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: Font favorites From:Karel van der Waarde <waarde -at- GLO -dot- BE> Date:Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:54:43 -0100
Peter Martin asked several questions related to typographical research. In
the messages of the last week on this list, the following variables were
mentioned.
Differences between screen presentation (CRT and LCD) and paper.
Differences in local habituation: congenial, comfortable.
Differences between genres: newspapers in Europe, websites.
Different effects on user actions: reading speed, recognizability.
Different effects on vision: visual cues, irradiation effect.
Just these 5 differences will provide ample work for several research teams
for many years to come. It might be more fruitful to concentrate on
specific types of documents. For example: The CRT-monitors of the employees
of the tax-office which people have to look at for days while inputting the
information from handwritten forms. Practical question: which typeface
would be most suitable? Research question: How do people perceive type on
screens?
>But has someone done any research work on the suggestion that screen
>serif fonts are worse? I've been looking for indications on the
>web that this might have been tried, but have so far found zilch.
>Anyone any references ?
Very few. I have seen some unpublished research done in Carnegy
Mellon University in 1996/7 of very doubtful quality which compared the
legibility of Times Roman with that of Verdana and Georgia. It was
sponsored by Microsoft and it concluded that Verdana and Georgia facilitate
ease of reading. However, the appearing size of the characters during the
test were not identical: all results could have been based on that
difference.
>I recently suggested this in this group as a worthwhile research project.
>Maybe it has been done? Anyone ?
I do not think that many people are working on this at the moment.
Can +anyone+ cite an example of European research that confirms the
suggestion that Europeans actually comprehend sans serif body text
better than serif body text? How else can the "practice effect"
be confirmed?
As far as I know, no research has been done. The research cited
comes from very questionable sources. Sir Ciryl Burt (who is remembered for
his fraudulent research practice) states in 1959: 'In our own early
experiments Dr Kerr and I found almost at once that, for word recognition,
a sans-serif typeface was worst of all'. James Hartley and Donald Rooum
have traced the origin of this statement and concluded: 'Indeed there is
possible evidence of deceit'. (British Journal of Psychology (1983) volume
74. 203-212)
And it's been a while since I was in Europe: can someone confirm that,
say, the majority of European newspapers use sans serif body font ?
Or is this an urban myth?
It is an urban myth. There are some newspapers that use sans serif
body type, but these are very rare exceptions. Headlines are a different
matter.
Kind regards,
Karel van der Waarde
waarde -at- glo -dot- be
