Peter Nermander wrote: >> The most important thing is legibility, somewhat subjective, but in >> general a serif font will be more easily readable at small size than >> sans-serif. Some people, I think, get lost in the idea of wanting a >> "modern" look to the font, and sans-serif seems more sleek and modern. >> As your eye scans across text, it can have a hard time differentiating >> the number 1 from small letter l from capital I with some/many >> sans-serif fonts, which means that your brain then must use the context >> of surrounding letters, slowing the reading process and bringing about >> some cognitive distraction. The result is subtle visual and mental fatigue. > > As I understand it sans fonts are easier to read, but serif fonts are > generally faster to read. > > This comes down to how we read. People without reading problems read > "word images", we don't read the individual letters in the words but > just see the whole word and our brain interprets it correctly. There > are examples if this where words are written with nonsense letters, > but the words look like regular words unless you spell through therm > (like I just showed:-). > > But people with reading problems (or kids who are learning to read) > read words one letter at a time. Then sans fonts are better because > each letter stands by its own. > > For user manuals and similar there is no need to read fast, it's more > important to not misunderstand, but for a 300 pages novel reading > speed makes a difference (and it's less severe if you missunderstand a > word here and there). >
As an aside to the font question... There is always a need to read fast.. if you have lots to do. You can read fast and comprehend just as much. I once did a speed reading course and went from a lazy 500-600 words per minute to over 1800 wpm with *improved* comprehension. Craig
