Font Best Practices

[Notjohn]

If you plan to sell this magazine on Amazon, be aware that you can't use KDP for that purpose.

There's also this:

>I think it's still just best to not use an embedded font at all, and leave it up to the reader to choose their preferences. Only use embedded fonts in very rare cases for obscure characters (like Polytonic Greek).

Yes. Embedded fonts can irritate readers, and that's if they don't get ripped out beforehand by Amazon, again assuming you have KDP in mind.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Intel ClearSans in all of its four variants, LiberationMono (weird but it seems monospace doesn't work in many ereaders ??), some hand-written fonts - e.g.

When he opened the notebook, he saw she had written "Alice's Ice Cream Points" on the inside cover.

It would be nice for a span around "Alice's Ice Cream Points" to cause it to use a font designed to look like human printed text.

It's odd though, I just tried a bunch of Android ePub readers and they reminded me why I hate smart phones - seems like underneath these ePub apps are all the same engine and really just exist for no other purpose but to interrupt what I am doing to show me ads.

I like the idead of the handwritten notes. But I really dislike the idea of using an embedded font for the main text. The two sets of fonts you've chosen are really really ugly fonts and it would make reading the book not nice at all. So please leave them out. Also, leave out the monospace font if possible. Instead of the mono font, use sans-serif and that would differentiate the text while using whatever the default sans-serif font is. That would be much better for the reader.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Of course it's not necessary, but why should something be 100% necessary to be accomplished?

Look around - all businesses are now in prefab buildings and they all look the same. All houses being built all look the same. Do you want every book you read to look the same too?

Don't you get bored where there is no artistic freedom to mix things up a bit? I sure do.

Yes, you can be artistic, but you also have to make sure your artistic choices work. in the previous message I wrote, you'll see what doesn't work. Also, some artistic choices are a major epic fail such as all that wasted spaced in chapter heading for most eBooks.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

If you plan to sell this magazine on Amazon, be aware that you can't use KDP for that purpose.

There's also this:

>I think it's still just best to not use an embedded font at all, and leave it up to the reader to choose their preferences. Only use embedded fonts in very rare cases for obscure characters (like Polytonic Greek).

Yes. Embedded fonts can irritate readers, and that's if they don't get ripped out beforehand by Amazon, again assuming you have KDP in mind.

Alice, don't forget that on a Kindle, you HAVE to select the Publisher Font option before embedded fonts will be displayed. Most people won't do that or even think to do that so unless you have a nice big note in the eBook saying to do so because you have embedded fonts. Amazon's really bad idea to make the users have to select a font option to see embedded fonts means embedded fonts on a iIndle aren't all that useful. It would have been better if the Kindle defaulted to showing embedded fonts and let the user override.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The two sets of fonts you've chosen are really really ugly fonts and it would make reading the book not nice at all. So please leave them out.

Huh, I find Clear Sans to be far more readable than the vast majority of fonts that others use. I also rather like the Liberation fonts - maybe because I've been a Red Hat user since 98 so I was exposed to the Liberation fonts very early.

Liberation Mono has a dotted 0 which many monospace fonts lack, and Liberation Mono also has all four standard variants which the majority of monospace fonts lack.

Rather interesting though that you consider Intel Clear Sans to be ugly, it is the most readable screen font I personally have encountered. At least for me. Lucida Sans is also very readable to me and is another I love, but it isn't free.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Huh, I find Clear Sans to be far more readable than the vast majority of fonts that others use. I also rather like the Liberation fonts - maybe because I've been a Red Hat user since 98 so I was exposed to the Liberation fonts very early.

Liberation Mono has a dotted 0 which many monospace fonts lack, and Liberation Mono also has all four standard variants which the majority of monospace fonts lack.

Rather interesting though that you consider Intel Clear Sans to be ugly, it is the most readable screen font I personally have encountered. At least for me. Lucida Sans is also very readable to me and is another I love, but it isn't free.

One of the other issues is that a sans-serif font (no matter which font) is not a good choice for the main font. The main font should be a serif font. New Readers and a lot of current software allow the user to choose what font to use and if you embed a main font, some software cannot override it. So please, leave the choice of font up to the person reading.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Huh, I find Clear Sans to be far more readable than the vast majority of fonts that others use. I also rather like the Liberation fonts - maybe because I've been a Red Hat user since 98 so I was exposed to the Liberation fonts very early.

Well, our Wolfie is rather notoriously opinionated. :-)

He's right, however, in discouraging the embedding of an unchangeable body font. I don't know or recall where you intended to publish, but some vendors (Amazon and iBooks) are pretty inflexible about that being a patent no-no.

Liberation Mono has a dotted 0 which many monospace fonts lack, and Liberation Mono also has all four standard variants which the majority of monospace fonts lack.

Yes, I'm fond of easy-to-distinguish zeroes and ohs, myself.

Rather interesting though that you consider Intel Clear Sans to be ugly, it is the most readable screen font I personally have encountered. At least for me. Lucida Sans is also very readable to me and is another I love, but it isn't free.

As a personal comment--unrelated, utterly, to your book or font choices, I'd rather stab my eyes out than ever deal with another Lucida font, but that is largely driven by my hatred of Lucida Calligraphy and Lucida Handwriting, both of which I see over and over and over and over and, well...you get the drift. For me, a Lucida font is like seeing Comic Sans, Chalkboard or Papyrus.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One of the other issues is that a sans-serif font (no matter which font) is not a good choice for the main font. The main font should be a serif font. New Readers and a lot of current software allow the user to choose what font to use and if you embed a main font, some software cannot override it. So please, leave the choice of font up to the person reading.

He does have a point here, although, NO DOUBT, a bunch of sans defenders will leap in here, asserting that "myriad studies have shown" that a sans font is "better" than serif, but...my own gut still leans toward serifs for readability, generally. I find sans fonts particularly difficult in eInks, but, I freely admit, THAT could well and truly just be me.

Hitch

[AliceWonder]

Dyslexic readers I have spoken with overwhelmingly prefer sans-serif fonts, and actually quite a few of them prefer Comic Sans MS even though designers despise it.

I'm not dyslexic but my eyes are not as good as many people.

I know they say to use Sans for headers, Serif for content - but I find it more readable to use Sans for both.

I usually use Helvetica Bold for headers (section titles) in LaTeX and either Clear Sans or Lucida Sans for content - but my Helvetica (and my Lucica Sans) licenses only cover Type 1 .pfb

Specify Helvetica w/o including it, and many will use Arial which is definitely not as pleasant to look at for section titles. Liberation Sans though is metric compatible w/ Helvetica and looks very good.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Dyslexic readers I have spoken with overwhelmingly prefer sans-serif fonts, and actually quite a few of them prefer Comic Sans MS even though designers despise it.

I'm not dyslexic but my eyes are not as good as many people.

If your book is destined for Amazon, they actually have a font on their readers specifically meant for Dyslexic readers, FWIW.

I know they say to use Sans for headers, Serif for content - but I find it more readable to use Sans for both.

It's your book; do what you wish.

I usually use Helvetica Bold for headers (section titles) in LaTeX and either Clear Sans or Lucida Sans for content - but my Helvetica (and my Lucica Sans) licenses only cover Type 1 .pfb

Specify Helvetica w/o including it, and many will use Arial which is definitely not as pleasant to look at for section titles. Liberation Sans though is metric compatible w/ Helvetica and looks very good.

Well, the thread was originally about "font best practices" and WOFF--which we all explained isn't supported.

The rest--font preferences, etc.--those are, obviously, opinions. (Albeit, granted, a number that are supported with some research into typography and typography best practices, readabiity, and so forth.) You plan to use sans fonts in your magazine, and that's your call.

As someone here explained, you cannot distribute magazines via KDP, so I'm assuming you mean it to be distro'ed via your own website, so you don't have to live with any vendors' requirements, either. That certainly gives you a lot of freedom.

Good luck.

Hitch

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You plan to use sans fonts in your magazine, and that's your call.

I went looking through my books and I don't think I have any novels that use sans serif for the body text. Technical and non-fiction books often use it. Magazines almost always use it; I think I read somewhere that magazines are why sans serif fonts became popular.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Dyslexic readers I have spoken with overwhelmingly prefer sans-serif fonts, and actually quite a few of them prefer Comic Sans MS even though designers despise it.

But if they have a modern Reader (Kobo or Kindle) or the correct software, they can choose what font works for them. I've seen many eBooks using fonts that don't work. A lot of fonts are too light for eInk screens. They don't have enough weight to them and that makes your book hard to read.

I know they say to use Sans for headers, Serif for content - but I find it more readable to use Sans for both.

I usually use Helvetica Bold for headers (section titles) in LaTeX and either Clear Sans or Lucida Sans for content - but my Helvetica (and my Lucica Sans) licenses only cover Type 1 .pfb

Specify Helvetica w/o including it, and many will use Arial which is definitely not as pleasant to look at for section titles. Liberation Sans though is metric compatible w/ Helvetica and looks very good.

It is OK to use sans-serif for headers/chapter titles. But it's not OK to embed a font for that. Just specify sans-serif and the reader will see whatever the default sans-serif font is. You don't need Helvetica or a font that's similar. Nobody will care that the sans-serif on their device is not Helvelitca or similar. They will just care that they can read it.

Before you embed a font, ask yourself, do you really need this font? Will the book display properly using whatever the default font is? On my Kobo Reader, I have a font that I use when I read. It's my preferred choice. I don't recall if embedded fonts can be overridden as it's been so long since I've tried as I strip out most embedded fonts. But if the font(s) you've used was not appropriate for me and I didn't have the ability strip/change/override, I'd either have to put up with it or not read your book.

So please don't embed when you don't need to. On a Kindle, most people won't read with your fonts and those reading ePub will curse you.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

I went looking through my books and I don't think I have any novels that use sans serif for the body text. Technical and non-fiction books often use it. Magazines almost always use it; I think I read somewhere that magazines are why sans serif fonts became popular.

I just had a look at a magazine and it has a mix of serif and sans-serif.

But, on eInk, the font has to have enough weight and most embedded fonts don't have enough weight. They may look OK on a tablet, but eInk, nope.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I just had a look at a magazine and it has a mix of serif and sans-serif.

Maybe it's swinging back the other way. I think it was Time and Newsweek that were always sans serif.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Maybe it's swinging back the other way. I think it was Time and Newsweek that were always sans serif.

Maybe. But after looking, I do like the serif font better.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by Hitch

If your book is destined for Amazon, they actually have a font on their readers specifically meant for Dyslexic readers, FWIW.

Yes but that's just marketing. Sick marketing, but marketing.

Fonts for dyslexia almost always look very weird to others and cost a large amount to license yet don't have a single academic study demonstrating they work better than other sans-serif fonts. They look odd different because it makes people think that there must be a valid reason why the oddness was chosen.

The reality is dyslexia is very complex and what works well for one does not work as well for another, so someone with dyslexia needs the ability to change the fonts specified. Thus DRM that prevents altering the CSS is bad because some people need to be allowed to do just that in order to benefit from what they paid for.