Comments on: Serif vs Sans Serif http://onedge559.com/2009/04/01/serif-vs-sans-serif/ It's beside the point Wed, 19 May 2010 15:43:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hal http://onedge559.com/2009/04/01/serif-vs-sans-serif/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Hal Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:30:29 +0000 http://onedge559.com/?p=214#comment-70 I had read years ago that serif typefaces were more legible than sens serif and have been surprised to learn that research studies find there is no difference. What you're used to reading makes a difference,according to one study. Since virtually all print publications (newspapers, magazines, books--including school texts) use serif typefaces for body text mmany of us likely find serif typefaces more comfortable. I had read years ago that serif typefaces were more legible than sens serif and have been surprised to learn that research studies find there is no difference.

What you’re used to reading makes a difference,according to one study. Since virtually all print publications (newspapers, magazines, books–including school texts) use serif typefaces for body text mmany of us likely find serif typefaces more comfortable.

]]> By: james http://onedge559.com/2009/04/01/serif-vs-sans-serif/comment-page-1/#comment-45 james Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:25:00 +0000 http://onedge559.com/?p=214#comment-45 Two observations: 1) The stylesheet for this blog uses only sans serif...but that's beside the point, which is 2) Other studies (and semi-annoying emails) have claimed that the internal letters of a word are really not important - that we simply scan the first and last, and the heights of other letters. If this is true, then perhaps it's also true that the visual information of individual letters is fairly insignificant. Or, maybe it's the web that's screwing everything up. I blame that. Two observations:
1) The stylesheet for this blog uses only sans serif…but that’s beside the point, which is
2) Other studies (and semi-annoying emails) have claimed that the internal letters of a word are really not important – that we simply scan the first and last, and the heights of other letters. If this is true, then perhaps it’s also true that the visual information of individual letters is fairly insignificant.
Or, maybe it’s the web that’s screwing everything up. I blame that.

]]> By: Katrina Neufeld http://onedge559.com/2009/04/01/serif-vs-sans-serif/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Katrina Neufeld Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:15:08 +0000 http://onedge559.com/?p=214#comment-44 I know. It's completely annoying. I know. It’s completely annoying.

]]> By: Conlan http://onedge559.com/2009/04/01/serif-vs-sans-serif/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Conlan Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:10:48 +0000 http://onedge559.com/?p=214#comment-43 I've read that serif fonts are easier to read on printed material and sans serif are better for reading on a screen. I have no idea where this comes from, but I suspect it's just the preference of whoever wrote it. Sounds to me like it boils down to a design choice. I’ve read that serif fonts are easier to read on printed material and sans serif are better for reading on a screen. I have no idea where this comes from, but I suspect it’s just the preference of whoever wrote it. Sounds to me like it boils down to a design choice.

]]>