Comments on: Can You Read Me Now?

By: mmj

mmj — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

It’s interesting to see that while people claim that Times is one of the least preferred fonts, the studies you link to show that it is the easiest to read in terms of the speed at which it can be read, and people think it looks the most professional.

This would probably account for it as being the ‘default’ font in many applications.

By: Xenon_54

Xenon_54 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Seems, for me, line-height is also an important factor to study. I was wondering why SitePoint was easy to read on screen and paper. After a quick look to stylesheets, it seems that paragraph line-height has been set to 130%.

Since I have set the same line-height on my own website, I found that texts were easier to read. So I think it's something to watch carefully.

(not easy to write english ^^)

By: Chroder

Chroder — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Seems, for me, line-height is also an important factor to study. I was wondering why SitePoint was easy to read on screen and paper. After a quick look to stylesheets, it seems that paragraph line-height has been set to 130%.

Since I have set the same line-height on my own website, I found that texts were easier to read. So I think it's something to watch carefully.

I agree with you there. Line-height makes a huge difference.

Anywho, very interesting reads there. I always think that Times looks best on paper, Verdana best for normal web-writing and Arial for larger headings :)

By: Boomer

Boomer — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I think alot of these findings are due to the current technology (lack thereof) in screens. Using Times is hard because of the small detail and “flares”. The current screens can’t handle them and it strains the human eye. Most people prefer to read, on paper, in a serif font like Times because it’s eaiser to “flow” with the words. I’m wondering if, as designers, we should keep san-serif on-line but when people print the page, using CSS, we should change the font to a serif style?

By: tconley79

tconley79 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Form vs. Function

During graphic design studies in college, I was taught a simple guideline that serifs were great for paragraphs of text because of how each character flowed to the next. (I think most novels use serif fonts.)

Sans-serifs, therefore are good for headlines and short blurbs beacause of their striking appearance.

But these, of course, are just guidelines. And at times, the theme of the work demands legible, but more appropriate design-wise.

By: Ray Oliver

Ray Oliver — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

“t’s interesting to see that while people claim that Times is one of the least preferred fonts, the studies you link to show that it is the easiest to read in terms of the speed at which it can be read, and people think it looks the most professional.”

But is that not in the context of print? Seems to be that serif fonts are not nearly as readable on screen as they are in print.

By: clintonG

clintonG — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

It doesn’t matter which font you use if you’re one of the many morons that insist on using goofy color schemes that make reading virtually impossible.

By: mmj

mmj — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Ray: “But is that not in the context of print?”

No, all of the studies shown refer to “fonts in web sites”. Please refer to the links Corrie posted.

By: polvero

polvero — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Naturally Times New Roman is too pixely on browsers. I would imagine in the future that browsers will build in a feature to take out the vector-based output. Kinda like in photoshop how you have your Five style options of None, Sharp, Crisp, Strong, and Smooth. I suppose by default browsers output something between “None” and “Sharp.” In Mozilla it has the Ctrl++ feature which enables you to enlarge fonts (even to the size of having One letter the size of your screen). Of course that’s vector output, but it’s still not quite pixely as it may seem. If you’ve tried “Trebuchet MS” in Photoshop using “None,” it looks different than a browser output.
Sorry for rambling on that one.
You brung (brang?) up some good points on this one corrie. Great job.

By: Philip

Philip — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

polvero “I would imagine in the future that browsers will build in a feature to take out the vector-based output. Kinda like in photoshop how you have your Five style options of None, Sharp, Crisp, Strong, and Smooth.”

Well if your running a OSX or Win XP you can do that (sort of) already. On XP its called ClearType and does a wonderful job of smoothing onscreen fonts. But, by default, its turned off so a user has to open the Control Panal and turn it on. Great for the tech savy but with a default of “off” how many regular users even know its there?

It’s a shame as when it’s used a designer can rely more on using installed fonts instead of grapgics - saving bandwidth, which saves money etc.