Four years ago, I wrote these words after a blogger that I’d read regularly changed her blog to reverse type (light text on a dark background):
There is a really good reason why reverse type is not used in the print industry except as captions, pullquotes, and short bits of text: It is unreadable in the longer form.
Is there anyone out there who truly doesn’t suffer from eye fatigue after reading a long post on a website that has a dark background and a bright type? Is there anyone out there who doesn’t squint at those horrid Blogger templates that not only put forth tiny, 8 point type, but that disallow the user to increase the type size as s/he wills? Is there anyone out there over the age of 20 who really thinks that a valid reason to design your site with clashing colors is because it looks cool?
This rant is just as timely today. I recently found two new Jewish bloggers that wrote interesting posts, but who I will not read further because their choice of blog design hurts my eyes. Literally. It hurts my eyes. It probably hurts yours, too, but most people won’t complain to the blogger. They’ll simply not come back.
I have more than twenty years of experience in the publishing industry, and I was working in web design at Lucent in the late 1990s. Four years after I wrote this rant, these words are still valid:
Need I point out that a weblog is about communication? You want people to read what you’re writing. Then why make it harder on them by putting the words in tiny, unreadable fonts, or by having a background that all but overwhelms the type? Why give your reader a headache because you think tiny white type on a black background is cool? Why use a template that squishes the type into a small portion of the screen and leaves an enormous amount of empty space on the rest? The vast majority of you are not art directors or web designers; you haven’t the foggiest idea what is meant by “creative white space.” Here’s a hint: It isn’t supposed to be two-thirds of your screen.
You want graphics? Great. You want good design? Wonderful. The web is a visual communications medium. But the type is supposed to be the part that readers don’t have to play games with to view. If you’re writing a weblog, then it seems to me that the writing is what you’re trying to get across–not how neat your site looks. Communication is the key. Don’t you want to communicate more easily with your readers?
There are color schemes besides black type on white backgrounds that are still easy to read. You’ve seen them around. Contrast levels of type to background is the key to using different colors. My personal bias, obviously, is black on white. But there are weblogs that I read regularly that have different color types and backgrounds. Search around for examples if you think black on white is too boring. They’re out there, and they’re readable.
There’s one other reason you should seriously consider your color scheme and type size. I’m not willing to endure eye strain any longer. I’ve stopped reading weblogs that have eye-irritating, clashing colors and difficult-to-read type. If I’m not reading them, I’m not linking to them. And I don’t think I’m the only person out there who won’t read hard-on-the-eyes weblogs. So you’re losing readers, and you’re losing links–which loses you more potential readers. But hey, think of the upside–your weblog looks really cool.
Yeah. What she said. Change your backgrounds, and I will read your site. But my eyes are getting too old for this reverse-type crap.
Oh, how true it is! And you forgot some yellow on blue and all that other eye-burning stuff. People just want to be exotic…
I’m working on a reversed text template just for you.
There is a reason why we’ve been putting dark letters on a light background for a while now right? I’m not in the paper manufacturing business, but I’m guessing white probably isn’t the easiest color to produce.
The reverse stuff looks really cool I think, and if you’re going for a look then fine, but if it’s the look you want what’s up with all the words?
I AGREE Meryl. It gets painful after a while.
While you mention reverse type as unreadable in the longer form I wish a lot of sites would restrict line length to a more readable seven to ten words instead of trying to fill the screen.
Many blogs have made it just that much harder for many to get through so many interesting sites in the time they have.
Comprehension is also suffering; visible from some of the comments :-)
As for backround colour; a light beige with black print was the kindest on the eyes especially for user and client manuals.
Publiuspundit is a nice example of easy on the eyes. While I don’t like Boker tov Boulder’s backround I find it easy to get the points she is making.
Discussing blogs with associates it seems that some of them are starting to drop those they find require too much effort.
Cynic, what browser do you use? Firefox automatically overrules the blog’s text preferences and allows you to increase the text size (which decreases line word length). IE has an option that lets you override the blog’s CSS if you can’t increase the font size.
I find it easier to read a page-width size blog than one long column.
Typography is important, but bad typography isn’t the only thing that makes blogs unreadable. Increasingly, blogs are sucking in so many external objects…ads, stat counters, comments engines, things from photo sites, etc…that the pages take forever to load. More bandwidth at the subscriber end doesn’t help much.
IIRC, many of the early MSM web sites were basically unusable because of performance problems.
I’d like to argue with you.
I’d like to bring up points about the process of printing, and when print was essentially THE media, this was all true.
Ink doesn’t print with a super sharp edge, it bleeds into the stock (paper).
When white print was traditionally made, it was on white paper, with surrounding black ink. The ink ran somewhat and generally made reverse type hard to read. Legibility was founded on type, books, kerning, serifs.. etc.
I think the newer generation has a different level of consciousness, they have different ‘visual clues’, different reading patterns etc..
but dam, heck,
White on black is hard to read.
If you’ve ever tried to read graffiti then you might just get some insight, the rules have changed.
Ignoring typographical reasons, – young people can read ‘fuzzy’ computer screens better.
They’re the screen generation
As for the rest of us? What do we have to look forward to?
Macular Degeneration
As for all those fancy java scripts, colourful logos, animations, flash, videos, etc etc all I can say is
give me band width!
(Flashing Neon gif animations of fluoro text excluded)
Tell me that the average Jewish person isn’t :
An urban dweller
Of higher than average disposable income.
Therefore most Jewish people should have broad band.
Myself, I live REMOTE, 500 kilometres REMOTE
I pay an arm and a leg for a Two Way satellite link, just to have some sort of decent internet connection.
If you don’t have broadband, – read a book.
Thanks for the advice, point taken
Aaron
Bagel Blogger
Am using Firefox 1.5.0.4 and tabbed browsing.
I have to click on (Text Size) or hit Ctrl+ four times, to make things easier on my eyes but on going to the next tab it’s back to square one.
Some sites need even more keystrokes and just to screw one about even more some sites make it necessary to centre the column after resizing.
Sadly Firefox does not have the upperhand when defining fonts as some sites overide my choice. While the magnified font on your site is nice and clean, on some other sites they become almost boldfaced and raggedy.
Aaron,
The average age of the blog reader is the mid-thirties to mid-forties.
Kids don’t read blogs. They IM. They YouTube. They LiveJournal.
They leave the political blogging to the old folks.
I’ll blogroll you even if you don’t change your colors, but I can’t read it unless I get a choice of backgrounds.
Cynic, tell the authors of the sites how hard it is to read their text. You’d be amazed at how accomodating they can be.
Bloggers want readers. They don’t want to be shouting in an empty room.