2 ms·
Except that that is exactly the thesis that the article has rather convincingly demonstrated to be completely unproven. It may still be true, but we don't now.
by fhars 14y ago
Except that that is exactly the thesis that the article has rather convincingly demonstrated to be completely unproven.
It may still be true, but we don't now. And I am not sure that Bodoni will beat Gill on the "visual cohesion to lines" metric, Bodoni is quite static and vertcal, while Gill is rather flowing.
- ricardobeat 14y agoQuoted: > reading speed or reading comprehension, which have no bearing on glyph recognition per se This post is focusing on legibility - how efficiently can we recognize the shape of letters and words. The studies on reading speed and comprehension, which he dismisses without any backing whatsoever, are the ones that surface the difference between serif vs sans. His arguments are 1) "legibility is poorly defined" 2) "reading has no relation to legibility" (?) 3) "it's complicated" 4) "paper X turned out to be bogus" (because the author cheated in an unrelated study). That doesn't add any information to me, just controversy. He also ignores the fact that sans-serif type is currently way better for reading on monitors due to their low resolution. Serifs look great on a >250 dpi display. How many books have you seen lately printed in sans that are not for kids?