![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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
- Sans serif
- Consistent tracking, so that groups like "ill" don't blend together
- Clear descenders
- Optically circular counters
- Larger punctuation marks
- 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
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:
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)