Re: Font choices

[Michael Lewis <lewism -at- BRANDLE -dot- COM -dot- AU>]

Bruce Byfield wrote:

> And, come to think of it, I would argue that Time is readable only
> because of its familiarity. By any of the usual standards of
> readability, such as large x-heights, dozens of fonts are better
> choices. For example, Palatino is extremely popular, but it remains a
> good choice because of its readability.

What most people forget about Times is that, although it's classed as a
"legibility" font, it was designed for a very specific set of
circumstances: newsprint, which -- even in the London Times -- is a
coarse paper; high print speeds; narrow columns (short lines). It's
great within those parameters, but loses something in other uses.
There's an old rule of thumb that says the ideal measure (margin to
margin) should not exceed two-and-a-half alphabets (65 characters). In
most applications, Times blows out to 90 or more characters per line,
which gives the reader some difficulty in tracking from line to line.

Then, of course, familiarity breeds contempt. A boring appearance
generates an expectation that the text will be boring. That makes it a
little harder to capture the reader's interest, so the communication
process is already compromised -- before the reader has actually read a
single word.

Modern technology and design techniques offer wonderful resources to
help make our communication more effective. Making ill-informed -- or,
worse, casual -- choices is a little like saying "I don't really care
about the affectiveness of the finished product". We always have to make
some compromises, if only to ensure that we do actually get the thing
out the door, but those compromises should (IMO, of course) be carefully
considered.
--
Michael Lewis
Brandle Pty Limited, Sydney, Australia
PO Box 1249, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Suite 8, The Watertower, 1 Marian St, Redfern 2016
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~lewism
Tel +61-2-9310-2224 ... Fax +61-2-9310-5056