4 ms·
This is classic form over function. It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Something
by manigandham 6y ago
This is classic form over function. It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text.
Something like Helvetica with good spacing and high contrast is the best for reading online.
- jacobolus 6y agoHelvetica is designed for posters and logos. It is a poor typeface to choose for body copy, especially on screens.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThis isn’t to dispute serif vs sans-serif. I’m pointing the letter spacing. Doesn’t matter if it’s serif or sans-serif. If the fitting is bad, it’s going to be difficult to read. The vision system recognizes word shapes and it’s sensitive to how much space is between letters (kerning is a bit different, usually pairs of glyphs). Orthogonally, can you cite the scientific source that claims sans serif is better on displays? Curious when it was published. I wonder if it still applies to retina displays and hidpi screens.
- messe 6y ago> It's been scientifically measured that sans-serif fonts are better for screens with serif best for printed text. Were any of those studies conducted after high DPI displays became commonplace? Other than backlighting, I can't think of much that would distinguish a serif font on a high DPI display from one in print.
- manigandham 6y agoNot every screen is high-DPI, and device modality matters too. Being able to touch and trace with your fingers on a smartphone with flexible angles is very different than scrolling text on a monitor. True legibility needs to take into account all of those factors.