[thelist] survey says...

Kelly Hallman khallman at wrack.org
Sat Dec 28 14:49:01 CST 2002


On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Mark Gallagher wrote:
> >"14.  Do use any of the most common font styles (e.g., Arial, Verdana,
> >Georgia, Times New Roman), either serif or sans serif fonts, to elicit
> >the fastest possible reading speed."
> >
> >How does a font being common equate to it being faster to read? Is
> >faster better than easier on the eye, anyway?
>
> It's poorly worded, but I think the idea is to choose an easy-to-read font
> for faster reading, and make it a common one so that most people can
> actually *see* it.  Which is fine, to a point.  I've got Helvetica forced,
> because it's nice and easy to read, and I don't get bothered by people
> attempting to thrust other fonts on me (Times... ugh).

This is one of the many points on that list that indicate the author was
(as has been suggested) merely regurgitating information compiled from
other sources or notes.  However, the information being conveyed is
useful, if a little ambiguous.  The point seems threefold:

First, pick common fonts when defining your styles, since many users might
not have Eurostyle, Impact, etc.  Second, most of the fonts named include
tuned bitmap/screen versions at the lower point sizes, which does greatly
increase readability (compare with fonts rendered by outlines and fills at
lower point sizes).  Lastly I think it was a general point about
consideration of font readability, since some people seem to have a
hankering for "fancy" fonts that in fact are slower to read.

As a side note, serif fonts are actually faster to read than sans-serif!

--
Kelly Hallman
http://wrack.org/




More information about the thelist mailing list