TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Font readability? From:Gail Hodgson <gail -at- HPATO -dot- AUS -dot- HP -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:53:06 EST
All of the studies I've seen (STC, books on usability, books on design)
say that sans serif is easier to read on screen, and serif is easier to
read on paper. However, it's harder to read _everything_ on screen, so
if you're using the one look for both on screen and paper, you're better
off using sans serif.
gail -at- hpato -dot- aus -dot- hp -dot- com
> Okay, here's a question for you usability types. An engineer
> in our company is trying to make us change the font we use
> from a sans serif to a serif type. He claims that serif is
> more readable. Does anyone have some data (studies, hard
> evidence) to back one style or the other? This is a large
> company, and we are resistant to allowing one group
> to deviate from or try to change our standards.
> We're getting conflicting responses from the writers in our
> group, but my first response is to leave our documentation
> in sans serif. It's clean, modern looking, and Interleaf
> handles most kerning issues well, making it very easy to read.