Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
In the old days, we were taught to always use a serif font/typeface for the body of the text, at least, because it is "easier on the eye" (I suppose that that means that there is less eyestrain. And, it stands to reason that serif, with its points and protrusions (there's a technical name for those, but I don't remember what it is) would make the text flow easier to the eye when reading it and create less eyestrain than the block styles). Does anyone know, authoritatively and definitively if that is still the scientific thinking about the matter?
|
There's a decent discussion of the serif wars here:
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are...rif-typefaces/
Conclusion:
Quote:
"What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. Is it the case that more than one hundred years of research has been marred by repeated methodological flaws, or are serifs simply a typographical “red herring”?
It is of course possible that serifs or the lack of them have an effect on legibility, but it is very likely that they are so peripheral to the reading process that this effect is not even worth measuring ( Lund, 1999 ).
Indeed, a greater difference in legibility can easily be found within members of the same type family than between a serif and a sans serif typeface. ( Tinker, 1963 , Zachrisson, 1965 ). There are also other factors such as x-height, counter size, letter spacing and stroke width which are more significant for legibility than the presence or absence of serifs. Poulton, 1972 ; Reynolds, 1979 )
Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility. ( Bernard, 2001 ; Tinker, 1963 )"
|