<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Typographic Literacy: Part Two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/2010/02/typographic-literacy-part-two/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/2010/02/typographic-literacy-part-two/</link>
	<description>Branding Experience Design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:15:15 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Farquharson</title>
		<link>http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/2010/02/typographic-literacy-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-3170</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Farquharson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/?p=3370#comment-3170</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your response, Jeb. I&#039;ve certainly heard of the F-pattern before but hadn&#039;t seen those heatmap examples. Thanks for the link!

Scanning ability I feel is very important on the web, and more often than not is something that is either overlooked or badly executed. I think (aesthetically) good web typography depends on several things…

Font selection and size plays a big part in the overall ‘color’ of a block of text. For instance, Arial is more tightly tracked than Verdana, which tends to be much easier to read at small sizes on screen, the looser tracking prevents it from feeling so ‘heavy’. Georgia is the obvious choice when using a serif font. Lucida Sans/Grande is very readable but often overlooked for web text, despite being available on over 98% of computers (including Mac, Windows and Linux). In print there is a seemingly infinite choice of typefaces, each with their own unique purpose. Unfortunately, the options on screen are limited to a select few.

Leading and paragraph spacing are also very important. I&#039;ve seen so many websites use 11px Arial with 14px leading, which produces a very dark block of text. There is almost no separation between lines of text and the eye can get lost during left-to-right scanning. A default paragraph break tends to insert too much space between paragraphs, causing an interruption to the flow of the text.

I find the biggest obstacle to easy scanning of text is column width. Our blog uses a 435px wide main text column, narrow enough to minimize left-to-right eye movement. With a wide column (and especially with tight leading) the eye can get lost and skip lines, particularly when moving from the end of one line to the start of the next. Newspapers do this really well, often limiting the word count on each line to 7 or 8 words. Obviously this doesn&#039;t work online without having a huge scrolling page, so some middle ground has to be found here.

Of course, nothing trumps well-written content!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your response, Jeb. I&#8217;ve certainly heard of the F-pattern before but hadn&#8217;t seen those heatmap examples. Thanks for the link!</p>
<p>Scanning ability I feel is very important on the web, and more often than not is something that is either overlooked or badly executed. I think (aesthetically) good web typography depends on several things…</p>
<p>Font selection and size plays a big part in the overall ‘color’ of a block of text. For instance, Arial is more tightly tracked than Verdana, which tends to be much easier to read at small sizes on screen, the looser tracking prevents it from feeling so ‘heavy’. Georgia is the obvious choice when using a serif font. Lucida Sans/Grande is very readable but often overlooked for web text, despite being available on over 98% of computers (including Mac, Windows and Linux). In print there is a seemingly infinite choice of typefaces, each with their own unique purpose. Unfortunately, the options on screen are limited to a select few.</p>
<p>Leading and paragraph spacing are also very important. I&#8217;ve seen so many websites use 11px Arial with 14px leading, which produces a very dark block of text. There is almost no separation between lines of text and the eye can get lost during left-to-right scanning. A default paragraph break tends to insert too much space between paragraphs, causing an interruption to the flow of the text.</p>
<p>I find the biggest obstacle to easy scanning of text is column width. Our blog uses a 435px wide main text column, narrow enough to minimize left-to-right eye movement. With a wide column (and especially with tight leading) the eye can get lost and skip lines, particularly when moving from the end of one line to the start of the next. Newspapers do this really well, often limiting the word count on each line to 7 or 8 words. Obviously this doesn&#8217;t work online without having a huge scrolling page, so some middle ground has to be found here.</p>
<p>Of course, nothing trumps well-written content!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeb</title>
		<link>http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/2010/02/typographic-literacy-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-3164</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/?p=3370#comment-3164</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the post Joe, some great guidelines here. 

I would be interested in your thoughts on writing for the Web.

I was a little surprised how dense the text was on these typography blogs- particularly the first one. I&#039;m sure you are familiar with &quot;F Pattern&quot; reading (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html) so I&#039;m curious what your thinking is on typography for the Web.

Do you have any theories or suggestions on how to make web content &quot;scan friendly&quot;? Or do you feel that the &quot;scan&quot; trend in Web typography is misguided or has gone too far?

Look forward to your response.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post Joe, some great guidelines here. </p>
<p>I would be interested in your thoughts on writing for the Web.</p>
<p>I was a little surprised how dense the text was on these typography blogs- particularly the first one. I&#8217;m sure you are familiar with &#8220;F Pattern&#8221; reading (<a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html</a>) so I&#8217;m curious what your thinking is on typography for the Web.</p>
<p>Do you have any theories or suggestions on how to make web content &#8220;scan friendly&#8221;? Or do you feel that the &#8220;scan&#8221; trend in Web typography is misguided or has gone too far?</p>
<p>Look forward to your response.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
