3 ms·
I thought a general rule was to use sans-serif fonts on electronic devices and serif fonts in print, because they are repsectively easier on the eye? This site
by wackget 5y ago
I thought a general rule was to use sans-serif fonts on electronic devices and serif fonts in print, because they are repsectively easier on the eye?
This site - and other similar "web typography" sites - seems to immediately fall foul of that by using serif fonts. In my opinion this makes them less comfortable to read.
- gnicholas 5y agoThe common wisdom was that serif fonts are difficult to faithfully reproduce on the relatively low resolution screens that computers have. But as devices have gotten better resolutions, this rationale doesn’t make as much sense anymore. That fact doesn’t stop some people from repeating the old mantra.
- daviddever23box 5y agoIt's not just about reproduction, but composition, as well; the referenced site uses far too many words per line, at too small a font, to be reasonable legible (it's actually a perfect object lesson of what NOT to do). Sans serif font faces, on the other hand, manage to be readable at smaller sizes, and even more so on modern anti-aliased displays, where they support a greater number of words per line. Lest it seem that I am biased, serif fonts continue to be the best option for so-called "display" purposes (i.e., short line length such as headlines), as well as for subtractive, engravure-based applications such as stone, metal or wood; in these applications, sans serif fonts fail to provide a reasonable sight line.