
I’m Sick of Tiny, Tiny Type - Jonhoo
http://jxnblk.tumblr.com/post/41796724549/im-sick-of-your-tiny-tiny-type
======
joblessjunkie
And what's up with the growing number of websites which take deliberate pains
to prevent me from using pinch-to-zoom on iOS?

Surely there's a special ring in Hell for those web anti-designers.

~~~
benaiah
While it is inexcusable to do this as a web developer, there is a layout bug
in Mobile Safari to which this is the easiest and sometimes only solution. The
designers aren't disabling zooming because they hate people who zoom, just
because they're inconsiderate of them.

~~~
mikeash
What's the layout bug?

~~~
benaiah
[http://webdesignerwall.com/tutorials/iphone-safari-
viewport-...](http://webdesignerwall.com/tutorials/iphone-safari-viewport-
scaling-bug)

Essentially, when you rotate the device to landscape, it doesn't correctly
reset your view the content, so you end up zoomed in.

~~~
jcomis
It's fixed is iOS6 but here is an additional js fix for this bug:
<https://github.com/scottjehl/iOS-Orientationchange-Fix>

From Scott Jehl / Filament Group

------
gnosis
I use a Firefox addon called NoSquint,[1] which lets me set zoom levels
globally and per-site. It's one of the most useful Firefox addons I have, and
really makes my browsing experience much more pleasant.

I also used to use an addon called Stylish[2] to force a nice CSS style on
websites. I've since switched to using a Stylish stylesheet I like directly
with Pentadactyl[3], which gives me the same effect of using Stylish but
without needing an extra addon (since I'm using Pentadactyl for its other
features anyway).

Using the above combination standardizes the look of virtually every website I
go to and makes it a pleasant experience for me, where both the font sizes,
font colors, and background colors are all quite pleasant and readable.

Unfortunately, this does mean I don't get to see occasionally pleasant
original website designs, but it's a sacrifice I'm more than happy to make for
a painless websurfing experience.

[1] - <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/nosquint/>

[2] - <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/>

[3] - <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/pentadactyl/>

~~~
naner
A simpler solution would be to set the "Minimum Font Size" setting in
Firefox's preferences.

~~~
gnosis
That is indeed simpler, but not nearly as powerful or as flexible.

As far as I know, no default Firefox setting will allow you to impose
different font sizes per website. Also, the setting you mention will change
only the font size, and not the zoom level as a whole (NoSquint can change
either).

Finally, the setting you mention does not affect font colors or background
colors, as the Stylish stylesheet does.

~~~
zanny
With view > zoom > zoom text only, you are just increasing the font size per
site, and it is persistent.

------
lee
I'm glad I'm not the only one who generally surfs the web at 150%
magnification.

I also have decent eye-sight and am 29, so I don't think it's an age related
thing.

Anecdotally, I find reading large text to be a lot more comfortable. I don't
have to strain my eyes to read.

~~~
radicalbyte
The vast majority of sites are designed for horrible low resolution devices -
1366x768 or 1024x768.

When viewed on the screens most people here are using, they're unreadable.

I find that 200% zoom works for Full HD screens (and is acceptable, if a
little big, at 1680x1050)

~~~
tomkarlo
It's this. If you look at the stats on the % of visitors to most web sites,
1280x1024 or 1024x768 (and the non-retina Macbook equivalent) remain the
dominant approximate screen sizes, so developers optimize for them on the
assumption that things will work ok for folks with bigger screens.

I can remember when we used to optimize for 800x600.

------
wamatt
While I too dislike small fonts, I'm particularly rageful of web designers
that _force_ this on the user using _-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;_ [1]

That bit of CSS will prevent Chrome and Safari from allowing the text to be
resized _at all_.

The Facebook Social Comments plugin is one such occurrence, but I see it all
over the web.

 _[1][http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1831922/how-to-prevent-
us...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1831922/how-to-prevent-users-from-
resizing-the-font-on-my-web-site/12263866#12263866) _

~~~
axx
i didn't even know about this CSS function. It's so stupid, unbelievable.

I can only imagine all those Designers that don't want to get their "stunning"
designs getting destroyed.

~~~
kevinpet
I suspect (but am too lazy to research) that it's intended for captions on
buttons and similar non-content elements. Seems reasonable in that context.

~~~
ben0x539
Why is the button not growing when I can't read the caption instead?

~~~
axx
If you're facebook and provide a Like Button, that makes "total sense".

------
chrismorgan
Two comments:

1\. I agree that type is typically too small. Even Bootstrap's 14px default,
while better than the popular 12px and 11px, is inferior to the browser's
default of 16px. Funnily enough, on the website for my new business which I'm
polishing off now, I include no text below 16px. The result? It's always
readable.

2\. I personally _have_ complained of text too large: by default, tumblr seems
to have this utterly idiotic notion of treating my 10" Android tablet (with
Firefox as the browser) as a mobile browser, applying some extremely strange
mathematics and winding up displaying massive text, with a line-height of
almost an inch. This results in a page that on my laptop fits in one screen
(to be fair, at 16px it'd be a page and a half) taking a couple of dozen
screenfuls, with my finger needing to work overtime scrolling. All this in
spite of the fact that the laptop's viewport's physical size is less than
double that of the tablet's. This article's site is one of an extreme minority
that don't break on my tablet. Many WordPress blogs are also tedious; I have
come to _hate_ WPTouch. (Admittedly, I don't have a phone, so I don't know
exactly how it affects the experience there, but far too many sites on the
Internet treat a tablet as a third- or even seventy-ninth-class citizen,
actively destroying their site for some reason.)

~~~
sivers
Ah! Thanks for mentioning this. I thought the Tumblr massive-font-size thing
was just my Galaxy Note.

In a year of using a large-phone / small-tablet, the only site the gets it
wrong is Tumblr.

------
DanBC
People keep talking about px. Mac and Windows use different DPI thus a
reasonable size on one will be too small on the other.

Don't set a font size. Set anything that needs to be set relative to that; H1
is 200% bigger etc.

You have no idea what monitors people are using, nor what dpi they have, nor
what resolution they're using, nor what fonts are on their machine.

Everyone can scroll. Not everyone can hit ctrl +, or install extensions like
readbility, or install client side CSS.

------
snogglethorpe
I'm sick of tiny, tiny type too, but not in my browser....

Rather, almost all modern video games seem to have huge amounts of _insanely_
small type, that's in many cases _literally_ unreadable on my TV because I
have a smallish (20") olde-style CRT television with only analogue inputs, not
a wall-sized HDTV. The pixels in the characters are blurred into
unreadability—even putting my nose 10cm away from the screen and using a
magnifying glass, there's text which _cannot_ be deciphered (seriously, I've
tried this).

This is particularly bad with CJK text, because it has more fine details, and
especially for CJK text translated from English, as they typically don't
increase the character size enough to compensate for the differences (I guess
they're trying to re-use the same layouts).

I find it hard to believe that even those people who _do_ own wall-sized HDTVs
are comfortable reading much of this text, because people generally sit fairly
far away from their television. I suppose it's a sign that video game makers
are designing for the PC, and then doing a very poor job of adapting for
consoles ....

~~~
illuminate
Text simply doesn't work very well with SDTV resolutions. You could always use
a monitor instead.

~~~
Kronopath
Text on an SDTV worked perfectly fine through to the PS2 days and on the Wii.
The problem is that nowadays with HD consoles taking the forefront, developers
are all targeting HDTV resolutions, leaving SDTV users to deal with the
unreadable text size.

------
Cushman
Put me in the opposite camp: I'm young and nearsighted, which means my close
vision is very good. I usually read HN on my iPhone at min zoom, and I find it
really frustrating when mobile sites helpfully won't let me zoom out to read
more than a paragraph at a time. (In fact, I found hitting ⌘- a few times made
this post much more readable.)

~~~
dredmorbius
Your complaint is really the same: designers are imposing their will over
users, in a manner which ultimately negatively affects user experience.

I find myself frustrated in both directions: sites whose default font is too
small (and isn't resizable), and those whose default fonts are too large, and
non-resizable. To say nothing of color choices which negatively impact
readability.

------
Jonhoo
In general, web developers (and the designers commandeering them around) need
to stop resetting font sizes on body {} or something similarily silly. The
default browser font size should be the base value, and all other fonts should
simply be bigger or smaller by some factor. In an ideal world, people would
also start using ems instead of pxs for media queries, but alas, we probably
won't see that for quite some time.

~~~
cylinder714
This ought to be stapled to the forehead of every web designer and programmer
(and client!) in the world.

------
vbl
16px is the new minimum. You START there.

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-
co...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-copy-
anything-less-costly-mistake/)

------
aw3c2
Counterpoint: On a 22", 1680x1050 screen, the text on that website is way too
big to be comfortable to read.

I wonder how many comments here are from desktop machines, which ones are
notebooks or tablets.

~~~
kevinpet
I don't personally find it too big to read, but I will go out on a limb and
propose that if the main goal of your site is to provide text content to
readers, don't set a font size at all.

Unfortunately I don't know of any way to get a mobile browser to display at a
normal size. It seems that both Android and iPhone are configured to use
microscopic text as default to guarantee a desktop-like layout.

~~~
benaiah
Their default text size isn't that small, it's just that they render pages to
a larger surface than then display by default, in order to avoid breaking old
sites. This can be avoided by adding the appropriate meta tag to the site, but
that has to be done by the developer.

------
runemadsen
True. But I'm also sick of your giant, giant body font. Fluid layouts are
especially bad at this, to the point that I need to resize my browser window
every time I load a page, to make the font smaller.

The body font on - for example - this blog is way, way too big for me. My eyes
hurt by reading it. I would make it 2px smaller and give it better line-
height.

~~~
drharris
Agreed, and I'm surprised there aren't more of us. I don't advocate for 12px
font sizes, but somewhere around 14 is probably correct. 16px is typically
absurd. I wasn't even able to finish reading this blog post because it hurt so
bad. Maybe if my monitor was another foot back or so, but unfortunately I'm in
the common position of a cubicle with limited desktop mobility, so that's not
an option.

Really, I find myself just not reading any site with absurdly big font sizes,
or absurdly small. Keep designing for that 60 year old market if you want, but
you're alienating the younger demographics.

------
abcd_f
The opposite of one man's "tiny-tiny" is another man's "10 lines per screen"
in humongous "screw-you-,-i-have-a-retina-mbp" designer typeface.

The solution is there, but it's not working. The CSS 'pt' size measure was
supposed to address this exact issue, but in reality it doesn't. "Reality"
being the most of Windows world that still runs at 96 DPI (dots-per-inch),
regardless of whether one has 1080 scan lines on 12" display or 768 - on 20"
one. What's twice as unfortunate is that Windows added mainstream support for
higher DPIs starting with Vista. So, in theory, if I were to get a high-res
laptop, it'd come with a manufacturer's .inf that sets my DPI to 120 _if_ my
display is physically small. In practice - na-da. I've seen this done only on
selected ThinkPads, but that's it.

~~~
Jonhoo
The real solution here is to base all font size calculations off the default
font in the user's browser (which the user can change). If everyone did this,
you would be able to enjoy a consistent font size across most sites. It will
probably never happen though.

I just wish all sites used something like the CSS3 rem (root ems) unit so we
could at least make it a bit easier for the user to have a say in the font
size the site uses.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Ohh, thank you so much. I knew of the upcoming viewport-dimension-relative
units, but I never heard of _rem_.. I already use _em_ wherever I can, but
that sometimes can get a bit hairy when nesting lots of things, so I often
wished something like this existed without realizing it does. Thanks again!

------
andmarios
I strongly disagree. Provided you have a properly configured system (correct
DPI settings), anything above 14-16 font size is large and anything below 9-10
is small.

You have to code your site for the norm and not for the outliers.

There are times I like to sit back and surf, about 0.75m away from the
monitor. In this case I just adjust my browser's zoom level.

~~~
driverdan
This is the point the author seems to be ignoring. Most users don't have high
res displays. Your font size should work well for the majority of your users.

------
evo_9
I'm curious if any other HN readers set their browser to 110% for this site
because I do, I find it a lot more readable.

~~~
micampe
yes, and HN is especially bad on mobile because the bad antiquated html code
prevents mobile browsers from optimizing it a bit.

------
GavinAnderegg
At the beginning of my current gig I was a one-person web development shop
inside a larger agency. The agency has a team of quite talented print
designers who would often be tasked with providing designs for web projects.
Every single time I got a design from one of them it would contain impossibly
small lorem ipsum. I would make it bigger during implementation, often
resulting in comments of me "messing up the design", or having the type look
"goofily large".

One of the primary reasons for the small type, I learned, was that they were
used to seeing type set on an 8.5"x11" page. If you open up a magazine and
hold it as far away from your face as a monitor would be, you'll see some
pretty small type. They just wanted the web to work the same way.

------
GIFtheory
The real problem here is column width--magnifying doesn't help if the column
width is screwed, but it seems nobody gets this on the web for some reason.
Why, in 2013, don't people understand that really long lines of text are
difficult to read?

------
bionsuba
Its funny that I am currently viewing this page after pressing command + a
couple times because this site is guilty of this as well.

~~~
Posibyte
I know how you feel. I'm partially sight-impaired. I don't necessarily try for
larger text in the OS itself (I'm using OS X at the moment, and the text is
"just right"), but on some websites I feel the need to constantly zoom every
time I visit.

I'm using HackerNew[1] right now, which gives a larger text layout, but is
also a bit more flexible when I zoom in. I hope that helps a bit.

[1]:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hackernew/lgoghlnd...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hackernew/lgoghlndihpmbbgmbpjohilcphbfhddd)

------
DanBC
I like massive fonts. This blog's font is about the right size.

The other thing I don't like is Helvetica Neue in a very light weight,
especially if it's grey on bright white.

Readability and others fix the problem, but it's weird that some designers get
this so wrong.

------
B-Con
While this is completely true and by far the more prevalent problem, I also
dislike the other extreme, large fonts on a narrow layout. I don't see why you
need a layout (for a desktop) that only manages to put 7 words per line.

------
MatthewPhillips
I don't get it either. I'd like to hear from a designer on why this ever
happens. I used to work with a designer who set h2 to 11px. Boggles my mind.
Does tiny type look better? I honestly don't get it.

~~~
rjvin
there are a few reasons I can think of to use tiny type. For one, designers
who are used to print might not understand that things should be bigger on the
web, because you generally read websites at a further distance. Second, most
fonts aren't designed for screens; and thus don't look good at larger sizes.
18pt for a font designed for body copy in print can be jarring sometimes.
Lastly, and this might sound silly, but smaller type leaves more room for
other stuff. Some people think scrolling is a pain.

------
geuis
I wish I could get a list of every web developer in the world and mail them a
copy of this in a holiday card with a cookie attached.

I'd like to see a report that has the age curve of internet users, a
projection of that curve over the next 20 years, and that curve in relation to
the average decline of eye sight over time.

My hypothesis is that given the declining birth rates all over the world, most
users are going to be older and therefore have worse eyesight than younger
folks.

Make your fonts bigger!

~~~
visarga
> Make your fonts bigger!

Within a 600px vertical column with 150% line spacing. With gentle contrast.
Please.

Or at least test your site on all the big article reformatters.

~~~
driverdan
600px? Are you using a 1024x768 monitor from 2000?

~~~
Jonhoo
Depending on the font size, 600px gets you pretty close to the ideal of 50-75
characters per line: <http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability>

------
evincarofautumn
“More times than I’ve heard them complain about fonts being too large—wait,
I’ve never heard a user complain about that.”

For what it’s worth, several people at my office _do_ complain that they can’t
read my display because the text is often too large (~18pt) for their comfort.
I don’t have vision problems, but would prefer not to strain my eyes any more
than necessary.

------
AJ007
When I open a print book at the typeface is large, I know I'm either reading a
children's book, the elderly version, or something from an author attempting
to hide his lack of content.

Certainly I am not the only person who finds large type font hard to read and
obnoxious?

If small font is giving you a headache you probably need a better monitor or
glasses.

------
kimmel
Yes to this article. Using small fonts on a website makes too many bad
assumptions about the audience.

~~~
huhtenberg
The problem is that using large fonts on a website makes an equally bad batch
of assumptions.

------
jiggy2011
The tiny type thing doesn't seem to be such a problem as it used to be. In
fact I often find the reverse problem of sites with type so big that it
prevents much information fitting on the screen. The early 2000s where
everyone used 8pt verdana seem to be behind us.

~~~
flogic
I regularly have my zoom set to 150%-200%.

------
Terretta
> _Sometimes I’m on my computer, and Reader doesn’t work on your web app. I
> hit CMD + two or three times... then the layout falls apart._

In ML, in Safari, double tap a text column with two fingers. It will zoom the
text to fill browser width, just like the double tap with one finger on an
iPhone or iPad.

The browser will zoom into that column without changing layout, and then re-
render the page to make the text full resolution. Scroll will be lightly tied
to the newly zoomed column.

Double tap with two fingers again to zoom back out to full page width.

Still, agree with the premise. Designs should anticipate text size of
"content" areas being changed by the user, and the layout should support
reflow of arbitrary text size changes without breaking.

------
visarga
I use "Readability" in Chrome, "Reader" in Safari Mobile, and "Readability" on
AlienBlue for reddit. But the best is when I also use the "Alex" voice on Mac
OS to read the text aloud. That's how I read nowadays.

Small fonts on mobile devices are a curse.

------
axelfreeman
I read Hacker News with 150% zoom. It's the same thing.

------
shurcooL
Personal preference ahead.

I love small type. I love dense information. I prefer the dense gmail layout
over the "comfortable" one with huge fonts and gaps between text.

I really dislike how text got larger and more spread out in Windows 7 over
Windows XP. I dislike how huge the fonts in Ubuntu are out of the box. It
makes it nearly impossible to have even 2 apps on a 1920x1080 screen without
them overlapping each other.

------
majormajor
One of my favorite things about Mac laptops has long been the lower DPI (72 vs
96 for Windows, IIRC). Fonts rendered smaller, and I could fit more of it onto
a small laptop screen. But I guess I'm in the minority on this, and MS had it
right all along.

Except now people are making more and more sites on Macs, with text that I
find overly large whenever I'm on a PC. Sigh.

------
jvzr
I can only vouch for this. Until I had to get glasses, I didn't mind; I have
been zooming in ever since.

16px is a minimum, IMO.

------
aranjedeath
I refuse to write anything with less than 18px default font size, for this
very reason. It's so infuriating when text is small. I have silly old screens
and I still can't read your content!

I've read comments in this about differing DPI sizes, so I'll see if I can
take that into consideration as well.

------
duncan_bayne
The underlying problem is that people are still, to this day, treating
presentation as more important than data.

Here's an idea: use the absolute bare-minimum of styling and layout, and let
me decide via OS and browser preferences what default font faces and styles to
use.

------
sprobertson
I've been convinced that I shouldn't use small font sizes.

Now, re-reading and looking around the further reading section, I can't find
the answer to the question this immediately brings up: what font sizes aren't
too small?

edit: vbl posted a link that suggests 16px is a good minimum.

~~~
Jonhoo
I posted this further up, but the ideal font size for main body text is
supposedly between 50-75 characters per line. The first reference I found was
this one: <http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability> but this is a very
common rule of thumb

~~~
aranjedeath
I actually did a bunch of research a while back on this very topic. I put the
best links at the bottom of my resulting blog post.
[https://explodie.org/writings/researching-longform-
styleshee...](https://explodie.org/writings/researching-longform-
stylesheet.html)

~~~
Jonhoo
Perfect size, font, line height and column width on that post. Kudos!

------
eddieroger
I don't even really mind it, since I can manually adjust the size. What drives
me up walls in a murderous rage is when they lock it down with CSS, so my
zooming has no impact. I'm all for your site looking however you want, but
don't force it on me.

------
tater
1280x800 13" non-retina MBP here, I prefer 12pt when reading, 10pt when
writing code.

------
chrismorgan
I wonder whether <http://csslint.net/> would be receptive to the idea of
warning against a font-size declaration on html/body which led to smaller-
than-16px text?

------
petercooper
It was certainly worse back in the day though ;-) Around 1999-2001 there was
an annoying Web design fad of 10px or 11px Verdana or Tahoma (when both were
relatively new yet widespread due to Windows 98).

------
nicoritschel
I thought it was just me that likes my font to look like Safari's reader at
all times. Good thing I know I'm not alone. I designed my blog the same way.

------
readme
Amen bro. If a site has tiny tiny type, I leave.

My pet peeve is low contrast font colors.

If you think you're cool because you have #ddd font on #fff background, YOU'RE
NOT. JUST STOP.

~~~
hadem
So like the tiny type and low contrast colors of Hacker News...? Everyone
seems to be complaining about other sites but the default font size on Hacker
News is difficult to read as well. So much so that I use a custom stylesheet.

~~~
readme
HN isn't that bad on it. It's a crappy design, but it's readable.

------
d0m
That being said, I ironically found the font type on this blog website too
large and I've reduced it, which is sometimes I really rarely do.

------
axx
this is really a problem. as developers we really need to take care of this
problem. I think we don't need to build everything "responsive" (sure, it's
the best solution, but not every budget makes that possible).

If you're not making your site responsive, take care of font sizes. sure, your
design will maybe look terrible, but it really helps.

------
kingnothing
On this same note, why is the font size on HN so damn small?

Comments here are 9px Verdana.

Let's lead by example, all.

~~~
gruseom
The answer to your question seems obvious: a larger font would make for poorer
information density. I'm always surprised at how the alternative-to-HN
websites that people build don't seem to get how important this is. They
invariably show fewer posts per page.

~~~
kingnothing
Based on your logic, a 1 px font would be the best as it conveys the highest
density of information. However, that is wrong.

~~~
gruseom
My comment originally spelled out that there is a tradeoff between information
density and readability, but then I deleted that part as obvious. Anyhow, the
point is that HN's font sizes, as well as much of the rest of its design, are
clearly an attempt to balance those two values.

------
thedrbrian
I'm sick of 6 words per line when I'm using my phone to view websites.

~~~
jasonlotito
The design for your phone would have different sizes from the design that is
used for the web. After all, the distance between your eyes and the device
(monitor or phone) are different when each device is being used. That means
the font sizes need to change. The recommendation is 50 to 75 character per
line (as mentioned in a previous comment here).

~~~
thedrbrian
50 to 75 characters would be great but most "mobile optimised" websites don't
allow for that. The website linked to in the original post is around 20 per
line and takes a paragraph of text and stretches it out over several pages of
my phones display.

~~~
jasonlotito
No doubt, and that's a failure of the design, not of the theory of the font
size. Don't use bad execution as evidence of a bad idea.

------
josephwesley
I'm also sick of tiny fonts. 14px is way too small.

------
dmcdougall_
No need to read. You're not missing anything.

------
iwaffles
I think it's important to know who your audience is. Your design speaks to
that and so should your font size.

------
drivebyacct2
This is why Android reflows text on double-tap zoom. No more tiny text or
zoom-and-pan. (I didn't know until recently that Mobile Safari has no
comparable feature)

By the way, downvotes don't change the fact that this is a non-issue on
Android and desktop because double-tap zoom puts the content at a comfortable
and _customizable_ font size effectively solving this issue and that desktop
browsers have the _same_ ability to set minimum font sizes and zoom levels.

edit: Apparently Mobile Safari now has this as well. I don't know if it also
allows you to adjust the font size but it just goes to show that there are
existing solutions to this subjective problem.

~~~
robbrown451
Sadly, this feature has gone away now that I have the latest greatest Nexus
phone with Chrome and Jelly Bean.

Why in the world would they get rid of this feature?

~~~
baddox
I suspect they got rid of the feature because users don't like it. I found it
extremely frustrating.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Instead of manually zooming and constantly having to pan back and forth to
read every single line of text? No thanks.

------
rorrr
That's actually true about Hacker News on mobile screens. Yes, you can zoom
in, but then you have to scroll left and right to see the text. Extremely
annoying.

~~~
nilliams
Yep, the Hacker News default font size is tiny, period. And I find the 'pro-
zoomer croud' pretty odd to be honest. It's more work, and it's tedious. You
wouldn't pan around a book.

Personally I use the Hacker Web (web-app) on iOS [1] and Georgify Chrome
extension [2] on desktop and couldn't be happier.

[1] <http://hackerwebapp.com>

[2]
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/georgify/ofjfdfale...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/georgify/ofjfdfaleomlfanfehgblppafkijjhmi?hl=en)

------
jhprks
Me too, I hate tiny types, they make my eyes hurt!!!

