Re: Font favorites

[Peter Martin <peterm -at- FOXBORO -dot- COM -dot- AU>]

At 12:58 6/04/99 -0700, Mark Dempsey wrote:
>So serifs, if really visible, are the visual cues for letters, and can
>be very effective doing so. Onscreen, however, letters are of so much
>lower resolution that serifs cannot be relied upon to be anything more
>than a blur--hindering their proper function.

The "cues" theory is one: The British Medical Council also once
suggested serifs reduce an "irradiation effect" between lines of
text.      Maybe both are right.

But has someone done any research work on the suggestion that screen
serif fonts are worse ?  I've been looking for indications on the
web that this might have been tried, but have so far found zilch.
Anyone any references ?

I recently suggested this in this group as a worthwhile research project.
Maybe it has been done ?  Anyone ?








>One can therefore conclude that custom is probably more powerful than
>the visual cues offered by serifs, so if European readers are used to
>sans-serif, even though they're reading print, it'd be better to use
>sans-serif fonts. In any case, it's probably better to use sans-serif
>onscreen for applications that won't be printed.
>
>(Thanks to Maurice Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception" for the
>example)
>
>TTFN,
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>-- mailto:Mark -dot- Dempsey -at- osi -dot- com
>--
>-- Mark Dempsey
>-- Technical Publications
>-- Objective Systems Integrators
>-- 110 Woodmere, Folsom, CA 95630
>-- 916.353.2400 x 4777
>
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
>
>
>
>
--
Peter Martin, Contract Tech. Writer            peterm -at- foxboro -dot- com -dot- au
+61 2 9818 5094 (home)  0408 249 113 (mobile)  peterm -at- zeta -dot- org -dot- au

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=