[IxDA Discuss] Arial vs Vernada?

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Maxim Soloviev wrote:

> Also you might find this link interesting:
> http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm

Sidenote: This goes back to the conversation about usability feedback  
and knowledge a few weeks ago.

When I read sentences in a report like this that states:

"Fonts designed for print, such as Times, were created for both  
legibility and economy of print space. Georgia, on the other hand,  
was designed specifically for computer-display. Georgia is somewhat  
similar in appearance to Times. However to make Georgia more legible  
for computer-screen viewing, its uppercase characters were lightened  
and the letters’ x-height (the height of the torso for lowercase  
letters, such as an 'x') was increased."

As a designer I tend to negate and ignore the entire report. Why?  
Because Times and Georgia are *nothing* like each other. Not even  
close. Not even "somewhat similar in appearance." Further, Georgia is  
heavier and larger all around to make it more readable on the  
computer screen. It's pixels are denser specifically to make it more  
readable on a low resolution device like a computer screen. The fact  
the person who wrote the report stated otherwise tells me right off  
the bat that the report isn't worth my time.

But then even after reading this reports, the tests themselves are  
also questionable. Reading speed is often meaningless in gauging  
whether a font is useful. Everyone reads at different speeds based on  
a variety of factors, not the least of which are things like line  
length, overall copy color, leading, and other typographic rules, all  
of which are different based on whichever font is chosen. And faster  
reading speed has no impact on the utility of any font to be honest.  
Legibility is the only thing that matters, which again is affected by  
more factors than simply the chosen font face.

Further, it appears they tested the fonts without anti-aliasing  
turned on. With anti-aliasing turned off, the legibility of nearly  
all fonts at small sizes is about the same. That is to say, they all  
are mostly crap since pixelated fonts at small sizes can only have so  
many variations to be even legible in the first place. It's like a  
font for LED displays, there's not much yo can do. The details  
between fonts only come into play with more resolution and anti- 
aliasing turned on.

In general... this study is a perfect example of why you should  
ignore studies when choosing a font.

-- 
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422