Timeline for Please revert the line-height change!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2022 at 13:55 | comment | added | einpoklum | Yes, why hasn't this been reverted? @Jeff: W3C does not advocate for that. | |
| Oct 19, 2020 at 0:23 | comment | added | Ollie | Why hasn't this been reverted? It's clear enough your community doesn't like it. | |
| Sep 23, 2020 at 20:27 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove the duplicated word "consistent".
|
| Sep 23, 2020 at 18:15 | history | edited | Aaron ShekeyStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update with additional work and explanations
|
| Sep 11, 2020 at 2:42 | comment | added | Flounderer | @hkotsubo I guess they really really are. | |
| Sep 8, 2020 at 13:06 | comment | added | hkotsubo | Almost 2 weeks has passed an not a single reply from SE (where's the mentioned "researches"? are you really listening to our feedback? Are we going to live with this readability issues forever?). It's a shame that once again they're ignoring community's feedback and keeping the changes, just like they did with blockquotes. I guess they're really "done talking about this"... | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 16:16 | comment | added | Jeff | @user1306322 I find it interesting to note that even the W3C page you linked to, which advocates for 1.5 to 2.0 line spacing, uses 1.4 line spacing. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 10:50 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | This answer would probably be received better if it would explain more about why a larger line height was deemed favorable. It seems that a substantial amount of people like a smaller value better, so a good explanation why a larger value would actually be better might go a long way towards acceptance. | |
| Sep 1, 2020 at 10:43 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @animuson "Stop attacking the research angle while presenting nothing of your own. We're done talking about this." I'm sorry if this has been written somewhere else, but I cannot find any linked research in the original post about this recent change New post formatting. Wouldn't it be good even if only for further reading to add some of the research that this change was based on, so users can not only enjoy it but also get educated? | |
| Aug 31, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | V2Blast | @user1271772: "Is there anyone that likes the new line-spacing that you created (whether 1.6 or 1.5)?" Yes. At least a few people have said so. Rubiksmoose already said as much in response to MaxD claiming "0 [people] say it makes it easier to read" earlier in this exact comment thread. I get that some people don't like the change, but you don't need to use extreme hyperbole/ignore the existence of opposing perspectives in order to argue against the change. | |
| Aug 30, 2020 at 11:49 | comment | added | hkotsubo | I still think the best solution is to add options in user preferences, so everyone chooses whatever they think it's best, and as a bonus SE automatically gets stats about those preferences, which is some kind of "research", btw (I heard you like researches, so why not have one with your own users? Some researches say that's usually a good idea...) | |
| Aug 30, 2020 at 7:50 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @animuson right now the argument by SE is simply “because the W3C said so”. As long as as SE doesn’t actually cite the specific research, I don’t think it is unsurprising that people aren’t convinced by the “research”. You cannot make constructive arguments against research you’ve never seen. | |
| Aug 30, 2020 at 3:29 | comment | added | Illya Moskvin | @animuson Look, this change was clearly based on a W3C recommendation, not on decades of research. The W3C is attempting to provide a one-size-fits-all recommendation, which may not be the right solution for Stack Exchange. Research is more nuanced than that. I'd be interested to see what the research says about readability in the context of technical writing, specifically. Speaking of research, has any user testing been performed before deploying this change site-wide? | |
| Aug 29, 2020 at 14:57 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @Flounderer I don't know if you saw or if it helps, but note the follow up that "we're done talking about this" was only referring to a certain subset of comments bashing the research without bringing anything else to the table. Please revert the line-height change! | |
| Aug 29, 2020 at 11:24 | comment | added | Andrew Leach | @SteveBennett ...which coincidentally has been mentioned before. | |
| Aug 29, 2020 at 10:39 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out that "splitting the difference" would be 1.45, not 1.5. | |
| Aug 29, 2020 at 8:28 | comment | added | user1306322 | One other factor I would like to read up on in the aforementioned but not yet linked to research, is were the study participants previously used to reading content styled the same way for many years, like many of the frequent users of StackExchange. Something makes me think the "novelty" element was not accounted for. So it would probably be better to let all the existing users have a "legacy style" option while all the newly registered users could be harmlessly welcomed by a new style to which they are not used to. | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 13:07 | comment | added | hkotsubo | @animuson I don't want to attack any research, but I guess it's not "true for everyone": meta.stackexchange.com/a/353588/401803 - just saying :-) | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 12:31 | comment | added | yagmoth555 | @MaxD well, to state a positive feedback atleast, for me it’s easier to read on the mobile view, but I cant talk about the desktop experience if it’s horrible, because Im stuck at the hospital atm, but on my small screen phone it’s clearly easier for me. | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 10:15 | comment | added | Luuklag | @MaxD people who are unhappy are more likely to voice there opinion (loudly), then people who are content with something. So I think that is to some extent a flawed argument. Personally I think the comment section is easier to read, then the post body, and guess what line height the comments section has set ;). Also, old habits die hard. | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 8:22 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @animuson I don't want to argue against research. But if vast number of people is telling you that this change is bad for them, then it certainly carries some weight. I didn't have trouble reading old settings, but I do have trouble reading new one. It is especially bad for code. While small sections of text are equally readable with old and new settings, I have real trouble fast reading larger posts. This is detrimental for going through review queues and also for quickly browsing answers and finding solutions for problems. All that will now require more time than before. | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 3:31 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @MaxD Just so you know I've seen multiple people say they like the change better (even though the people who don't like the change definitely seem to be in the majority here) so 0 is definitely an exaggeration. | |
| Aug 28, 2020 at 1:20 | comment | added | MaxD | Whatever any research says or doesn't say, at the end of the day it's the users who are reading this site. And if 150+ users say a certain change makes it harder to read, while 0 say it makes it easier to read, then they probably might have a point? And the change probably might not be a good one? And should probably be reverted? | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 23:53 | comment | added | user1306322 | @animuson can you link to the supporting studies? I'd like to read up on what kinds of reading material, at what font sizes, paragraph dimension ranges, reading duration and intermediately inserted content like code, quotes, illustrations they based their recommendations on. If w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/C21.html this is the source then I find it interesting that on the page it says 1.5 when the initially used value was greater, but maybe it's a different "w3c". | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 22:56 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @hkotsubo We're listening to the feedback we're getting about it. We are not listening to people who are simply stating "the research is nonsense" because that is not constructive to any discussion here. (The comments doing so have been deleted here, but my comment remains to deter people continuing to bash research instead of offering constructive opinions.) | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 22:39 | comment | added | hkotsubo | Lots of people are saying it's harder to read. You should at least take this into consideration before saying you're done talking about it... | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 21:42 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | Psychologists have been studying the effects of text presentation methods on comprehension and speed for decades, and the information presented by W3C is based on that research. Tons of research has repeatedly concluded that information from surrounding lines of text can interfere with reading speed and efficiency, suggesting additional spacing between lines of text is valuable. That's not even just for people with cognitive disabilities, who struggle more than usual. It is true of everyone. Stop attacking the research angle while presenting nothing of your own. We're done talking about this. | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 21:11 | comment | added | user1271772 |
@Aaron, it would be better if you could now change it back to 1.3 or even 1.2.
|
|
| Aug 27, 2020 at 21:03 | comment | added | hkotsubo | Why not simply rollback to the original everywhere (or put this as an option in user preferences, so each one chooses whatever they want)? I think 1.5 it's still too much, specially - but not only - in mobile | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 20:50 | history | answered | Aaron ShekeyStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |