Talk:Large-print

Unreadable

This article can't stay the way it is. If the screen resolution isn't high enough, letters pile onto each other. Nationalparks 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know it needs to be improved, but so far the only way I've found to increase text size within the framework of Wiki is to use section headers, which obviously won't work for this problem. I just tried increasing the text size orginally, but it's almost as if the line height is hardcoded into MediaWiki, so all of the words would pile-up. We need a better solution, and we probably need someone better at Wiki syntax to find it for us. --Cyde 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transactionpub

This editor appears to be advertising itself here, which is "not done." Every edit made by this account is aimed at advertising itself. Ad deled. Collect (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About fonts for large print books

The following sentence in the lead section read: "Among librarians Large Print is defined as print that is at least 16 points in size." This was changed to 18 points citing APH standards. But the APH isn't librarians. The first large print books printed were in 16-point font and stocked in libraries. I think the best thing to do is to take that sentence out altogether. When it was put in there wasn't as much content in the article. Now font is mentioned in the standards. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for a general audience is not insulting

Wikipedia articles need to be written for a general audience, not specialists. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Many people are interested in large print because they need it, not because they are experts in typography. I have restored the explanations in the font section. It is not insulting to have simple language there as the edit summary that removed them said. The addition of wikilinks was welcome though. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit because it unhelpfully restores the imprecise terminology of the previous version (violating the guidance "If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms" and "Don't oversimplify" in the style guide section you linked). Additionally, you deleted the links to the articles that explain the concepts in detail, and I don't think there is any good argument that those don't belong. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, and this section should be addressed to people interested in the typographic characteristics, even when that is at the expense of people whom you assert "need" the information. The section should be encyclopedic and deliver a factual discussion of the typography of large-print publishing, not just dumb it down to baby-talk level -- which is quite frankly what your revision is. I am not a typography expert, but that paragraph was written in a very insulting tone. Please feel free to propose an edit that maintains the accuracy of the typographic descriptions AND includes the links to the articles about the concepts. 184.75.210.198 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your comments. You say: "Additionally, you deleted the links to the articles that explain the concepts in detail, and I don't think there is any good argument that those don't belong." However, as I said above, the addition of the wikilinks is welcome. I still see no reason not to provide more explanation.

The original material was:

Sans serif, without short strokes on the ends of characters

Even spacing between letters, so that groups like "ill" don't blend together

Clear descenders on letters such as "j" and "q"

Circular openings on letters such as "b" and "o"

Larger punctuation marks

You changed it to:

Sans serif

Consistent tracking, so that groups like "ill" don't blend together

Clear descenders

Optically circular counters

Larger punctuation marks

Then I added some of the material back without taking out the wikilinks (or any of your changes):

Sans serif, without short strokes on the ends of characters

Consistent tracking (spacing), so that groups like "ill" don't blend together

Clear descenders on letters such as "j" and "q"

Optically circular counters (openings) on letters such as "b" and "o"

Larger punctuation marks

StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About today's (Jan 5 2021) edit

I just wanted to comment that this article still needs a lot of work, part of that being the more recent research in readability, clarification between readability and legibility, etc. Some notes:

There is not consensus on if serif vs sans-serif are truly helpful or detrimental to readability, it is more complicated than I have time to get into at the moment.

Contrast is not well discussed, but is a part of this as far as readability.

As a rule of thumb, a person needs a font size that is at least twice the size of their acuity level. I.e. if they can see a font that is 12px at a minimum then they need 24px at least for fluent readability.

Avoiding COI

NOTE: I am researching and developing the new standards for readability for web content with the W3.org for WCAG 3 — today I linked to an old (2008) WCAG standard which I was not involved in (and that I do not fully agree with), this should not be a conflict of interest, as it is only a link to the prevailing standard, not to my work.

I do also have, but did not link to, an informal report I authored last year on font designs for accessibility. I also will not link to it in the article, but it is here if you want to review, of course are welcome to include in in a later edit if you feel it is merited. Myndex (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]