Times, take III?

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Bruce Byfield continued our discussion of fonts by noting
 <<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.>>

 And you have a problem with familiarity? As I noted
 earlier, sans serif is very popular in (say) France and
 Scandinavia, and the natives I've spoken to find this style
 perfectly readable. Would you propose that they're wrong
 and should change to Palatino because it's demonstrably
 more legible? Sorry, that won't wash. Besides, now you've
 changed the terms of the debate. I never said Times was the
 _most_ readable... just that it is eminently readable.
 Times was originally designed to cram as much text as
 possible in a small amount of space, but how can you do
 that if it's not an inherently legible typeface?

 Michael Lewis echoed my point that Times wasn't designed
 specifically for user manuals or resumes, then noted that
 <<It's great within those [newspaper] parameters, but loses
 something in other uses.>>

 That's a matter of opinion, not demonstrated fact. Let's
 not forget that except for obviously illegible extremes,
 there is no ideal font and typographic preferences are
 personal, subjective, and highly variable. Trying to pick a
 face based on your personal esthetic judgment ignores this
 fact; I'd agree with you that you'd be ill-advised to use
 Times if you're writing for Bruce, but I doubt Bruce is the
 typical reader, particularly for resumes. Can you find 5
 human resources people who could tell you the difference
 between Times and Baskerville? I doubt it. Actually, I like
 the look of Times, particularly at larger sizes (11 and 12
 point). You and Bruce obviously don't.

 <<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.>>

 Ah, but that's not a font issue... it's a design issue;
 it's obvious that once you've chosen a typeface, you need
 to pick a compatible size and line length (and leading).
 Poor choices of any of these factors (among a long list of
 others) can easily sabotage the most legible font. You can
 design a page two ways: pick a line length and then
 arbitrarily rule out faces that don't fit 2.5 alphabets
 into that length, or pick a face and juggle leading, line
 width and type size until you get readable lines. Both
 approaches are equally valid.

 <<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.>>

 I take your point. I've got enormous contempt for meat,
 cereals, and vegetables... I eat at least one of the three
 every day, and by gosh, I'd love to find something new and
 more titillating to eat... something I can really respect,
 even if it isn't as nutritious. Hmmm.... chocolate bars?
 No, they're rather contemptibly familiar too. <gdrlh>

 Seriously, though, I'd wager that about 1% of your audience
 will ever notice any typeface change that doesn't
 dramatically affect legibility. (One of our local tabloid
 editors reported precisely that experience in the redesign
 of his paper: nobody noticed.) I think another thing we're
 missing out on here is that never once in this discussion
 have we defined our audience. I don't design a publication
 expressly for graphistes or techwhirlers, so my font
 choices aren't based on people who have serious esthetic
 concerns over typography. "Functional" and "familiar" are
 my first two priorities. Esthetics doesn't come up for
 quite a distance down the list of criteria.

 <<Making ill-informed -- or, worse, casual -- choices is a
 little like saying "I don't really care about the
 affectiveness of the finished product".>>

 "_A_ffectiveness"? Given the context, there's a truly
 inspired pun in there involving "affect", but I'll leave it
 lie. <grin> (Sorry... I'm not criticizing your typing, but
 I've never been able to resist the pun.) My choice of Times
 is neither ill-informed nor casual: it's informed, because
 I understand the face's history, know my audiences are all
 familiar with the face and have learned to read it well;
 it's considered, because I've thought of all you've said
 and made the choice anyway. (I'm talking personal choices,
 now. Don't get me started on the highly advanced "pressed
 into wet clay with a pointed stick" approach at work. I'm
 working on it, but sometimes you just have to wait for the
 DTPer to die or retire. <sigh>) FWIW, there are several
 fonts I prefer, both for legibility and esthetic reasons,
 but I have no problem whatsoever with well-designed,
 well-set Times, and neither, I suspect, do most readers.

 --Geoff Hart     @8^{)}     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
 Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, not FERIC.