Serif versus sans-serif fonts

Properly sized, in colors with sufficient contrast, I consider both serif and sans serif fonts fully readable.

I am aware, though, that as I age, I find marginally-sized sans serifs harder to read than I once did. Ariel Narrow is particularly bad, and seems to be a favorite of some webmasters because you can cram a lot of text onto a page. (Yes, I know how to enlarge the display, but for a well-designed website, I shouldn't have to.)

To me, a 'classic' serif font remains the easiest to read. Font size, color and background, and line spacing are the other factors which contribute to legibility.

You didn't ask for it, but as an example of failing older eyes, I can read "of Chicago" easily in your signature line's image, but the word "Multiversity" does not contrast enough with the background and takes squinting even though it's the same size as the rest.

Maryn, complete with old eyes and four pairs of glasses, depending on what she's doing

Alessandra Kelley said:

In art design and typography I was taught that the serifs on serif fonts made them more readable and easier to comprehend.

However, I have heard otherwise from people with practical experience.

When designing a website or app, which works better? My main concern in that things be legible, clear, and accessible to everybody.

Click to expand...

I am a bit of an idiot when it comes to design and typography but I do read an awful lot of books off an iPhone screen and I like Trebuchet MS. It's a sans-serif font that's designed for screen reading.

I don't think you can apply the same rules you'd apply to print design to mobile devices / PC screens.

Torgo said:

I don't think you can apply the same rules you'd apply to print design to mobile devices / PC screens. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

This is very important. There's a difference in design assumptions between screen and print. As always, design for the page, whatever a page may be.

That said, there's just about equal amounts of data supporting readability of serf and san-serif typefaces on screen and on print, so this is one of those "religious" issues for typesetters and designers.

On ebooks, in most cases, the user gets the final word, as on the Web.

In signage, or other similar short instances of text, the sans serif font is generally preferred--it has a higher impact (usually) than do serif fonts.

On the printed page, large blocks of text become tedious to read if the font is sans serif. The serifs help the eye follow the line of text and actually helps the reader by making the word shape more easily recognizable.

On most digital media, i.e.: computer monitors, cell phones, e-readers, the resolution is rarely high enough to resolve serifs in smaller text. Another consideration with digital media: with the exception of displays such as Amazon's Kindle, the user is looking at a light source (as opposed to reflected light as in the case of ink on paper). Resolving detail in such a situation causes eye strain in most users, so larger, blockier fonts are generally easier to read.

As Medievalist says, studies show that more users prefer sans serif fonts in digital media, whereas serif fonts win the race in print media. My preference when designing printed pages is to use serif fonts for body text and titles. However, I will often choose a sans serif font for emphasis, or impact, especially in advertizing copy.

Be careful in any case to avoid flourishes or other fun stuff except for the most brief passages.

I use Wingdings for everything.

I've got to say that line spacing and type size are more important than whether a typeface is serif or sans-serif. There are perfectly readable (which is different than legible, and more important from a practical standpoint) serifs and sans-serifs.

Now, with that said, serifs are generally going to be easier to read in a printed format. But on-screen it seems to matter much less. Pick a typeface that's readable, size it sufficiently, and put plenty of space between the lines. Also, don't make your lines too long (39 characters is often cited as the optimal length, so don't go too much longer than that). My personal favorite font size/line spacing is 14pt font with 24pt line spacing. Plenty of white space and easy to read for hours. The Vogue website uses that particular combo for their articles.

Web design taught me that serifs are in physical print, and sans is for on screens. Personally, I don't care either way, it's a matter of style and sizing (I hate sans in a big size, personally.)

The fonts I've used over the years: several.

Back in the day, about 9 years ago, every manuscript I wrote, I wrote with a different font.

Now, I write all my manuscripts with the same font. A year ago it used to be Verdana, size 10, normal zoom, you know, 100%, and then for some reason I decided to play around with the fonts but I would still write everything with the same font. If I remember correctly it was Palatino Linotype, size 12, 120% zoom, and then I switched to Maiandra GD size 12 and finally I made up my mind to Times New Roman, size 12, 120% zoom, but when I am writing, I use single-spacing just because I like the way it looks much better. When I submit however, I change it to double-spacing. I've read that more agents prefer TNR over Courier, so that's what I use unless the agent specifies another font.

My eyes LOATHE onscreen serifs. They hurt, they are evil. I bought an e-book that I've never been able to read because of the hideous font.

That said, any decent web browser can ignore your choice of font if the user knows enough to play with preferences.

kuwisdelu said:

I use Wingdings for everything.

Click to expand...