Re: sans serif fonts

Subject: Re: sans serif fonts
From: Buck Buchanan <buck -dot- buchanan -at- CITICORP -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:58:56 -0700

Dianne Walsh wrote:
>
> Buck wrote: the argument for sans serif fonts is indefensible.
>
> Well, here's a defense:
>
> My company publishes some of its smaller manuals as booklets; i.e., =
> pages are set up in Word at full size and then we use a print utility to =
> literally "shrink" them to half-size. It didn't take us long to find out =
> that serif fonts looked terrible and were virtually unreadable when =
> reduced. We got much better--and more readable--results using a sans =
> serif font (good ol' Arial).=20
>
> Someone else--I think it was Pat Gantt--said that she had understood =
> that research showed sans serif fonts to be more readable. I've read =
> that too, somewhere. She wasn't making it up.
> _________________________________________________________________________=


Tooshay!

--
Buck Buchanan
Software Documentation
Citicorp Technology Center
Westlake, Texas
Speaking for me, not for them!

buck -dot- buchanan -at- citicorp -dot- com
formerly: writer -at- dhc -dot- net

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Re: Electronic Submittal of Proposals
Next by Author: Re: Salaries
Previous by Thread: Re: sans serif fonts
Next by Thread: Sans Serif Fonts


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


Sponsored Ads