Re: Re. (Sans?) Serif

Subject: Re: Re. (Sans?) Serif
From: Gwen Barnes <gwen -dot- barnes -at- MUSTANG -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 22:30:02 GMT

-> "I've read (sorry, couldn't find the specific journal reference,
-> keep looking) that an opthalmologist/psychologist did the resear
-> 10 or more years ago, and discovered fairly conclusively that th
-> increase the visual differentiation between characters and thus
-> type more readable; since recognizing differences requires that
-> differences, the conclusion seems to have been based on the idea
-> emphasizing differences between character shapes makes them easi
-> recognize and thus read."

Probably the same guy who decided that Desktop Publishing software
should emulate typewriters rather than real typesetting systems. Stanley
Morison should be turning in his grave.

On that happy note, any of you "serif fonts are easier to read than
sans serif" DTP apologists are welcome to explain to me exactly why a
book set in ITC Garamond, Tiffany or Bookman is more readable just
because the font has serifs, than the same book set in Helvetica,
Franklin Gothic or Futura.

I'm waiting.

Gwen gwen -dot- barnes -at- mustang -dot- com
MSI * Connecting the world 805-873-2500

Previous by Author: Career longevity
Next by Author: Typographic Literacy
Previous by Thread: Re: Re. (Sans?) Serif
Next by Thread: Re[2]: Re. (Sans?) Serif

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads