16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by michaeledge on Friday October 07, 2011 @08:01AM (#3083577)

Personally I'm a fan of bigger font sizes. Interesting though that Facebook actually reduced their body copy down to 11px, and apparently they are doing pretty well ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by brandonkshepard on Friday October 07, 2011 @08:47AM (#3083707)

Definitely also just had mentioned the same thing before reading this. But do you think that they should increase their size? I often tend to look closer to read posts and also just followed their font sizes in a similar project =\

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by tomkinstinch on Friday October 07, 2011 @09:11AM (#3083774)

Does the median Facebook user have younger eyes than the rest of the web?

A counterpoint: NYTimes.com sets their article paragraph font size at 1.5em (with a roughly equal line height).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by lukeschlather on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:50AM (#3084213)

I'm 24 and I still even zoom NYT (though that may be just so that the article fills my view.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by dalore on Friday October 07, 2011 @08:55AM (#3083728)

I think facebook has more going for it than the fontsize.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by danso on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:37AM (#3084167)

Facebook also has a lot more elements (basically, images) to deal with than an average website with significant lengths of (narrative) body text.

[ Parent | on HN ]