atw: Re: Font choice and comprehension

I think that readability for on-line fonts largely depends on what can be
displayed on a screen in a way that can actually be read.
A lot of the detail of a Times font with its finely tapered serifs, and the
thick and thin linework and so on gets broken up and lost when on a screen.

This is why many people use a sans serif font on a screen.

This argument would imply that Courier should be good for screens.  But
Courier isn't really a font, or so one of the keynote speakers at an ASTC
conference a few years back said.

Maybe a serif font with constant thickness linework could be best on-line.
Does anyone know of one?

I just did a quick test and SimSun seems good on-line.

Personally, I find text that has been fully justified but not done well is
difficult and also annoying to read online.

Bob T

2008/8/14 <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Given that just about every English newspaper in the world uses serif
> body typefaces, and that extends to most magazines etc ,  I'd venture
> to suggest that the so-called "imprinting" still rules. (And then
> there are still books, and few of those use sans serif typefaces for
> body text)
>
> Most of the tests I've seen for "readability" of on-screen fonts seem
> to rely on the silly assumption that readability is what people say
> they "like" or "prefer", as opposed to what they actually understand
> and/or  can take in quickly.
>
> However, it has occurred to some researchers to make that important
> distinction between "preference" and "effectiveness".  I saw some
> stuff a while back, and I think it might even be listed in our
> archives here.
>
>
> >
> >---- Original Message ----
> >From: brianclarke01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: atw: Re: Font choice and comprehension
> >Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:12:51 +1000
> >
> >>Hi Geoffrey,
> >>
> >>I have a feeling - nothing more - that those results related to
> >images printed on paper.
> >>In the 1980s, no-one would have dreamed of checking on-screen
> >readability - there
> >>was no choice of font.
> >>
> >>Later research seems to suggest these results were based on older
> >readers who
> >>had been 'imprinted' from an early age on serific fonts - and hence
> >we were getting a
> >>preference rather than an objective result - again, no names, no
> >pack drill available.
> >>
> >>For on-screen images, the non-serific font seems to win in the
> >readability stakes.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Brian.
> >>**************************************************
> >>To view the austechwriter archives, go to
> >www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
> >>
> >>To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject
> >field (without quotes).
> >>
> >>To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
> >modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
> >>
> >>To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-a
> >dmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>**************************************************
> >>
>
>
> **************************************************
> To view the austechwriter archives, go to
> www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
>
> To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
> go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>
> To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> **************************************************
>



-- 
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462

Other related posts: