From: Francis Hwang <sera@...>
Date: 2005-03-16T15:42:09+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Redesign 2005 Blog


On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:01 AM, martin.ankerl@gmail.com wrote:

>>> http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-rubyred-3.0.png
>>> shows large text using serif fonts and small text using sans-serif. 
>>> If one uses both kinds of fonts it should be the other way round.
>> I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body 
>> text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most 
>> monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds 
>> Googling I wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either 
>> way.
>
> Sans-serif is the better choice for screen fonts:
> http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
>

Is that what you'd take away from this study? What about the author's 
statement that "...it is really too early to draw any definitive 
conclusions from this.  Studies need to further examine the effect of 
different fonts on  reading comprehension." ?

Personally I'd at least like to see some sort of a publication date 
(other than the "Last update" notice at the bottom of the page; those 
are often not that reliable.) I'd also be interested in what OS was 
used in the study, since different OSs can make fonts look much more or 
less legible.

Mostly, though, I'm just looking for an excuse to not use any more 
Arial or Verdana ... At some point this past year I realized I was just 
getting really tired of looking at those fonts. ;)

Francis Hwang
http://fhwang.net/