Re. Serif vs. sans serif

Subject: Re. Serif vs. sans serif
From: Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 09:44:29 LCL

Gwen Barnes, responding to my posting about research demonstrating
that serif fonts are easier to read than sans serif, expressed polite
scepticism about the research, the researcher or both. In response:

Gwen: No question, that without being able to dredge up the original
article, I can't rebut your comments "formally". However, in defence
of the research, I can only say that I've always found serif fonts far
easier to read (not just a little bit) than sans serif. The research I
cited confirmed this subjective impression; it did not create the
impression after the fact. If you read sans serif well, more power to
you... I don't, and lots of colleagues don't. If you go back to my
original posting, you'll note that I recommended using a more modern
sans serif font with tapered character widths as a compromise. I find
Stone Sans much easier to read than (say) Helvetica, if not as easy as
Times. This would probably meet the needs of the "revisionists" (you?)
as well as those of the traditionalists (me). Fair enough?

--Geoff Hart geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
#8^{)} <---Maybe serifs are easier for visually impaired editors?


Previous by Author: Discuss: Third party manuals?
Next by Author: Re. My fifteen minutes of "flame"
Previous by Thread: Re: E. Prime or what?
Next by Thread: Re. My fifteen minutes of "flame"


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads