What is you favourite font family choice for pages with predominant text
content?
Which one is the most readable, with regards to body text <pand what for
<h1>?

I tend to use serif for <pand sans for <hx>.

Regards.

--
buy, bought, bye

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Nije Nego wrote:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"

!

What is you favourite font family choice for pages with predominant text
content?

As a reader, choose whatever typeface you like from the
typefaces on your own system.

As an author, do not specify a typeface - especially if you have
some text with Central European (ISO-8859-2) characters in mind.
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...onts.html#dont

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:55:25 +0200, Andreas Prilop
<nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.dewrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Nije Nego wrote:
>

>
As a reader, choose whatever typeface you like from the
typefaces on your own system.
>
As an author, do not specify a typeface - especially if you have
some text with Central European (ISO-8859-2) characters in mind.
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...onts.html#dont

I think Nije asked for something more general: not "do you prefer Tahoma
or Lucida handwriting", but "do you prefer serif or sans-serif"? In other
words, should you do "body { font-family: serif; }" or "body
{ font-family: sans-serif; }"?

Nothing wrong with that, I believe, and you could even suggest a couple of
specific typefaces that you think make your site look nice, but always put
a generic font family at the end. By choosing between serif, sans-serif,
monospace or fantasy families, the author can give his site a specific
look, and just like suggesting colours, that's perfectly reasonable.

I prefer serif myself for longer pieces of text, but there are people who
feel strongly the other way. It's really up to you. A user who really
really wants to view all websites in a fantasy font can specify that in
his user CSS.

--
Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd

In article <op.td4suscanmqb9p@nautilus>,
"Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd" <garmtdevries@googlemail.comwrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:55:25 +0200, Andreas Prilop
<nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.dewrote:
>

>
I think Nije asked for something more general: not "do you prefer Tahoma
or Lucida handwriting", but "do you prefer serif or sans-serif"? In other
words, should you do "body { font-family: serif; }" or "body
{ font-family: sans-serif; }"?
>
Nothing wrong with that, I believe, and you could even suggest a couple of
specific typefaces that you think make your site look nice, but always put
a generic font family at the end. By choosing between serif, sans-serif,
monospace or fantasy families, the author can give his site a specific
look, and just like suggesting colours, that's perfectly reasonable.
>
I prefer serif myself for longer pieces of text, but there are people who
feel strongly the other way. It's really up to you. A user who really
really wants to view all websites in a fantasy font can specify that in
his user CSS.

It used to be the case that people could read text in serif fonts
faster and more accurately than sans-serif. I heard from a friend
that recent studies show this no longer to be the case - presumably
the widespread use of sans-serif fonts on computers has helped
people adjust to the slight differences in the appearance of the
character and word shapes.

I guess in part it depends on what "look and feel" the author
wants to convey with the styling... Do you want a site that says
"Times Higher Ed Supplement" or "Kid with Crayola"?

Personally, I prefer a serif font for text and a sans-serif for
headings. But then, I'm an old fuddy-duddy who prefers reading
an actual printed-on-paper book rather than something on a
computer screen.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:12:18 +0200, Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd wrote:

I prefer serif myself for longer pieces of text, but there are people who
feel strongly the other way.

There will always be people on the other side, no matter which side we
choose.
Looking at the wehement majority of web pages, I see tendency to use sans
(Verdana and Arial appears to be the most popular), for example Wikipedia,
Britannica (horrible css when it comes to font family definitionssss) and
other text content sites.

I know about Verdana faults, although I like the font I don't use it, but
very rarely I see serif for main text, which is a sort of standard in
printing.

Does anybody knows about any kind of research available?

--
buy, bought, bye

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:21:16 -0400, David Stone wrote:

Personally, I prefer a serif font for text and a sans-serif for
headings. But then, I'm an old fuddy-duddy who prefers reading
an actual printed-on-paper book rather than something on a
computer screen.

I read somewhere, will try to find the link, that people in general prefers
printed text than on screen reading.

Could it be due to serif used for print?

--
buy, bought, bye

Nije Nego wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:12:18 +0200, Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd wrote:
>

>
There will always be people on the other side, no matter which side
we choose. Looking at the wehement majority of web pages, I see
tendency to use sans (Verdana and Arial appears to be the most
popular), for example Wikipedia, Britannica (horrible css when it
comes to font family definitionssss) and other text content sites.
>
I know about Verdana faults, although I like the font I don't use it,
but very rarely I see serif for main text, which is a sort of
standard in printing.
>
Does anybody knows about any kind of research available?
>

What kind of research do you think might be possible?

Typefaces are a kind of art. The selection of a typeface is more like
architecture than painting, because it's utilitarian - the face serves a
purpose, and isn't just an aesthetic judgement. But if you're asking for
"research", you need to say something about what aspect of the choice of
typeface you're interested in. Newspaper publishers, book publishers,
billboard advertisers, pop journalists, artie designers: all have
different angles. Car number-plates also have specific typographic
requirements. But overlaid on all of these 'usefulness' criteria, there
is the question of taste, and it's really hard to specify a research
project that is about taste.



--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

On 2006-08-11, Nije Nego wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:21:16 -0400, David Stone wrote:
>

>
I read somewhere, will try to find the link, that people in general prefers
printed text than on screen reading.

Given the poor design of much of the web, I'm not surprised.

Could it be due to serif used for print?

Printed material does not necessarily use serif faces.

The studies I have seen showed serif typefaces to be marginally
easier to read than sans-serif, bit not by a significant amount.

In my own experience (I used to be a graphic designer), readers
like sans-serif as much as, if not more than, serif.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:40:40 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

Printed material does not necessarily use serif faces.
>
The studies I have seen showed serif typefaces to be marginally
easier to read than sans-serif, bit not by a significant amount.
>
In my own experience (I used to be a graphic designer), readers
like sans-serif as much as, if not more than, serif.

Being a graphic designer, did you design adds with slogans <h1or you
worked on reading material (books, newspapers etc.)?

--
buy, bought, bye

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:46:03 +0200, Nije Nego <"nije"nego"@net.hrwrote:

I read somewhere, will try to find the link, that people in general
prefers
printed text than on screen reading.
>
Could it be due to serif used for print?

I think it has more to do with the resolution, which is still much better
on paper, and with the tiring glare of a white computer screen.

Researchers are working on magnetic ink, that can be made black or white a
la LCD screens. It is expected that this will eventually be as comfortable
to read as old-fashioned paper. But no matter how advanced technology
becomes, we'll always need newspapers for fish 'n' chips :)

--
Garmt de Vries-Uiterweerd

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:36:48 +0100, Jack wrote:

What kind of research do you think might be possible?

Some sort of usability research (pro & cons, serif vs sans).
People tend to research silliest things.

But overlaid on all of these 'usefulness' criteria, there
is the question of taste, and it's really hard to specify a research
project that is about taste.

I was not referring to a taste issue, if so, I would use Verdana.

Coca-Cola has different formulas (amount of sugar) for many regions,
probably based on taste issue research (Google 11.900 for "taste
research").

--
buy, bought, bye

On 2006-08-11, Nije Nego wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:40:40 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>

>
Being a graphic designer, did you design adds with slogans <h1or you
worked on reading material (books, newspapers etc.)?

All of them. I mostly worked for newspapers and magazines, which
included designing advertising. I have also designed a few books, a
couple of which were done with sans-serif text, which received
favourable comments from many people.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

In article <8j6vq3-8l1.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.comwrote:

Printed material does not necessarily use serif faces.

Most printed material does, if there's a lot of prosed to read.

The studies I have seen showed serif typefaces to be marginally
easier to read than sans-serif, bit not by a significant amount.

I once knew of similar studies -- for print media only. The serifs
on fonts are intended to guide the eyes along the line of text, to
prevent your eyes from jumping accidentally to adjacent lines of
text in a paragraph.

The effectiveness of serifs relies in part to the high resolution
available in print media. Video displays, on the other hand, have a
poor resolution, with pixels big enough to see. On video displays,
serifs do little more than introduce clutter into the text.

In my own experience (I used to be a graphic designer), readers
like sans-serif as much as, if not more than, serif.

Sans-serif is certainly more readable on a video display when
rendering paragraphs of prose. Serif is more readable when doing it
on paper.

For headings, or single lines by themselves, it doesn't really
matter.

-A

On 2006-08-12, axlq wrote:

In article <8j6vq3-8l1.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.comwrote:

>
Most printed material does, if there's a lot of prosed to read.
>

>
I once knew of similar studies -- for print media only. The serifs
on fonts are intended to guide the eyes along the line of text, to
prevent your eyes from jumping accidentally to adjacent lines of
text in a paragraph.

That's the theory, but in fact there is no significant difference
in readbility (I'm talking about print media).

The effectiveness of serifs relies in part to the high resolution
available in print media.

The studies do not show any such effectiveness.

Video displays, on the other hand, have a
poor resolution, with pixels big enough to see. On video displays,
serifs do little more than introduce clutter into the text.
>

>
Sans-serif is certainly more readable on a video display when
rendering paragraphs of prose.

Probably.

Serif is more readable when doing it on paper.

Neither studies nor personal experience support that.

For headings, or single lines by themselves, it doesn't really
matter.

Agreed.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.comscripsit:

>
Neither studies nor personal experience support that.

You appear to be trolling. You refute a statement that has very often been
mentioned in this group and other discussions and sometimes backed up with
references. Yet you give no citations or references whatsoever.

If you are not trolling, we can expect a bunch of references from you. There
_have_ been studies on this matter, with varying results as can be expected
("readability" itself is a vague concept), but generally in the direction
that supports the statement that common serif fonts are more readable than
common sans-serif fonts, on paper. You'd need quite a many sources to even
question this seriously. But if you're trolling, you don't need references
and don't have one.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On 2006-08-13, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.comscripsit:
>

>
You appear to be trolling.

I'm sorry if it appears that way; it's not my intention.

You refute a statement that has very often been mentioned in this
group and other discussions and sometimes backed up with references.
Yet you give no citations or references whatsoever.

It has been many years (decades) since I read those studies. At the
time, the same statement was frequently trotted out. It was not more
valid then than it is now.

If you are not trolling, we can expect a bunch of references from you. There
_have_ been studies on this matter, with varying results as can be expected
("readability" itself is a vague concept), but generally in the direction
that supports the statement that common serif fonts are more readable than
common sans-serif fonts, on paper.

It's a statement that people believe only because it has been
repreated so often.

It has been so long that I cannot provide references, any more than
anyone else can provide references supporting it.

You'd need quite a many sources to even question this seriously.

Do you have any references supporting it? Just because something is
widely believed does not make it true.

But if you're trolling, you don't need references and don't have
one.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:40:18 +0200, Nije Nego wrote:

What is you favourite font family choice for pages with predominant text
content?
Which one is the most readable, with regards to body text <pand what for
<h1>?
>
I tend to use serif for <pand sans for <hx>.
>
Regards.

Thanks everybody for their thoughts and experience.

I've noticed, since I've changed body text to serif, visit lengths
increased (not neccesarily connected to font-family, but ...) between
10-30%.

Regards.

--
buy, bought, bye