atw: Re: Font choice and comprehension

I'm wondering how many people actually read for long periods online. I may
spend time searching the net or reading the paper online but I usually read
a few paragraphs here and there and move on, so I'm constantly reading and
searching. If I want to read a full article, I'll usually print it to read
later.

If I'm editing a document, I'll likely do that online, which would be the
closest I'd come to reading for long periods online. I haven't noticed any
difference with serif or sans-serif fonts in doing this.

When I work from printouts, I find around 10 pages of Arial is enough to
give me a headache but haven't experienced that with any other font. Books
and newspapers I read are usually serif fonts, so I can say much there.

Regards
Michelle


-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Trussler
Sent: Friday, 15 August 2008 4:00 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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



**************************************************
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
**************************************************

Other related posts: