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. Serif vs. sans serif From:Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Mon, 17 Apr 1995 09:44:29 LCL
Gwen Barnes, responding to my posting about research demonstrating
that serif fonts are easier to read than sans serif, expressed polite
scepticism about the research, the researcher or both. In response:
Gwen: No question, that without being able to dredge up the original
article, I can't rebut your comments "formally". However, in defence
of the research, I can only say that I've always found serif fonts far
easier to read (not just a little bit) than sans serif. The research I
cited confirmed this subjective impression; it did not create the
impression after the fact. If you read sans serif well, more power to
you... I don't, and lots of colleagues don't. If you go back to my
original posting, you'll note that I recommended using a more modern
sans serif font with tapered character widths as a compromise. I find
Stone Sans much easier to read than (say) Helvetica, if not as easy as
Times. This would probably meet the needs of the "revisionists" (you?)
as well as those of the traditionalists (me). Fair enough?
--Geoff Hart geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
#8^{)} <---Maybe serifs are easier for visually impaired editors?
