What's your favorite font to read in?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I've settled on a font called Thesis SSi, which I found on a WordPerfect font CD.

Here's a link to download Thesis SSi. It comes with some kerning.

http://fontzone.net/search?q=thesis+SSi

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm glad it's not my dirty socks. PU!

Chicago was disliked by many many people when Apple first used it. Printouts also looked terrible when that font was used. Obviously one person likes it. But (IMHO) there are so many better fonts out there.

Now THAT is an expressed opinion which I also agree with.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Unless you add weight to Adobe Garamond Pro, it will be too light to comfortably read with. I've some eBooks that embedded AGP and I found it to be too light.

+1
I either substitute my fav (from a WP 8 fonts CD) or just remove the font-family line

[Barty]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Here's a link that gets you an even better free deal. You can pick up the regular and the italics for free. You could buy the bold versions or try using a font editor to add weight to them to make them bold.

https://www.fontspring.com/fonts/min...rstfreeproduct

Thanks!

Originally Posted by theducks

Basic Black (#FFFFFF)

Who in their right mind make the body of a Novel in any other shade?

That's white

I agree. It's incredibly annoying when publisher decides inexplicably to make the body font something life #212121 and makes you wonder if your eyes are going bad.

[spindlegirl]

My current favorites are Felbridge and Robotoslab.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Unless you add weight to Adobe Garamond Pro, it will be too light to comfortably read with. I've some eBooks that embedded AGP and I found it to be too light.

At 300dpi on a laser printer, 13 point is very readable, so I guess the exact device and the font smoothing algorithm have a lot to do with it.

Also, there were several updates to the font, so it's possible that the embedded version was one of the first releases. The latest that I have is "Version 2.04 August 28, 2014".

[Jeremy_Loweryp]

My roommate for a while was a graphic designer, so I used comic sans because it annoyed her. Now I just like classic Times New Roman.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

At 300dpi on a laser printer, 13 point is very readable, so I guess the exact device and the font smoothing algorithm have a lot to do with it.

Also, there were several updates to the font, so it's possible that the embedded version was one of the first releases. The latest that I have is "Version 2.04 August 28, 2014".

Adobe Garamond Pro looks fine printed. It doesn;t look good on an eInk screen. It just looks too light.

[drjd]

Another good font tested on Ink screens. DejaVu Condenced Serif. OpenType layout, TrueType Outlines. Looks good on Kobos. Open license.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by kacir

...Nowadays it is Ubuntu font.

I like the Ubuntu font as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(typeface)

I typically read with serif fonts. My two favorites have been Trebuchet when I had my Nook and Kobo Nickel (though I had to tighten the line spacing as much as possible before it looked right to me).

[GtrsRGr8]

Out of laziness, or whatever, to look for other possibilities, I almost always use the old Times New Roman for the body of text.

All that I can say for certain is definitely some kind of serif font for the body of the text, instead of sans serif.

But it seems like I've seen a trend that began, say 15 years ago, for publishers to use sans serif, instead of serif, in the body of texts more than they used to.

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?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

... 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)

Those "points and protrusions" are called serifs. Hence the name for font "serif" and "sans-serif" [meaning Without serifs]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by kacir

Those "points and protrusions" are called serifs. Hence the name for font "serif" and "sans-serif" [meaning Without serifs]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif

Ha! I remember that, now.

[meeera]

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:

"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 )"

[Barty]

Originally Posted by meeera

There's a decent discussion of the serif wars here:

http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are...rif-typefaces/

Conclusion:

I prefer serif on e-ink and sans serif on LCD/OLED. Maybe it's the screen technology, or I prefer serif for longform fiction, or I'm just used to the convention.