RE: Readability studies on fonts--serif and sans serif

Subject: RE: Readability studies on fonts--serif and sans serif
From: "Brierley, Sean" <Sean -at- Quodata -dot- Com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>, "'Eric J. Ray'" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:39:44 -0500

Hallo:

I heard of a similar study, about sans being better on-screen. But, see for
yourself. Stack up a serif versus a sans and see what you think. I think
that I prefer the size of the serif font to be a little larger than a sans,
on-screen. Typically, I set my web fonts in this order:
verdana,arial,helvetica (all sans). That should cover most machines . . ..

Of course, local browser settings override those font selections . . ..

Best regards.

Sean
sean -at- quodata -dot- com

(aside cc'd to Eric as you suggested.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scudder, Beth [SMTP:beth_scudder -at- retek -dot- com]
>
> I'm trying to determine what font is best for Web publishing in terms of
> readability. I'm pretty sure that the various studies I've read on this
> from
> time to time indicated that sans serif fonts were found to be more
> readable.
>
> Can anyone confirm (or deny) this for me?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Beth Scudder




Previous by Author: RE: converting graphics
Next by Author: RE: Page Numbering Corruption - Office 98 to Office 2000
Previous by Thread: Readability studies on fonts--serif and sans serif
Next by Thread: RE: Readability studies on fonts--serif and sans serif


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads