4 ms·

This might very well be a myth. See e.g. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/#part2 http://alexpoole.info/blog/which

by gliptic 13y ago

This might very well be a myth. See e.g. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/#part2 http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s....

huhtenberg 13y ago
Everything that has to do with the perception might very well be a myth :) However, in typography and type designer circles it is commonly accepted that Serifs are superior for consuming large quantities of text. Also in layman terms - serifs make the glyphs more distinct and easier to recognize at a glance, in contrast to the sans where there are several glyph pairs that look virtually the same.
- dpark 13y ago
  "Commonly accepted" isn't worth much when it conflicts with actual science. Lots of things commonly accepted are simply incorrect.
  - huhtenberg 13y ago
    Please don't pull a Wikipedia on me here. As an old physicist joke goes - Experimental physicist comes to a theoretical physicist office, bring a graph from a recent experiment and asks for a help with interpreting the results. - Well, it's all rather obvious. Here's a peak, here's a dip, because of this, that and third. - Hold it, hold it... you are looking at it upside down. - Ah, right, right. *Rotates the graph*. Oh, it's now even more obvious than before. In other words, the "actual science" you are referring to frequently ends up to be nothing more than a matter of interpretation and a subject to all sorts of biases. Especially when it concerns something as unquantifiable as "comfort of reading". Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself.
    - dpark 13y ago
      You can't just dismiss science and fact when it's inconvenient. Well, you can, but then your beliefs have no more backing than those of astrologers, and you're guilty of willfully spreading misinformation. You asserted a falsifiable statement as fact ("Sans-serifs are generally harder to read") and in the face of fairly compelling evidence that it is in fact a false statement, you immediately appealed to "common knowledge". It's also "common knowledge" that Einstein failed math as a kid and that eating before swimming will give you cramps, but these are both untrue statements. Comfort of reading is very quantifiable. You can present text to a bunch of people in serif and sans serif fonts (double-blind and randomized) and ask them to rate how pleasant the text was. You can be clever and ask questions that measure understanding and retention, or you can ask them how much they enjoyed reading the passage, and these will give you indirect measures of reading comfort. Or you can be blunt and ask if they enjoy reading in the font, though this will pick up biases more. Either way is significantly more scientific than an appeal to common knowledge, though. > Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself. This isn't science. This is just bias confirmation. ("Wow, I prefer the one I expected to prefer!") But for the record, my e-reader font is set to Gill Sans.
      - huhtenberg 13y ago
        I have no immediate way of verifying that what you call a compelling evidence referenced in that blog post is in fact compelling and accurate. I could go through all linked sources, but I don't presently have time for that. On the other hand I read several books on typography and I am partial to the type design. From that exposure I do know that the common consensus between people involved in creating said serifs and sans-serifs is that sans-serifs are generally harder to read. So when I am presented with an evidence to the contrary, you can be damn sure I will doubt it. Throwing around power words like "science" and "compelling evidence" based on a couple of references plucked from a blog post - sorry, but you are well in a meta area, preaching about general subject matter without any regard to the context. You are not the only one who's aware what science and scientific methods entitle, but then you should also be well aware of a bunch of junk that gets published in a format of scientific research, gets quoted and re-quoted and eventually accumulates notable status even though it hasn't even been peer-reviewed once. This happens all the time and it's a part of "science", so being skeptical is a part of the package. And the more obscure the area of the research, the more skepticism is warranted. You surely know that being that well-versed in all things science. -- Your e-reader doesn't have the resolution required for good quality rendering of serif fonts. Hence the Gill Sans.

by gliptic 13y ago

This might very well be a myth. See e.g. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/#part2 http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s....

huhtenberg 13y ago

Everything that has to do with the perception might very well be a myth :) However, in typography and type designer circles it is commonly accepted that Serifs are superior for consuming large quantities of text. Also in layman terms - serifs make the glyphs more distinct and easier to recognize at a glance, in contrast to the sans where there are several glyph pairs that look virtually the same.

dpark 13y ago
"Commonly accepted" isn't worth much when it conflicts with actual science. Lots of things commonly accepted are simply incorrect.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  Please don't pull a Wikipedia on me here. As an old physicist joke goes - Experimental physicist comes to a theoretical physicist office, bring a graph from a recent experiment and asks for a help with interpreting the results. - Well, it's all rather obvious. Here's a peak, here's a dip, because of this, that and third. - Hold it, hold it... you are looking at it upside down. - Ah, right, right. *Rotates the graph*. Oh, it's now even more obvious than before. In other words, the "actual science" you are referring to frequently ends up to be nothing more than a matter of interpretation and a subject to all sorts of biases. Especially when it concerns something as unquantifiable as "comfort of reading". Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself.
  - dpark 13y ago
    You can't just dismiss science and fact when it's inconvenient. Well, you can, but then your beliefs have no more backing than those of astrologers, and you're guilty of willfully spreading misinformation. You asserted a falsifiable statement as fact ("Sans-serifs are generally harder to read") and in the face of fairly compelling evidence that it is in fact a false statement, you immediately appealed to "common knowledge". It's also "common knowledge" that Einstein failed math as a kid and that eating before swimming will give you cramps, but these are both untrue statements. Comfort of reading is very quantifiable. You can present text to a bunch of people in serif and sans serif fonts (double-blind and randomized) and ask them to rate how pleasant the text was. You can be clever and ask questions that measure understanding and retention, or you can ask them how much they enjoyed reading the passage, and these will give you indirect measures of reading comfort. Or you can be blunt and ask if they enjoy reading in the font, though this will pick up biases more. Either way is significantly more scientific than an appeal to common knowledge, though. > Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself. This isn't science. This is just bias confirmation. ("Wow, I prefer the one I expected to prefer!") But for the record, my e-reader font is set to Gill Sans.
    - huhtenberg 13y ago
      I have no immediate way of verifying that what you call a compelling evidence referenced in that blog post is in fact compelling and accurate. I could go through all linked sources, but I don't presently have time for that. On the other hand I read several books on typography and I am partial to the type design. From that exposure I do know that the common consensus between people involved in creating said serifs and sans-serifs is that sans-serifs are generally harder to read. So when I am presented with an evidence to the contrary, you can be damn sure I will doubt it. Throwing around power words like "science" and "compelling evidence" based on a couple of references plucked from a blog post - sorry, but you are well in a meta area, preaching about general subject matter without any regard to the context. You are not the only one who's aware what science and scientific methods entitle, but then you should also be well aware of a bunch of junk that gets published in a format of scientific research, gets quoted and re-quoted and eventually accumulates notable status even though it hasn't even been peer-reviewed once. This happens all the time and it's a part of "science", so being skeptical is a part of the package. And the more obscure the area of the research, the more skepticism is warranted. You surely know that being that well-versed in all things science. -- Your e-reader doesn't have the resolution required for good quality rendering of serif fonts. Hence the Gill Sans.