TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Fonts and Point Sizes From:Daniel Hale <dhale -at- POBOX -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:55:58 -0700
>We are redesigning our template and have tentatively picked Garamond 11 point
> for the body text. Some of our writers have concerns about the
> both the font and point size. We ship our doc as hard copy and PDF files, so
> resolution online is a consideration.
> Suggestions? Altneratives?
You'll probably find that Garamond 11 is too fine for onscreen use, with
its small size and delicate body. Especially with Acro3 - when, if -
which antialiases text. Garamond will just grey out to nothing. Minion
survives onscreen, and I'll bet that Stone and Lucida prosper. Anyway I
would use PDF as a *distribution* method, in this case, and not a real
browsing experience. Unless, of course, you wanted to redesign it for the
screen (horizontal orientation, roughly 4:3, with an effective 14-16
point type size) - but that would get tiresome quick, and would double
your page length.
I would hesitate to use larger than 11 point type in printed material for
adults. Line length and leading are more important contributors to
readability. Garamond, in both its genuine and Jannon (i.e. Monotype
Garamond 156) versions, is immensely readable - with the exception of ITC
Garamond, which I think is evil.
I'm unsure about Adobe Garamond for a technical document. Global
Village's documentation is set in AGaramond, and it looks subtly
wrong.... Maybe something more "rational", like Adobe's Utopia family. I