RE: TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 60, Issue 21

Subject: RE: TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 60, Issue 21
From: "Chantel Brathwaite" <brathwaitec -at- castupgrade -dot- com>
To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:58:38 -0400

David,

First, let me thank you for taking the time to write a very detailed
response to my question. It gave me some things to think about and with the
information that you provided, I was able to not only provide a response to
the person who asked me the question about fonts, but also to reevaluate the
fonts I'd planned to use for my own style guide.

A couple of responses:

>While there are no standards, I personally opt for high
>readability--and I find Times and its many variants not particularly
>good in that regard. ... Thus, if given a preference, for technical
documentation I opt for far
> more open faces. One of the best samples I have seen used a combination
of Sumner
> Stone's Stone Serif and Stone Sans, which while obviously being
> distinct still had sufficient similarity to produce a highly
>consistent and pleasing combination that was at the same time
> extremely easy to read.

This is the first time that I've encountered the Stone Serif and Sans fonts.
It is a really beautiful font. While I probably won't be able to use it in
technical since it would force many of my readers to download it on their
own systems - I definitely want to use it for graphic work. I agree that it
is very easy to read.

> Some of the considerations for maximum readability may also suggest
> considering fonts designed for online use. I would not discard the
> notion simply because the piece may not be intended for that medium.

I agree with this assessment and have actually decided to do this. I've
been in far too many situations where I've had to quickly repurpose text -
sometimes a year or two after it was originally written. It is better to
use a font that can be ported quickly to another format if necessary.


> You should also pay attention to the face used for code examples, if
> you use any. Here, I opt for something very readable in a monospaced
> font designed for code...which distinguishes between the
> often-confused characters such as "I" (capital i) and "1" (number), or
> lower the letter "o" from the zero figure.

Good point. I too do this; it also makes distinguishing between one and two
spaces easier as well.


> I suggest, too, that as you choose the fonts to use that you pay
> particular attention to font size ... One font at a given point size may
appear far larger than another.
> If you have the luxury of space, I also would consider using a
> somewhat larger point size than you may be accustomed to--again for
> maximizing readability. In my printed correspondence, for example, for
> many years I have used eleven or eleven and a half point type as a
> starting place.

Another good point. I've run into this problem in the past when I've used
two fonts on a single page (like a serif and sans-serif). Space is not a
problem. I generally use 11 point for the text depending on the font. I do
have the luxury of space and I might consider a larger font so it makes it a
bit easier on the reader.

> It is true that documents set entirely in sans serif type are
> increasingly common today. However, in many cases that makes them
> harder to read. Too-wide columns, leading which is too small or too
> large, tracking and kerning which is not properly done--all can make
> passages in sans more challenging to read without effort and increase
> the likelihood of misreading.

True - I think one of the reasons is that sans serif feels "new" - there is
something modern about it (to use an antiquated word). I like the mixture
however; it is easier to tell at a glance to classify the type of text. I
was using MS Word exclusively for a while producing a beautiful and usable
text was sometimes a challenge. I usually opted for utility. However, I'm
using Frame now, so I can more closely control kerning, leading and other
settings that help enhance text readability.


> I have mentioned the Lyx document processor before. Since it is based
> upon the TeX typesetting language, even its standard output is
> generally far superior to any normal word processor. However, for tech
> docs, I think it represents a bit too large a learning curve if this
> is the only advantage you seek. For someone writing a dissertation,
> scholarly article, or a math or science textbook or the like, however,
> in my opinion it remains one of the best choices available.

I didn't know that TeX was still in use. I remember it being used back in
the early 90s. (At the time I was working with a lot of mathematicians who
used it.) I agree, the learning curve is too steep for what I'm trying to
do.

> I greatly enjoyed a few projects I did with InDesign, too. The
> incredible control over all aspects of typography was great fun--but
> for those of us who don't do that sort of layout often, it can be
> extraordinarily time-consuming as well.

Unfortunately, we don't have any Adobe products here, with the exception of
PDF and Frame. But I agree - InDesign is a lot of fun to work with. In the
past and was able to design some very nice marketing material with it.

Thanks again for all of your comments - they have been very helpful!


Chantel



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


References:
Re: TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 60, Issue 21: From: David Neeley

Previous by Author: RE: Standard Fonts for Technical Documentation
Next by Author: RE: Rates, minimalism, and musings about the long term
Previous by Thread: Re: TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 60, Issue 21
Next by Thread: OT: If you like fascinating letters...


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads