Ask a graphic designer or an editor, and they’re almost certain to give you their personal opinion one way or the other, but studies into readability generally find little or no difference. So are serif fonts more readable than sans serif, or vice versa? In a word, no. However, some serif fonts, such as Georgia, have been specifically designed to display well even on low-resolution screens (and you can see it in action on the New York Times website). Serif fonts aren’t usually used for text intended to be read on screen because on lower-resolution screens the serifs can look fuzzy and inhibit readability. In fact, it’s so traditional to use serif for printed material that using sans serif can be a statement of modernity or even (small) rebellion. However, as the eye doesn’t travel in a smooth line when reading, but in quick jumps known as ‘saccades’, this argument is questionable. The generally accepted wisdom is that serifed typefaces are better for printed material, because the serifs guide the reader’s eye along the line. They’re usually used online, but are becoming increasingly acceptable in printed materials.
Arial, Helvetica and Verdana are the most common. Examples include Times New Roman, Garamond and Bookman Old Style.įonts that lack these small projecting features are called sans serif (from the French for ‘without’, but usually pronounced ‘sanns’ by printers). Those with small projecting features are known as serifs. For those of us who don’t deal in fonts every day, the number of fonts on offer can seem overwhelming – but it doesn’t have to be.įonts generally fall into two categories – serif and sans serif.
0 kommentar(er)
