daniele's avatar
daniele _@dtonon.com 2 years ago
Indeed in the "current" version the line height is too tall. I would offer a preference: * Standard (A), but increasing the font-size ~20% * Compact (C) This way you also please those who want a slightly larger font. The D is a good alternative to C but the space really saved is strongly related to the presence of images, and the left empty space is not so useful.
↑ Parent

Replies (4)

miljan's avatar
miljan miljan@primal.net 2 years ago
That's an interesting suggestion; thank you! Font size will definitely be an option regardless of which layout we end up picking. Having "standard" and "compact" layout options to pick from is something to consider.
miljan's avatar
miljan miljan@primal.net 2 years ago
Thank you! We will iterate further on C. I must say I am not a huge fan of those small avatars, but I see that many people like this design. Maybe @daniele is onto something with his suggestion to offer standard and compact layout options: View quoted note →
daniele's avatar
daniele _@dtonon.com 2 years ago
Yes, the font option is critical for usability and accessibility. Since it is sometimes not so easy to manage it dynamically, mixing it with a couple of static density options is a good move to provide effective options without crowding preferences and complicating development. Otherwise, the classic approach is to have 3 fonts, 3 spacing options and let the user combine them.
↑