[scribus] font usage
gregp_ky at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 16 16:50:08 CEST 2009
On 08/16/2009 03:36 AM, Helge Hielscher wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:51:41 -0400, John Culleton wrote:
>> The book "Type& Layout" by Colin Wheidon& Geoffrey Heard comse down on
>> the side of serif fonts for all uses in terms of comprehension.
> How did they measure it? Are there studies with sustainable results?
> There are counterexamples, e.g. "Legibility and Readability of Small
> Print" comes to the conclusion: "Contrary to the Hypotheses regarding the
> superiority of sans serif fonts, the presence or absence of serifs did not
> distinguish the better fonts from the worse ones."
> "Performance differences between Times and Helvetica in a reading task"
> summarises "Romans and sans serifs were found to be equally legible"
As others have said, this is an interesting discussion. It may seem
paradoxical, but I think the intensity of opinion and discussion is an
index of how important this issue of font choice is. I'd like to
encourage anyone interested to submit some of their knowledge and
experience to our wiki in the Design category:
I'd like to see if I can gather together some snippets from the list
discussion, since I think there were some points well taken here.
It's also important to acknowledge that legibility/readability is the
not the only influence on font choice. Looking within various font
families, one can easily see that fonts have their own body language
that communicates something an author or designer may also want to
impart to some layout. This also is apparent in knowing that at least
some who contribute to the list and do layout may have thousands of
fonts, and are constantly searching for more. How many serif or sans
serif fonts does one need? There doesn't seem to be a finite answer to that.
More information about the scribus