<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: links for 2007-05-29</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/</link>
	<description>A Church Web Diva's Musings on Excellence in Religious Websites</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:30:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anna Belle</title>
		<link>http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/comment-page-1/#comment-241</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Belle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 23:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/#comment-241</guid>
		<description>I agree with you. I do think it&#039;s good for designers to be intentional about this -- particularly for text heavy sites like UU World and blogs.  Years ago I read 65 to 75 CPL for the web, based on some study, but I can&#039;t remember where that was. Logically it takes more time for the eye to travel back and forth at 95 CPL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you. I do think it&#8217;s good for designers to be intentional about this &#8212; particularly for text heavy sites like UU World and blogs.  Years ago I read 65 to 75 CPL for the web, based on some study, but I can&#8217;t remember where that was. Logically it takes more time for the eye to travel back and forth at 95 CPL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philocrites</title>
		<link>http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/comment-page-1/#comment-240</link>
		<dc:creator>Philocrites</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 14:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithandweb.com/2007/05/29/links-for-2007-05-29/#comment-240</guid>
		<description>Wow, do I distrust that characters-per-line study! 95 cpl may please college students -- the subjects of the test -- but I would discourage sites that want to present substantial amounts of text to an audience that may not all be in their early twenties with perfect vision from going so wide. (Especially at smaller sizes.)

45 to 75 characters per line are recommended for printed materials by the bible of print, Robert Bringhurst&#039;s The Elements of Typographic Style. Obviously print is a different medium, but this near-sighted 36-year-old really hates web pages that venture upwards of 80 characters on a line.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, do I distrust that characters-per-line study! 95 cpl may please college students &#8212; the subjects of the test &#8212; but I would discourage sites that want to present substantial amounts of text to an audience that may not all be in their early twenties with perfect vision from going so wide. (Especially at smaller sizes.)</p>
<p>45 to 75 characters per line are recommended for printed materials by the bible of print, Robert Bringhurst&#8217;s The Elements of Typographic Style. Obviously print is a different medium, but this near-sighted 36-year-old really hates web pages that venture upwards of 80 characters on a line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.262 seconds -->
