3 ms·

Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. I use a serif font on my Kindle. I recently bought a book that was somehow locked to only use sans

Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. I use a serif font on my Kindle. I recently bought a book that was somehow locked to only use sans-serif. I got a few pages in, and had to stop, it was terrible. I wrote the author, who apologized and claimed he was trying to fix it. There are going to be some sans-serif fonts that are more readable than some serifs, but in my 25 years as an amateur fontophile, that is a rare exception. The author rightly asserts that legibility is a very difficult metric to evaluate, and there are a large number of other factors in play here like conditioning, but I think the market is evidence enough that serif fonts are still the choice of book designers and typesetters long after the initial technical reasons for doing so have become obsolete.

varikin 14y ago
I don't think the article was saying that sans-serif is more legible than serif, but that the studies showing the serif is more readable have issues with methodology and their results are not valid. Meaning, the debate is still ongoing.
Silhouette 14y ago
Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. No, but the body of evidence suggesting that there is little if any difference might. The best starting point I know if you want to explore it is Alex Poole's site[1], which cites a large number of sources and some critical commentary similar to the blog post introducing this HN discussion but with much more material. [1] http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/ http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s... ... I think the market is evidence enough that ... The "market" used to think the world was flat and if you didn't drown you were a witch. Common perception is a lousy substitute for properly conducted experiments, particularly in any usability-related field, where it's been found time and again that self-reported preferences don't necessarily correlate with measured performance.
- tokipin 14y ago
  hey if you don't drown you're definitely a witch
pekk 14y ago
> Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. It does mean you can't show it to be true, which means it's entirely rational not to accept it as true until that kind of evidence is presented. What is really going on here is that you prefer serifs, without this being a global truth for everyone. That preference would continue to be a thing even if it were found that sans-serif were 1% more readable or something. Some people will still prefer serifs and be upset if they don't have them and in cases like ebook readers, that may be important to consider. It isn't necessary to stretch to claims that serif fonts are objectively better in some way, in order to have a reason to use them or make them available.
nollidge 14y ago
And just because one particular serif font looks better to one particular person than one particular sans-serif font on one particular medium quite obviously does not mean it is true. Nor do your amateur fontophile gut feelings matter--and, I should add, nor do mine, or anyone's. > but I think the market is evidence enough that serif fonts are still the choice of book designers and typesetters long after the initial technical reasons for doing so have become obsolete. Trivially true, but that's not at all evidence that book designers and typesetters pick them due to their readability[0], rather than, say, cargo-cult psychology. For my part, I'd rather wait until there's evidence either way, rather than presuming that my personal preferences (which probably align mostly with yours, FWIW) are due to objective factors. That's what science and evidence are for, after all: to prevent us from convincing ourselves of things that really seem true, but aren't. [0] Of course they pick fonts based on readability--they wouldn't use Zapf Chancery for Moby Dick--but I mean that they don't necessarily eliminate sans-serifs for such reasons.

varikin 14y ago

I don't think the article was saying that sans-serif is more legible than serif, but that the studies showing the serif is more readable have issues with methodology and their results are not valid. Meaning, the debate is still ongoing.

Silhouette 14y ago

Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. No, but the body of evidence suggesting that there is little if any difference might. The best starting point I know if you want to explore it is Alex Poole's site[1], which cites a large number of sources and some critical commentary similar to the blog post introducing this HN discussion but with much more material. [1] http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/ http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s... ... I think the market is evidence enough that ... The "market" used to think the world was flat and if you didn't drown you were a witch. Common perception is a lousy substitute for properly conducted experiments, particularly in any usability-related field, where it's been found time and again that self-reported preferences don't necessarily correlate with measured performance.

tokipin 14y ago
hey if you don't drown you're definitely a witch

pekk 14y ago

> Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true. It does mean you can't show it to be true, which means it's entirely rational not to accept it as true until that kind of evidence is presented. What is really going on here is that you prefer serifs, without this being a global truth for everyone. That preference would continue to be a thing even if it were found that sans-serif were 1% more readable or something. Some people will still prefer serifs and be upset if they don't have them and in cases like ebook readers, that may be important to consider. It isn't necessary to stretch to claims that serif fonts are objectively better in some way, in order to have a reason to use them or make them available.

nollidge 14y ago

And just because one particular serif font looks better to one particular person than one particular sans-serif font on one particular medium quite obviously does not mean it is true. Nor do your amateur fontophile gut feelings matter--and, I should add, nor do mine, or anyone's. > but I think the market is evidence enough that serif fonts are still the choice of book designers and typesetters long after the initial technical reasons for doing so have become obsolete. Trivially true, but that's not at all evidence that book designers and typesetters pick them due to their readability[0], rather than, say, cargo-cult psychology. For my part, I'd rather wait until there's evidence either way, rather than presuming that my personal preferences (which probably align mostly with yours, FWIW) are due to objective factors. That's what science and evidence are for, after all: to prevent us from convincing ourselves of things that really seem true, but aren't. [0] Of course they pick fonts based on readability--they wouldn't use Zapf Chancery for Moby Dick--but I mean that they don't necessarily eliminate sans-serifs for such reasons.