Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In my day job, I use an accounting package that displays everything in
> Arial. It is difficult to read, it cuts off the bottoms of letters (the
> descenders, like the tail on a lower case "j").
Ouch, and a good point. I should have clarified.
When I write educational content I go with larger fonts -- never smaller
than 14 point, 18 to 24 if possible -- which makes the sans-serif stuff
considerably more readable. I agree that in sutuations where font size
falls below 14, especially where user interaction such as editing must
take place, sans-serif fonts aren ot desirable.
I can't speak to the printing issues but it seems a bit backward that
you'd get something on the screen and another thing from the printer.
(Read: bad design someplace.)
> Lastly, can I point out something which graphic artists and page
> designers have known for decades: when reading large blocks of text, the
> easiest to read fonts are serif fonts (the ones with little tiny feet on
> them) like Times/New York.
For printed material yes; however as I recall studies have also
indicated that it is the sans-serifed fonts which are easier to read
onscreen. (I could be wrong about those recollections.)
Ultimately of course how something looks onscreen and how easy it is to
use has little to do with a given font, I suspect, compared to how much
effort the coding team puts into making it look decent and usable in the
first place.
--
warren ockrassa | nightwares | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
