> I don't like the trend of narrower and narrower line widths (It looks bad enough on my laptop, on a 2k screen 700px width would just look ridiculous);
The line length (measure) on that page is about 60 ems. This is much longer than the optimal value for readability, which is 30 - 40 ems.
> Ditto, I don't like the trend of higher and higher line heights - 1.2 is plenty, 1.5 is overkill, this site is 1.7;
As the measure increases, leading (line height) must also increase for legibility, because it's harder to track longer lines with the eye when 'returning' to the start of the next line.
A leading of 1.7 ems doesn't seem unreasonable to me for such a long measure.
For me, type on the web is a lot better than it used to be: tiny type on ridiculously long lines. There are some holdouts though; Hacker News for example.
The line length (measure) on that page is about 60 ems. This is much longer than the optimal value for readability, which is 30 - 40 ems.
> Ditto, I don't like the trend of higher and higher line heights - 1.2 is plenty, 1.5 is overkill, this site is 1.7;
As the measure increases, leading (line height) must also increase for legibility, because it's harder to track longer lines with the eye when 'returning' to the start of the next line.
A leading of 1.7 ems doesn't seem unreasonable to me for such a long measure.
For me, type on the web is a lot better than it used to be: tiny type on ridiculously long lines. There are some holdouts though; Hacker News for example.