Gopher menu width tests
Note: some of the following statements are subjective. But
keep in mind that readability studies suggest that a column
width of between 45 and 75 is easiest to read.
<- 40 --------------------------------->
Some '80s home computers had 40-column
screens, such as the Commodore VIC-20,
Commodore 64, and BBC Micro. It's a
little cramped but still readable. This
is also about the standard width of
a newspaper column, but keep in mind
that newspapers sacrifice readability in
favor of high print density. That said,
if you're technically restricted to 40
characters for whatever reason, it's not
bad.
<- 45 -------------------------------------->
This is the lowest recommended column width
for readability. It's great for reading on
phones in portrait mode.
<- 55 ------------------------------------------------>
A column width of 55 characters is slightly narrow but
still quite comfortable to read. It's definitely not
too wide. In fact it's great for viewing on mobile
devices, especially phones in portrait mode.
<- 56 ------------------------------------------------->
<- 57 -------------------------------------------------->
<- 58 --------------------------------------------------->
<- 59 ---------------------------------------------------->
<- 60 ----------------------------------------------------->
A column width of 60 characters is very comfortable to read
and is close to optimal (it's exactly in the middle of the
recommended range). It's not bad for viewing on mobile
devices, but it's about the limit for reading on most phones
in portrait mode (at least for someone with less than
perfect eyesight).
<- 61 ------------------------------------------------------>
<- 62 ------------------------------------------------------->
<- 63 -------------------------------------------------------->
<- 64 --------------------------------------------------------->
This is not a bad width to read, and it's a very round number in
binary (1000000) and octal (100) and still fairly round in
hexadecimal (40), if you care about that sort of thing.
<- 65 ---------------------------------------------------------->
A column width of 65 characters is comfortable to read.
Unfortunately it's slightly too wide for reading on most phones
in portrait mode.
<- 66 ----------------------------------------------------------->
<- 67 ------------------------------------------------------------>
<- 68 ------------------------------------------------------------->
The ancient UMN Gopher client cuts off display strings that are
longer than 68 characters long (it replaces missing characters at
the end with ".."). I find this odd because it misses the RFC 1436
recommended width by one character.
<- 69 -------------------------------------------------------------->
RFC 1436 recommends keeping a Gopher display string to less than 70
characters long, so 69 is the widest recommended width (at least for
menus).
* * *
Note: The following widths are wider than what RFC 1436
recommends for display strings. They may or may not display
properly in your Gopher client.
<- 70 --------------------------------------------------------------->
Some people misread or misinterpret RFC 1436 as recommending a display
string of "at most 70 characters", but it actually recommends a
display string "less than 70 characters". 70 is not less than 70, so
70 is right out.
<- 72 ----------------------------------------------------------------->
This is a popular width for email. It's within the recommended 45 to 75
characters for readability (though near the high end). I believe this
width was adopted so as to keep emails readable on an 80-column
terminal, even with multiple levels of quoting. For that purpose it
works well.
<- 76 --------------------------------------------------------------------->
I've seen some Gopher holes with a column width of 76, such as in
server-generated directory listings and CGI output (all or most that I've
seen run Gophernicus which has a configurable column width). Why? What is
special about 76 columns?
<- 80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This is a popular width because most terminals are 80 characters wide, but for
prose it's actually wider than optimal. One lesson here is that you don't have
to fill the full width of your terminal with text.
<- 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Why not go for a nice round value? Because it's too wide! I see no reason to stuff 100 characters in
a line just because it's "round". (Also, it's not round in hexadecimal. 100 hexadecimal would be 256
which is ridiculously wide, though 40 hexadecimal, or 100 octal, columns is not bad.)
<- 132 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This is a common but less popular width because some common terminals can switch to 132 column mode, and many line printers (due to
the popularity of the IBM 1403 line printer which set the standard) printed 132 characters per line. For writing code it's fine as
you can see the end of even long lines, but for prose it's much wider than optimal.
<- 256 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Ah, a round value in hexadecimal. This is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much too
wide.