They aren't as the rendering of a website is ultimately always controlled by the client/visitor.
Any website whose semantic is only made of text is infinitely more accessible than another that would use bigger fonts but would include images or content that only render if javascript is activated.
And ultimately, they have every right to make it the way they want.
> Washington Post are using 20px (and those are usually longer reads)
In the full text maybe, I find much smaller fonts than those on computer.rip in metadatas and subtitles.
And yes, the 20px font applies to the full text. I'm not arguing that smaller fonts should be banned, things like metadata don't need to be as large. But the main content of the page should be larger and comfortably readable.
I've been wearing glasses since I was 6 or 7y old.
This true in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense. If you want me to stay on your website, you'd better put in the effort to make it usable and readable. It's not the user's job to design the website, it's the job of the damn website designer!
Besides:
- Nearly if not all desktops allow to scale. If your eyeseight is that bad you should set it at desktop level anyway.
- All browsers and terminal emulators allows one to use his own defined fonts and size.
- Nearly if not all browsers and terminal emulators now allows you to zoom dynamically for that odd website and keep that preference.
- Firefox has reader mode, I guess similar extensions exists for most browsers.
> And given how very simple it is to change, it's kind of insulting, s
Changing by which size? 16px, 32px, 64px? There is no single form of universality regarding eyesight. And I would argue that if your eyeseight is bad, the solution are prescription glasses, not websites with huge fonts.