On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 23:25:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
1. you don't use a monofont and have to figure out what "cpl"
is in "em"
or "rem".
I'm talking averages.
It varies with the font used. :-P And if you use a webfont the
rendering will be less legible than when you use a screen
optimized system font. So if you want clarity, unicode coverage
and performance you don't know which font you get. :-]
For a given language (English in our case), the relationship
translates into average words per line.
Not necessarily… since groupings aren't neccessarily words. Also,
you don't READ prose in programming documentation like a novel,
if you are a proficient programmer. You scan, backtrack, read,
scan, backtrack, read…
3. quantitative human factors studies that go beyond your inate
capabilites tend to be full of severe methodological flaws.
Uhm...
Uhm what? Large sections of psychology are fundamentally flawed
as a predictive science, it's primarily interpretative.
Measures are contextual. Reading is a skill, you are better at
what you are used to. Besides, reading efficiency is less
important than reading comfort.
If studies are off by 50% then that suggest that there are NO
HOPE of significant results here.
Waste of time.
I doubt it.
You are better off setting something reasonable, test, modify,
iterate. And if needed you can always provide a stylesheet
switcher (takes 15 minute to implement).
