View Single Post
Old 06-17-2011, 11:51 PM   #9
charleski
Wizard
charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,188
Karma: 727236
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
Actually, I disagree. I fine 1.2em to be too large. I'd use 1.1em.

But, I use a font-size of 95% and a line-height of 1.03em. That works. But where the font size is larger then the body size like h2, I use 1.1em.
Readability is fundamentally determined by word-shape, which means you need enough negative space around the word so that the shape is clearly defined. A leading of at least 1.2em is generally regarded as adequate to provide this.

As I said, this does depend on the font, and you could get by with less if using a font with a particularly small x-height. But it's no co-incidence that fonts designed for high legibilty at small sizes typically have a large x-height and rely on a reasonable amount of leading to provide the negative space needed for shape-recognition.
charleski is offline   Reply With Quote