<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pampellfw:
...whether serif type is more readable than sans serif for body copy?<hr></blockquote>In my experience, there is a considerable difference between what is more easily readable on a printed page and what is more easily readable on a monitor. <p>That said, I have to admit that I prefer sans serif typefaces in print when the type size is particularly small. I do art direction/layout for a guild newsletter and, when I have to reduce the type size significantly for a particularly long article, I switch to san serif immediately to avoid the serif closing/serif disappearing problem. [Note: these articles are typically written by the guild's president. No one is permitted to edit a single golden word, despite her tendency to ramble and her Victorian sentence structure.] <p>I would stick with traditional serif typefaces for business letters, working under the (completely unproven, and possibly irrational) assumption that a traditional appearance is expected, and that it provides a certain psychological comfort level for the reader. <p>Visually, I prefer sans serif on a screen - again, the issue is often that of serif closing/serif disappearing. (But then, I also favour minimalist design in my furniture.) I suspect it's largely idiosyncractic, and probably somewhat age-related. Those who were raised on Wired expect something different from that expected by those who were raised on the print version of The Saturday Evening Post, the online version of which now uses a sans serif typeface.<p>The following articles on the web may be helpful:<p>
Type1<p>
Type2<p>
Type3<p>
Type4<p>
Type5<p>D.<p>[ February 26, 2004: Message edited by: DominEditrix ]</p>