I think newsprint is a lot smaller than your example and that has been around for like 100 years before people were using printers in the home and office.
Did you consider types of content and style and formatting? Or should everyone have the same website template as yours? Actually a lot of web sites that try to sell you stuff looks like this. But wait, there’s more… Of course reading = revenue but that does not mean reading 16px is going to guarantee more revenue. I put a web site together with larger font and people hated it. About ten people which I think is enough to have a good sample population, so I changed it back to 12pt.
Next article…, I bet we are supposed to read white on black to reduce glare? That is more natural right?
Ronan
October 12th, 2011 12:41 amI had to sit further back in my chair to read this large type size article.
Why should I design something that forces the reader to not just adapt their reading, but also the way the even sit?
Cedric Sagne
October 12th, 2011 5:09 amSome good points, but other considerations are missing…
Kamran
October 12th, 2011 5:32 amThe comment text is 15px (on FF 7). That is pretty much perfect for me. I didn’t have any issues reading the article either.
It has never been hard for me to read small screens, but I know people who are older than me that keep their resolutions lower than their monitor’s native because it’s easier to read for them.
Also, font size becomes important when you consider mobile devices. I can’t tell you how many times I went to a “mobile optimized” site (even Gawker) and I had to squint to read the text on my Droid Incredible. Make the text bigger for phones! Especially for content articles.
Overall I totally agree with this post. I think you can make an argument (as a designer) that:
a) Content that people should read should be bigger.
b) Content/flourishes that people don’t have to read can be smaller (dates, author bios, etc.)
c) Depending on the font 14-16px is probably just fine for body text.
As with any topic like this, people have varying opinions. Just do what you want for your site and ask your users what they think. Maybe you only target 20 year olds, so keep your text at 12px. Maybe you have a news site, so keep your articles bigger. Do what you need to do to make your site readable!
Craig
October 12th, 2011 7:48 amWhat about user testing? Surely by selecting a pool of end-users who meet the target demographic and carrying out isolated testing would determine whether an onscreen font size is illegible. The target end-user is key to determining the design stance taken with any project.
It is worth noting that different fonts render at different sizes. For example, Verdana is a ‘larger’ font than Arial. Selection of typeface is also key to legibility, along with visual statement.
Kamran has made some extremely valid points above, but, the most interesting one, for me, is how does this recommendation translate to mobile device apps? For me 16px is excessive as a base font size, especially for phone platforms.
One thing that also needs to be considered is that users have full control over browser zoom along with many browsers now having built-in readers.
Good article though.
Zakhir
October 12th, 2011 8:49 amGreat article! Awesome and it’s time to change
Martin
October 12th, 2011 12:53 pmI’m glad I read this, I’m learning web development at college. Our lecturer has told us to use 12xt for body text and I thought that was ridiculous, I have always designed with a bigger font size, at least now I can back up my argument with facts.
Thanks M.
James
October 15th, 2011 5:45 amMartin, 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!
t
October 12th, 2011 2:04 pm@Martin — most professors won’t admit they are wrong, and most have bad information that may have been relevant when they were actively involved in the field 5-10 years ago. take what you can from them, but generally go with what you find from sites like this and from what others are actively doing.
m
November 24th, 2011 1:22 am@Martin – same in every country as it seems – teachers in the area of media, design, programming etc. mostly work with their outdated experiences back then when they used to work in business. Often the students are more up to date then them.
But the good ones of them, the open-minded, can be convinced of new stuff, others are not worth following their lessons (unless you have to..)
Make your own experiences. Reading such magazines as Smashing Magazine or those from the Tuts Plus Network definitely helps you even if you are experienced someday.
Mark Simchock
October 12th, 2011 4:15 pmRe: “Web design is not about what designers like. It is about what users want and what will best achieve our client’s goals.”
Worst than tiny fonts is the fact that this statement still needs to be repeated in (what might as well be) 2012. Font size just happens to be a symptom of a broader disease, yes?
That being said, let’s face it, plenty of us get “direction” from client that is less than ideal (to put it kindly). There’s certainly no shortage of poor design. I’m just not so sure designers are always the root cause.
Mark Boltuc
October 12th, 2011 5:31 pmDoes this advice apply to “web apps”, where there are many screens that have a label+value format?
Lia
October 12th, 2011 8:40 pmGreat article! Thanks! Will do.
jo
October 12th, 2011 9:01 pmnice
ruben
October 12th, 2011 9:45 pmGreat article, I’ve always had designed websites with small fonts because I thought they look better, but this article change my point of view forever!..Thanks
Hang
October 13th, 2011 12:27 amWow, I hardly ever take the time to actual read an article, preferring to scan for info i want. But I actually did read this, perhaps it’s the font size ;)
Great article, now to make the bosses believe.
Michael Guthrie
October 13th, 2011 2:27 amOutstanding article.
Evie
October 13th, 2011 3:28 amGreat article! Why we we get so stuck on what’s the ‘norm’ just because it’s always been like that? This is such a simple solution and not even thinking ‘outside the box’ (as much as I hate that cliche phrase). I thought I was pretty good at stretching the boundaries of generic web design, but this article has ‘pulled me back in’ to reality and made me realise that I need to do more – not just for design but for comprehensibility. Thanks for the inspiration!
Ptah
October 13th, 2011 12:46 pmI noticed this just recently – 16 pixel default. I was always schooled to work in ems, not pixels and wondered when the prevailing logic changed?
Yvan
October 18th, 2011 5:45 amWhy not use “em” as a unit of measure? That is what I use all the time and it makes sense. “Em” is the size of a capital “M” in the browser’s default font. This way, if the user uses a larger font-size as the default in his browser, the text will also display larger in the web page, if the designer took care of using “em” as the unit of measure in his CSS.
Bento
November 23rd, 2011 4:48 amWhen modern browsers switched to using ‘zoom’ instead of ‘font resizing’.
Alan Stainer
October 13th, 2011 1:42 pmVery good article. It’s one of those things that seems so obvious when you think about it as well. I can think of at least one social media site that would do well to take heed, especially with all the silly updates they have been doing recently that have already put people off!
Matt
October 13th, 2011 9:51 pmDidn’t convince me, I didn’t even read past the jump after I saw your horrid line height. I’ve never had to hit the +A -A buttons on a website, so don’t see why I’d change my font size now…
paul
November 13th, 2011 8:51 amYour reasoning is flawed, you should never design for yourself but for the people who use your site. My guess is you are still in your twenties and an experienced internet user. The people who will use your design most likely are not.
Laura
October 13th, 2011 9:59 pmI 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.
Graham
October 14th, 2011 12:25 amInteresting.
Yet what font-size does Smashing Magazine use on their own site… ?
:)
Louis
October 14th, 2011 1:44 amI agree, size count (don’t misquote me)! But to me the type of font weight in the scale. My pace of reading is faster and easier with font like arial, verdana instead of font like the article itself (Times etc…) I agree, size is important but to my point of view, type fonts are also very important for the ease of reading!
Kipp
October 14th, 2011 3:05 pmWhy bother re-writing what Oliver Reichenstein essentially wrote 5 years ago. Nothing new here.
Jordan
October 19th, 2011 7:05 amFor people like me who never read what Oliver Reichenstein essentially wrote 5 years ago.
Mortis
October 15th, 2011 12:02 amWonderful article! Indeed, most designers would rather go for what looks good to them instead of the preferences of their clients. I admit I’m one of them but after reading this, I’ll reconsider. Thank you for sharing this with us!
jfry craig
October 15th, 2011 10:59 ami very rarely bash an article, but this is so off the mark i barely know where to start. there are so many ill-thought out and poorly researched notions that try to support non-factual suppositions.
for starters, i read this article on a tablet where the font size appears insanely small because your site isn’t formatted for mobile and as a result i had to “zoom” in for readability.
there’s a lot more to decent typography and information design than simply stating body font should be 16pt. this article also makes a lot of suppositions like “the users desire to hit the back button”, average user age of a web site and the user’s platform. where’s your data, your a/b testing to show this as such? where’s your data about the average age of a user online? where’s your historical context for why 16pt is the default text size (which isn’t true, by the way)?
if you were really going to enter into a discussion about print, you should have mentioned how those same 40 year old and 60year old eyes suffer from the same issues with the acceptable (due to size constraints, apparently) 8-point font. there’s no reason to segregate this argument for web and print. old people need bigger text, now move on with your thesis. If you want to talk about standardized text and engage a print discussion, then you should at least mention how type setting evolved and how it’s not that different than our current modal div theories controlling contemporary web design
the other point i find interesting is that you assume that all people are reading from a certain distance on a desktop unit. in 2 years more than 50 percent of web content will be delivered over mobile, which you don’t even touch on. this brings us full circle to my complaint that you text wasn’t readable on a tablet, which made me want to “hit the back button” as you say.
this blog, as an example of your thesis, would have lost your client money.
Thomas M.
October 21st, 2011 5:40 amFirst off, it’s not his site and I read it on an iPad without having to zoom (a rarity among most articles on non-mobile-ready sties for this 42 year-old).
Body font is 12pt. for print, you said 16pt. (point) the author is talking about 16px (pixels). And, I’m not sure what browser you’re looking at, but if I load a non-stylized HTML document into a browser, the browsers I have (FF, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc.) all render my default font as 16px serif (normally Times or Times New Roman); seriously, go to preferences in your desktop browser and see what it’s set too (Chrome just says “medium” but all the others give a 16px setting). I also thought the shots between the screen and book were pretty convincing … I also personally can’t stand reading books and magazines with smaller copy size (too much eye-strain) — although I completely understand about printing costs and keeping font sizes small for magazines, catalogs, and books like the Bible (that’s where digital versions that allow you to increase the font-size are so nice).
As for facts, what more did you want (you saw the links, correct)? The distance of a recommended 28 inches is idea of ergonomics (for desktop computing). While I have two mobile devices (phone and tablet), I do the majority of my reading on my 24″ laptop (at a distance (at work) that is approximately 28″ from where I’m typing) — this article was an ideal read versus even reading these comments. As for age … most of my clients are age 30+, thus this article makes a very valid point. I suppose, if you’re aim is at an under 30 crowd, font size could be smaller (and should be mobile ready) — then again, maybe you could provide a link (for your facts too) on what is best (and provide your A/B testing).
As a University professor in Web, Design, and Illustration, I know about typography (history, readability, blah, blah) … And I understand about how there isn’t one “hard and fast rule” and or design can be “subjective” — even in this article the author states that the font chosen determined the baseline … But I believe the majority of my clients (not all mind you), might prefer a base size for body copy larger than 12px. I (for one) am glad to see the changes in such sites as http://www.markboulton.co.uk/ (18px) http://jasonsantamaria.com/ (16px on the front and 20px inside) that both use chaparral-pro … And using http://drewish.com/tools/vertical-rhythm makes testing variations between 16px and 20px very easy.
Although I used to teach 12px should be used for the font-size and 18px for the line-height (since I came from a traditional print background – and thinking in terms of PICA and points), I know much of my future work (and what I teach students) will start with a baseline that is proposed here.
I don’t mean to ramble, and normally I don’t reply to comments, but I just wanted to give you my perspective (2 cents is probably all it’s worth, if that) on the post.
Lisa Tennant
October 15th, 2011 12:47 pmThe article is written from the context that no websites are viewed on hand-held devices. I just finished a unit in my design class teaching students about readability. If we would like to engage most of our users, we could code a button in the site up front for users to make the text larger. It is not a bad idea to try to put in text larger on the web, you set the type size as normal and work off of that in ems — pretty easy. Although smaller text is elegant looking, as truly a visual person as I am, what I see on a page most of the time is a grey box, and then I have to force myself to deal with actual letters and words. So, perhaps we could all go a little larger. I would experiment with testing your sites out with several sizes and users will tell us what they think with how much they visit. It’s measurable.
Bento
November 23rd, 2011 4:56 amWell, you can serve different styles, with their own font size rules, for mobile devices. This article is pretty clearly focused on desktop/laptop readability. I think that’s a feature not a bug.
Zac Bettendorf
December 14th, 2011 6:39 pmWhile I think this article has some valid points, I also agree that it is a case-by-case scenario. I did find this article easy to read, though the type itself was too large to really give credit to the subtleties of characters. I.E. I could read it easily, but the characters were not aesthetically pleasing. On a usability note, it is well established that san-serif fonts are actually easier to read on the web. If one is really striving for readability, they should not use a serif. This article is a bit biased for my tastes, even with all of the good info (not trying to insult!). I think the line is fine, and it should be respected.
Brian Daly
October 17th, 2011 1:06 amThe article was food for thought, but I found it hard to read with the big font and narrow columns. My inclination was to scan as opposed to read and increased amount of scrolling made me lose my place. Someone else mentioned that it looked like one of those “how to get rich” style websites. Those sites work well with big fonts because they are making broad stroke points, and it is easier to see with the big font. But for reading a lengthy post or article I like to have less scrolling, and more words close to each other. I also like to read articles on my iPhone, so I might not be the best example.
Mark
October 17th, 2011 5:43 amVery interesting article, almost had me convinced but then you start thinking about the most used sites on the web such as google and facebook, what size font do they use?
What size is the font on desktop PCS and Macs, program fonts, it’s definetly not 16pixels.
Anastasia
November 30th, 2011 1:57 am“What size is the font on desktop PCS and Macs, program fonts, it’s definetly not 16pixels.” – which is a constant pain in my eyes.
I hate iMacs for their restrictions in changing font sizes for the sake of good looking design. Yes, Windows Large fonts look aweful, but at least I can see it.
I actually second the author of the article. Large chunks of text must be at least 16px big. For examle, as much as I love SM, reading its artcles is always a srtuggle. I do only because I know how good the copy is, but experience leaves much to be desired…
kevin
October 17th, 2011 5:12 pmTotally makes sense. In my blog: adeepbite.com/ , I use TwentyTen Five theme and the default font size is 16px. For blog posts, I feel size 16 is very pleasant to read.
Rob
October 18th, 2011 4:35 amCracked me up. I looked at the 12px text and hunched forward before reading the previous paragraph asking to notice if you hunch forward or not. lol!
Adam F.
October 19th, 2011 6:38 amAbsolutely ridiculous. How is this featured on Smashing Magazine? Everything cannot be a headline. Layout needs structure, not massive text thrown haphazardly on a page with bad typography. Please, no.
Chase
November 16th, 2011 10:33 am16px font-size IS NOT a headline size. Far from it. I associate a minimum of 19px to be sub-heads and and headers are typically 22+…
gryphon
October 19th, 2011 9:29 amhow come u guys don’t follow this on your own website???
ginj
November 1st, 2011 6:14 amright? their base stylesheet style.css is set to .75em and the text in this article is set to 19px and some nutty font. not all fonts are the same size at 1em.
Jurgen
October 20th, 2011 1:49 am16px is ridiculous. This page makes me move 3 feet away from my screen and I still am irritated by the big fonts, big line heights, ugly formatting and endless scrolling. And I have a big resolution screen… What if people with 17-19 inch monitors come here? They’ll click away in a second I’m sure.
Okay, 12px may be a bit on the small size nowadays with the high resolution screens, but 13px or 14px will do fine.
Rob
October 20th, 2011 11:30 amDefinitely a great article. However, one might argue that using larger fonts as gospel could pose visual hierarchy problems with smaller screen sizes or higher resolutions when trying to eliminate scrolling. I usually set my body font to 15px and use a line height of 1em. I find this more than sufficient for readability with large paragraphs of text and it still gives me room to make headers 18px and 20px for slight differentiation.
That being said, there are definitely reasons for using smaller fonts. It’s certainly more aesthetically pleasing, and it can be used as an extra aid for action e.g. if you have and arrow pointing right, placing “Next” in 12px font can be extremely helpful and eliminates the need for your button to accomodate 15px font. If you are going to use 13px for a paragraph (I don’t think anyone should go much smaller than this), try toying with the line height (1.3em isn’t bad) and letter spacing to improve readability.
The underlying theme to this article is that you should be designing the site for the user and the site should accomplish it’s goal. If a constraint is visual appeal, lowering the font size might be necessary. Otherwise, usability and readability should usually be your goal.
dharmendra
October 20th, 2011 9:35 pmI agreed but what when client force to designer to keep the 12px, they might thinking 12px is more professional.
Rob
October 21st, 2011 3:28 amYou haven’t mentioned that a comfortable font size is directly related to the dpi of your screen. As the dpi has been increasing over the years we needed bigger fonts to make things equally readable.
Imagine 12 pixel text on and old machine with a 800×600 resolution with a 19′ screen. It would be pretty big and readable. But the same text on your full HD 1920×1080 21” would be pretty small.
I think the reason for why 12px is so popular is because it was used back in the time when screens had fewer dpi.
Ryan
October 21st, 2011 10:02 amThe problem is here, aesthetics vs usability and what audiences are you catering your usability towards. A standard problem we all face in the interactive industry is identifying the lowest common denominator and how to appease this group. The unfortunate result is, not everyone will get a hug in the end. I do however believe building in tools to increase seamless usability across all audiences is the smarter move. Additionally I also think that users can be guided to utilize browser tools more efficiently then laying the burden of individual use completely on the interactive team.
I think your argument of pixel size is rather arbitrary. The bigger point is, you want to have the large print version of the WSJ available by default. From a design perspective, this means that your typographical hierarchy will have to cascade up and down from this central position. Aesthetically you run the risk of creating a dopey look to your solution which may not be an issue for everything out there but there are conditional applications where this will not fly.
Best advice: Form always follows function, know your audience and know your core goals. Boxed approaches don’t always scale well, the world isn’t black and white.
Danielle Hill
October 22nd, 2011 9:31 amI must say my first reaction was one of skepticism, as I’ve been trained throughout my education and short design career that the text and body copy will be fine as long as they work well with the brand design. And maybe it will be hard to design larger since it’s been ingrained in me to make copy smaller, rather than larger, if it needs to be altered. But as I read your article and thought about all the times I catch myself leaning closer to the screen to read, and while reading your article, I was comfortably reclined in my chair, I was pretty impressed. I think I might need to change some of my digital typography practices!
@KarsteinErfe
October 23rd, 2011 4:12 pmIm new in web designing and I need to learn more. This article just taught me something ‘new’. Thanks!
ePubThis.com
October 24th, 2011 8:45 amWell guys you convinced me. Great article.
Carlos
October 24th, 2011 10:48 amNew to web design but isn’t font size different from one font to the next?
Boray ERIS
October 24th, 2011 1:23 pmI don’t think big fonts look professional on the design.
SoSuanne
October 25th, 2011 6:25 amDesigners struggle constantly with non-designers who don’t believe that making content “look pretty” is important to conveying their message successfully. We’ve also struggled getting the “technical guys” to let us help with creating more useable interfaces for their programming. Now in these comments, Designers are the one’s arguing against the application of common sense.
Personally, I was relieved to be able to sit back in my chair to read this article. I’m not a huge fan of the Art Deco font, but it’s purpose was clear “I’m a headline”.
Someone said “larger text doesn’t look as pretty” isn’t that just an opportunity for us to learn and adapt our design methodologies to embrace larger text? We can build in a visual hierarchy with weight and color in a way that is pretty. And, we should already be developing solid companion mobile design templates or templates that scale gracefully with the mobile interface – one size doesn’t fit all interfaces.
Note: I changed the base font on my blog before posting this comment.
Arnold
October 25th, 2011 10:07 pmliked this one, its about what users want not what we like as a designer great point of view.
Marcus Tucker
October 27th, 2011 3:23 amInteresting article. However, you have shot yourself in the foot by using an even larger font size (19px) than you actually advocate (16px) – this only serves to create the impression that 16px is ridiculously large, because one naturally assumes that you’ve followed your own advice, when in fact you reveal at the very end that the body is 19px instead of 16px. So in fact nowhere on the page do you actually demonstrate what a 16px font looks like in real use (the photos don’t count) – this is quite an oversight! Madness!
B
October 31st, 2011 9:14 amProportions are more important than “size.” Drawing a hard line in the sand is unwise.
In the design of anything, on screen, or in our physical world it is the relationships between elements that matter.
So rather than stating a precise pixel size is right, wrong, or otherwise, it’s more accurate to speak of the elements in terms of context and proportion – and in terms of the intended purposes of the design. Responsive design solutions are based on percentages and proportions, no?
12px may be correct for some uses, 16px in others, as long as the leading and the line length does not exceed a tolerable and legible measure (See Robert Bringhurst’s book “The Elements of Typographic Style” – still relevant even in our digital world.)
Gemma
October 31st, 2011 11:23 pmWeb designers should stop dictating to the end user their “ideal” font size. This can be done by setting the default body font size at 1 em.
What this will do is, if the web designer was smart enough to let the p element inherit the font size from the body element, and if the end user has not set the font size in their browser settings, then they should see body text set at 16px. If the end user has adjusted the font size in the browser settings to suit themselves, then they will see the body copy set at whatever size they chose. This is wiser than expecting the end user to use zoom.
I prefer to leave the default font sizes etc alone in the CSS, and just use a minimal reset to create more consistency. It’s best not to deviate too far away from the browser font sizing defaults for headings as well as other text such as body copy.
End users are being more savvy than they used to, and they should have control over things like font sizing that’s more suited to their needs. Web designers need to change from the old practice of dictating the design to the end user, and adopt the practice of giving up control to the end user and designing with the end user’s needs in mind. No web designer can accurately predict the best font size to suit the majority of their target audience. That decision is best left to individual end users who know their own needs better than any web designer ever could. Stereotyping is not useful in this case.
Kathleen Clohessy
November 1st, 2011 5:46 pmThank you from a woman whose eyes-like the rest of her-are not getting any younger. Although I agree with the commenter before me re: setting the default to 1em and allowing it to default to the user’s choice, the truth is that not all users are that savvy. Many users, in fact, are not savvy at all, and assume that WYSIWYG. period. In other words, they do not realize that they control anything on the page other than whether to close it or not. And close it they will if the font is too small, regardless of how compelling and beautifully written the content may be.
Gemma
November 13th, 2011 9:02 amActually, I wasn’t saying that all users are savvy enough. But, most regular internet users are savvy enough to know that they can change the font size either via zoom or via the browser settings.
So for me at least, it makes sense to set the base font size at 1em. This way, if an user who isn’t knowledgeable about their browsing options views the page, their font size is very unlikely to be too small, provided no-one has changed the browser settings from the defaults. It’s more likely to be 16px which is the default setting in modern browsers.
Santosh
November 1st, 2011 10:40 pmIn the example…
16-pixel text displayed on a 24-inch screen…
16-pixel text displayed on a 15.44-inch screen…
The author compared the physical text with screen text, what is the resolution of the screen? does 800×600 and 1280×1024 look same on 15.4 inch screen?
Why this article body copy in 19px? why an unsupported primary font “Tex Gyre Schola” how many of you have this font? neither its @font type property.
jack caine
November 7th, 2011 6:57 amimho it’s other seo article nonsense, everybody knows that webdesigner has more type of units and only beginners stick with pixels, because pixels are for screen only but css isn’t formating only for screens … i guess all the comments include all my reservations … good luck with gaining more experience, don’t let me stop you writing :D
pants
November 7th, 2011 2:54 pmThis is all well and good, except that I was taught in all my graphic design classes in college that 12 pt text on a printed page was really too big for blocks of text. 10-11 pt was what I was taught to be the sweet spot. According to your math this would put the equivalent px size somewhere around 12-15 px which is…pretty much what I’ve been using in websites.
I am unconvinced.
ReynirHS
November 12th, 2011 6:54 amSantosh — The TeXGyre faces are freely available from the Polish TeX Users group. Schola is a Century Schoolbook.
devlim
November 13th, 2011 8:59 amI agree what this article has say but why smashingmagazine still use 12px :/
Himanshu
November 13th, 2011 10:05 amGreat Article.
Kate
November 13th, 2011 3:07 pmThis article looks like a custom post type: you don’t see any of the standard ads at the top right of the page the way you do on other SM article posts. Therefore, you have nothing to reference the text size to other than the header and footer of the page. This post type doesn’t look like a standard web page, which typically has content on the left and right sides, etc.
The author makes an interesting point, but shows no great examples of how this 16px text is applied to websites. And, on his own site, the text is hardly legible (thanks to decisions on type and color) on my 24″ Mac.
To me, reading text as large as it’s set in this article feels gimmicky, as though the author is working hard desperately trying to convince me of something. Well, that’s true, but the type size is cueing me into that before I even get into the meat of the article, which makes me doubt what’s being said. I’ve seen examples before where copy is laid out like this; it just never feels genuine to me.
Let’s also note that the author is a copywriter, not truly a designer (or at least he’s hiding his portfolio…). B Nonn, if you can show examples of websites (not just blogs) where 16px fonts are applied well, I might be a little more open to this idea. Until then, I remain unconvinced as well.