From: Rogier van Dalen (rogiervd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-01 08:09:53
> > <http://tinyurl.com/5emyz>
> > Serif or sans serif?
> > For continuous reading in print, serif fonts are generally more readable
> > than sans serif. However, on the web, the opposite is true. Serifs are
> > tiny, subtle strokes which, on screen in a small size, become a rather
> > crude series of little square bitmaps. Their absence makes the font more
> > readable.
> BTW, it's not a coincidnce that the top 10 sites (e.g):
> all use sans-serif. These big guys hire graphic designers. I'd really
> push for boost, as a whole (docs/web pages), to switch to sans-serif.
My message, at least, was about long stretches of text, not about
websites with a few phrases. I'm OK with sans serif for headings,
links, table of contents, and what have you.
Interestingly, one of the companies you linked to offers both a
browser and a word processor that by default use a serif font.
Do you own a single book that is printed in a sans serif font?
There is also such a thing as x-height interacting with legibility. A
font like Georgia (an MS "core font") is great for on-screen reading
IMHO. I'm not sure what fonts were compared. Times vs. Helvetica (or
Times New Roman vs. Arial) would not be a fair comparison.
Bottom line: surely your browser's default setting is to use a sans
serif font; I use a serif font; why override that setting?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk