[IxDA Discuss] Arial vs Vernada?

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Dane Storrusten wrote:

> This isn't entirely true. I would vote with confidence that serif  
> typefaces (select few) read more efficiently than sans serif in the  
> context of body text or paragraphs, no matter what medium (digital  
> display or print). The addition of thinner columns opposed to wider  
> is an additional factor as well but disregard that for now.

There are only a a very few typefaces that do and the ones that do  
are generally designed only for modern, higher resolution computer  
screens at small sizes. (A few of the new "C" typefaces and Georgia  
can fall into this category if spec'd very specifically and in  
controlled contexts)

> The mix-up between serif and sans serif typefaces (for body text)  
> in today's digital world is a battle between conscious visual  
> aesthetics and subconscious reading comprehension.

I disagree. The mix-up has been due to largely to the fact that serif  
type on low-resolution devices has been next to unreadable,  
especially when pixelated. This is a technological constraint that  
forced a work-around in a certain time period. That work around was  
to use a san serif font which has far fewer aliasing issues on low- 
res devices.

It's similar to the problem that happened with typewriters. The lack  
or true typesetting and kerning between letterforms created the need  
to add multiple spaces behind periods to breakup the copy to make it  
more readable, to the degree that now breaking people of that  
technological habit has been difficult for those in certain age  
ranges that learned the rule. The rule is now no longer needed given  
typewriters have been replaced with devices that allow for more  
accurate typesetting.

In the near future, screens will have sufficient resolution to  
accommodate serif fonts at smaller sizes, allowing designers to set  
body copy with serif fonts which tend to be more readable in large  
blocks of content due to the fact that detail of the letterforms  
actually makes it easier for the brain to process that kind of  
information.

> So because both are readable due to users capturing shapes of words  
> rather than each individual character, they tend to lean toward  
> sans serif being "better" because it's overall appearance seems to  
> have more integrity...

Which is a direct result of technology of the computer screen. Which  
is my point.

> Easiest test, make two identical paragraphs (alias or anti-alias),  
> one with a serif font and san serif font... then read them to  
> yourself. I think you'll find serif more effortless to read and  
> comprehend.

Only if the resolution of device you are reading on can hold the  
details of the serifs. Try using those serif fonts on low res devices  
like cell phones.

-- 
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

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