Fonts

[KarenB]

When I write in Windows I like to use Verdana as it works well on screens. I always think fonts such as Times Roman need a higher resolution than most computer monitors and certainly smartphones.

However recently I was using Collabora Office on Android to do some writing and Verdana isn't available on Android. Needless to say the font I was using in Android wasn't available in Windows.

Google Roboto can be installed in Windows and is available in Android so that sort of works. Then you get to a multitude of book readers.

Can anyone think of a better solution?

Ta

Karen.

[gmw]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

If you want Verdana to use elsewhere for yourself then you might read about Core fonts for the Web and see if you can install a legitimate copy of Verdana wherever you need it. Or this page of Linux equivalents shows a useful comparison of alternative fonts that might help you on other systems.

If you are asking about fonts for the software you use for writing then it sounds like you have already done what I'd do, which is hunt around for fonts easily available on each environment. There are lots of free fonts but the quality is highly variable; if you find one you like you should be able to install it wherever you write. If you have strong preferences then you might consider investing in a commercial font that you can use across all your systems, they aren't usually very expensive.

But if you're asking about a font to embed in your publications and force that on your readers then I'd say: Don't do it! One of the great things about ereaders is the ability to customise the reading experience, and I find it quite frustrating when publications lock me in to the publishers choice.


As for personal preference font choices... I still like serif fonts on my ereader, but I'll sometimes switch around (on a whim) - including some I've installed (like the "Improved Charis SIL" discussed here). On my other screens it varies a bit, a lot of sans-serif stuff, but I still tend to code in Courier New (too old a habit to comfortably change, it seems). And most often I write using Georgia.

Back when there were not that many choices I thought Times New Roman was pretty good, and I still often use it as the serif font when I intend to generate PDFs without an embedded font (to keep the file size down) because Times New Roman or something very close is available pretty much everywhere. I find Arial makes a good sans-serif equivalent.

[KarenB]

I think it comes down to pixels per inch, the higher the number the better serif faces look. Courier New that takes me back to typewriters and using Pica to get a few more characters on the page.

If I'm writing then I think I prefer a sans serf font because it works on a wider range of screens. Apparently I read somewhere that teenagers can now read san serif fonts as quickly as serif ones which is sort of interesting as you read by the shape of a word and the serifs help older people especially recognise the shape of the word.

The other consideration is it ought to be a font that is available on many different devices and that is more difficult. At least we don't have to pay for size of type in a typeface these days.

Karen

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by KarenB

If I'm writing then I think I prefer a sans serf font because it works on a wider range of screens. Apparently I read somewhere that teenagers can now read san serif fonts as quickly as serif ones which is sort of interesting as you read by the shape of a word and the serifs help older people especially recognise the shape of the word.

Unsubstantiated.

Also if a serif font looks poor you must have a very low resolution screen in DPI, not overall pixels.

Verdana is really a font for headings.

[gmw]

I have little doubt that what a person has grown up with has a strong influence on what they find easiest to read. Do I like serif fonts on my ereader simply because I grew up reading serif fonts in books, or is there a genuine difference? Did past studies effectively control for that historical use aspect?

And screen quality (not just PPI, but contrast and all the rest of it) has made a big difference. The subtleties between different serif typefaces, or between different sans-serif typefaces, was often lost on older screens. Now you really can tell the difference between a period and a fly-spec ... well, most of the time.

There are still enough lower resolution displays that sans-serif is sometimes a better choice, especially if you like small text, but it's getting less common as a real requirement. However that doesn't change what people have grown accustomed to seeing on screens, so I think sans-serif is often chosen now as a matter of convention or habit rather than genuine need - particularly when you look at the font sizes used on many sites.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by KarenB

I think it comes down to pixels per inch, the higher the number the better serif faces look. Courier New that takes me back to typewriters and using Pica to get a few more characters on the page.

If I'm writing then I think I prefer a sans serf font because it works on a wider range of screens. Apparently I read somewhere that teenagers can now read san serif fonts as quickly as serif ones which is sort of interesting as you read by the shape of a word and the serifs help older people especially recognise the shape of the word.

The other consideration is it ought to be a font that is available on many different devices and that is more difficult. At least we don't have to pay for size of type in a typeface these days.

Karen

I think you're not paying attention to what Quoth mentioned--what he's saying is sure, fine, embed a font for yourself if you wish--but leave the font choice for the reader--of whatever age--to the reader.

AT Amazon, FWIW, if you try to force the font choice, you'll receive a KQN and be told to fix the book, or worse. Just...thought I should mention that.

Hitch

[hobnail]

There's a thing called contrast in a font's design. In higher contrast fonts the thin strokes are thinner and the serifs can be more pointy.

Here's an explanation for it:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-contrast-in-typography

Here's a study that concludes that lower contrast fonts are more legible:

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article...icleid=2771520

The last sentence summarizes:

These results lend support for an account through which letter-stroke with low contrast, and not serifs, facilitates observers' lexical identification thresholds.

I think this explains why I've always liked Comic Sans.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hobnail

There's a thing called contrast in a font's design. In higher contrast fonts the thin strokes are thinner and the serifs can be more pointy.

Here's an explanation for it:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-contrast-in-typography

Here's a study that concludes that lower contrast fonts are more legible:

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article...icleid=2771520

The last sentence summarizes:



I think this explains why I've always liked Comic Sans.

Y'know, seriously--the whole Comic Sans thing. It's grossly overdone. People go apes**t about it, as if you've committed some cardinal sin, by using it. Well, the laugh's on them--studies have repeatedly shown that CS is highly readable, particularly by those who are children or who have reading difficulties.

I'm honestly over the whole "OMG, how could you use that FONT!" Sturm und Drang of book (and other) designers. It's fallow and shallow and idiotic.

It's snobbery and...ugh. Designers see font. Designers luv font. (Yes, Papyrus and Bleeding Cowboys, you two know I'm lookin' at YOU!) And they think that they are so cool, so hip, in the now, grad of Parsons and all that drivel. ("Gimme that Avenir Next!")

But then--GASP!--OH NO! The hoi polloi discover it! Auntie Em down at the Grocery has a sign out, for apricots, in--eeeek!--Papyrus! James Cameron will strike them dead for the heresy! The world as we know it has been corrupted by the dirty little people who have no design sense!

The moment some regular, un-degreed, not-genius-designer person uses that formerly-speshul font, then it's "OH DEAD TO ME."

Get over yourselves, designers. I've strictly forbidden any talk like that at my shop. Won't have it. Just because Auntie Em liked a font doesn't mean it doesn't have its place any longer in the pantheon of font usage. Are there fonts I loathe? OH, YES, sure (and being the boss, I can ban 'em whenever I wish, that's why I make the little bucks), but that's not due to the dirty-little-people using them. :-)

What a bunch of fatuous posing. I just cannot take that stuff any longer.

Mea culpa, /rant.

Hitch

[Buren]

I don't get the hate for Comic Sans as well, they are perfectly readable, and 'have their own personality.'

I'm interested in knowing reader's font preferences. I used Calibri, I like the font but for some reason (or maybe my own imagination), I don't see it often in books, and the feedback that I got is that they are more on the smaller size.

I don't really like Times News Roman, maybe because it reminds me of school essays when I was still struggling with a computer bigger than a small mice town, and Arial is a bit too formal.

Any suggestions from readers about your font preference?
Thanks

[Quoth]

Georgia.
Yes, it's boring, but doesn't intrude.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Georgia.
Yes, it's boring, but doesn't intrude.

have you ever tried Bitstream Charter?

[Martinoptic]

Andika and Gentium Book Plus (Charis) and Jon’s Chareink work well for me.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

have you ever tried Bitstream Charter?

Apparently not as it's not installed.

There are free and non-free versions. The free version may not have an adequate character set.
https://practicaltypography.com/charter.html

Charter is also available as a full OpenType font family (though not for free).

Charter is the basis of another free font called Charis. Charis has a larger character set, so if you need that, you might prefer it to this version. But if not, stick with this one—Charis includes some questionable design modifications.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstream_Charter

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Apparently not as it's not installed.

There are free and non-free versions. The free version may not have an adequate character set.
https://practicaltypography.com/charter.html



Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstream_Charter

ChareInk is based on Charis SIl which was based on Bitstream Charter.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by KarenB

If I'm writing then I think I prefer a sans serf font because it works on a wider range of screens. Apparently I read somewhere that teenagers can now read san serif fonts as quickly as serif ones which is sort of interesting as you read by the shape of a word and the serifs help older people especially recognise the shape of the word.

I think (as others have mentioned) that you shouldn't worry too much what font you choose and what font is more likely to be installed on different devices. If I read one of your books, the first thing I would do is change the font to Constantia (which is my favorite eReader font). If you tried to lock me into a font of your choice, I would just clear it and convert your book to Constantia via Calibre. Personally I do not like sans-serif fonts for reading. But choice is good and I know some folks like sans-serif fonts a lot.