Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id CAA26119; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:00:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:00:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <38741164.230271EC@worldnet.att.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Penny & Dave O'Leary" <oleary.ocs@worldnet.att.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2103] Re: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-WNS5.0 (Win95; I) Status: OR Hello Everyone: A few months ago I posted a mention for a local college on serif vs san serif on the internet. She rec'd a number of responses and sent me a compilation of her responses with her thanks to the list. Hi Penny-Happy New Year! Here is a followup to my question regarding typefaces on websites. Thanks for posting. Tizzy > Thank you to everyone who responded to my query about serif vs sans serif > type on websites. You will find below a compilation of responses. There > was no clear consensus except to continue to use multiple means of > developing and assessing readable information (ie it's more than a > typeface discussion), and that some research into readability on websites > would be useful. Everyone who responded back to me provided information > that was relevant and articulate and included helpful resource > information. I appreciate the sharing of opinion and expertise! > Tizzy Bennett, MPH, CHES > Lead Health Educator > Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center > Seattle, WA > > Edited versions of responses: > Except for people like me, I'm guessing that the font (serif or sans > serif) is a rather minor consideration compared to lots of other > factors. > > I have never seen anything about a formal study, but I'd sure like to > be included in somebody's study. I HATE serif fonts on screen at > normal sizes. They have to be quite large for me to be able to read > them without really straining--then I like them. I have little > problem reading text on screen in sans serif fonts at rather small > sizes (except when there are huge blocks of long lines of text, which > shouldn't be happening on a Web page anyway). > > One expert I respect is Ron Scheer. He says there's no one answer to > the serif/sans serif issue when it comes to Web sites. See > http://www.ronscheer.com/html/newsletter3.html#topic3. Then you might > want to see what else Ron has to offer at http://www.ronscheer.com. > Ron has a strong interest in plain language and in designing sites > for audiences with different cultural backgrounds. I've enjoyed his > comments on a plain language discussion list, but haven't actually > looked at much of his own Web site. > > Also see sections on type at http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/. > > I think it's VERY important to check WEB pages > - on both Macs and PCs > - at different screen resolutions > - with a couple of versions of both Explorer and Netscape > - with both the default settings and a couple of user-defined settings) > to see what happens to everything, including the fonts. > > It's also important to test them with a variety of real people, who > may respond quite differently. > > For readability, it's not sufficient to ask people what they LIKE. > Also check what happens when they READ. For example, I found that > literacy students who strongly preferred the look of Tekton on paper > really stumbled over text in Tekton. They had little trouble with the > same text in several other fonts (serif, sans serif and even another > script font). > > ......................................................................... > ............................. > > I have not seen any reliable studies on the readability of fonts for > websites. I look forward to hearing if anyone has found one. I would > assume > that the reasons sans serif fonts are not as good for comprehension on > paper > would hold true on a screen, too. However, I don't know of any research > citing that belief. (You're probably familiar with Colin Weildon's book, > "Type and Layout" in which he describes his studies on this issue.) > ......................................................................... > ..................... > As a further note I would add that at two recent graphic trainings the > presenters both recommended san serif fonts. Their cited studies that > demonstrated that the eye sees the screen make micro jumps thus, san > serf foths are both easier to read because they appear less muddied. > When I questioned the "readability", they both admitted the studies they > had 'heard of' were about visual readability not the readers ability to > decode writing. > > ......................................................................... > .................... > try this web site: > > http://www.draytonbird.com/qa/answers/175.asp > > It offers answers to direct marketing questions and I was surprised to > learn one dealt with type faces and readability. What's nice is that the > response is based in part on findings from research. > > ......................................................................... > ...................... > Jan White in his book Graphic Design for the Electronic Age addresses the > Serif/sans-serif in some detail. He points out that serif originated from > the > chisel marks made for Roman instriptions on marble. so this style has been > > with us for a long time. The quills of medieval scribes also left serifs. > > White presents both sides of the arguements. He also lists 14 factors that > > are more important in readability of text than the serif/sans-serif issue. > He > conculdes that there is no clear cut advantage of either. > > ......................................................................... > .............................. > common sense tells me that the same > factors that apply to the printed word would also apply to the > telegenetic (?) word. Wheidon did find, as noted below, that > differences in comprehension between serif and sans serif dissappeared > after the type got to 18 points or larger, so since one can choose to > post larger type on one's web page, and since the viewer can also choose > (for the most part) to increase the font size on material they are > viewing on the internet) one might argue that it doesn't matter what > font you use - as long as it's large enough. I also note, however, that > for the most part, when reading web sites published by news > organizations, they use serif fonts (just like they do for their printed > product). Anyways, I doubt that there will be any closure on this > particular issue until someone actually tests comprehension on computer > screens the way Wheildon did for printed materials. > > > > Anyone interested in this debate should read Colin Wheildon's "Type and > > Layout; How Typography And Design Can Get Your Message Across--Or > > Get In The Way".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:54 EST