As someone with a background in both mathematics and typography, I'm still trying to figure out how people come up with that sort of nonsense.
There are times when constants like the Golden Ratio are relevant and the exact value matters or some useful property doesn't apply. This is not one of those times. There is absolutely nothing "perfect" or "optimal" about the typography you'll create from this "solid mathematical basis", no matter how much TeX you use to typeset your equations or how many colours you put on a chart. In fact, with a lot of popular web fonts today, you'll get very dubious results.
That entire article is just a glorified troll, which I'm only responding to in case anyone impressionable reading your post otherwise thinks it's worth anything.
What a poor comment and wholly unnecessary. Even though I agree that the golden ratio article here is fanciful to a fault, the whole premise here is to put some thought into typography and calibrate text to look its best.
The math here is entirely relevant: knowing what the measure / font size should be, or at least figuring out minimum and maximum dimensions, that makes a difference. Got a responsive text container? Make sure it doesn't become hard to read. And the type of font you use (different fonts have different metrics, character widths, etc) makes a difference, it adds considerations that can lead to better design. People should put more thought into making their texts as readable as possible - it benefits everyone.
The waxing lyrical about golden ratios is a cheap way to drive interest and add allure, it gets the eyeballs. I think it's clever and it makes an otherwise dull topic interesting .
> Even though I agree that the golden ratio article here is fanciful to a fault
This is, dare I say, the mistake. What's emphasised in those articles about the golden ratio is that it is golden where what actually matters is that it's a ratio, and therefore creates patterns and introduces consistency.
Ok, ok, congrats on a very clever response, but you're missing the point. The key thing (and why I prefer the related tool, linked above) is whether or not the result looks good.
Is the article pseudo-intellectual and kind of wanky? Of course it is. It's the internet.
Is the article pseudo-intellectual and kind of wanky? Of course it is. It's the internet.
And yet there are many good articles on typography you could have linked to instead: try the typography section in A List Apart or even some of the more recent stuff on Smashing Magazine for basic ideas in small doses, or read the likes of Matthew Butterick for a lot of thoughtful and more detailed comments.
Does the resulting typography look good?
No, it often won't. That's why I challenged your link.
There are times when constants like the Golden Ratio are relevant and the exact value matters or some useful property doesn't apply. This is not one of those times. There is absolutely nothing "perfect" or "optimal" about the typography you'll create from this "solid mathematical basis", no matter how much TeX you use to typeset your equations or how many colours you put on a chart. In fact, with a lot of popular web fonts today, you'll get very dubious results.
That entire article is just a glorified troll, which I'm only responding to in case anyone impressionable reading your post otherwise thinks it's worth anything.