> [T]he overwhelming thrust of the available evidence is
that there is no difference in the legibility of serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces either when reading from paper or when reading from screens. Typographers and software designers should feel able to make full use of both serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces, even if legibility is a key criterion in their choice.
Interesting! Does it touch on why people initially became so opinionated about serif/sans readability? And what’s a meaningful characteristic if not serifs?
Most of those 160 pages, is repetitive mish mash of various historical research (many of questionable quality) on typeface readability loosely grouped by certain themes retold in a way that makes it even less clear about their results, quality and whether testing conditions are useful for making any good conclusions.
Little value in reading it all unless you follow references and read what the quoted research actually did and said. The chapters have different thematic, but content and conclusions are very samey -> a bunch of questionable research and research which was inconclusive or didn't observe significant overall advantage of serif vs sans serif.
As for where it came from to me it very much feels like the defense of serif typefaces is largely typographers defending existence of their craft and people talking past each other with overgeneralized claims. There is definitely value in the art and craft of typography and I respect that. It would be too bland if everything used plain sans serif fonts that barely differ from each other, and you can definitely mess up typography making text hard to read when done badly. But I also believe that there is plenty of things based on traditions and "everyone knows x because that's how we have always done it".
As for sans serif for screens the obvious reason and also thing that comes up multiple times is low resolution text. At certain resolution there are simply not enough pixels for serifs. The author of paper suggest that with modern high resolution screens this argument doesn't stand.
My personal opinion is that it's not a big issue at sufficiently high text size. But even on somewhat modern 2560x1440 screen I can find plenty of UI elements that have only 7-8 pixels high labels. Not everyone is using retina displays and not everything is long format text. Screen resolutions have increased, but so have information density compared to early computer screens, although there is recent trend of simplifying UI to the point of dumbing it down and adding excessive padding all over the place.
There are other screens beside computers and mobile phones, many of them not very high resolution even by standards of early computer screens. It doesn't make sense to put high resolution screen and Linux computer in every little thing. Problem is made worse by lack of antialised text sometimes due to screen, sometimes MCU memory and compute limitations. You are probably not going to have modern font rendering stack on something like black and white washing machine screen, gas station pump or thermostat
The research multiple times mentioned stuff like low resolution, but it hardly ever quoted hard numbers in a meaningful way. How many pixels a typeface needs to be comfortably represent serif? How many arcseconds? Surely there must be research related to that one. This might be part of problem for some comparative research - can't compare readability of serif/sans serif if there is no serif typeface at those resolution. Stuff like point 10 or point 12 without additional details is meaningless.
Some personal anecdote -> text antialising has huge effect. Made a sample text of serif and sans serif font and zoomed out to the point where lower case letters are ~6px high. I wouldn't expect there to be enough resolution for serif but you can perceive surprising amount of detail in letter shapes. Zoomed in on screenshot it's a blurry mess, but at normal zoom level the serif letters are fine. It's readable but wouldn't consider either of 2 comfortable. When scaled up to 8px both pieces were still harder to read than same height text in UI labels. Why is that? Why is one identical height sans serif text much more readable than other? Are UI labels better pixel aligned? Is it due to subpixel antialising? That's on a 90deg rotated screen, is subpixel antialising even working properly there?
Just for fun switch OS UI font to serif. Due to font sizing inconsistency it ended up being 1 pixel shorter (7px) than same size default UI font. Can those even be considered serifs when they are hardly a pixel each? It felt weird, nowhere near as bad I expected, but still weird.
On both cases it is based on some evidence even if they are completely different (one is a question of definition, another of measurement and observation): for Pluto, it is a round lump of rock going around the Sun on it's own separate orbit; for serif vs non-serif, argument is that serifs help with line tracking for eyes depending on the line spacing and line length.
For a meta-study finding a different result, it'd be great to qualify how was the previous research wrong so we learn something from it.
I've marked as something to pick up as I am very curious.
Thank you, as much as a 160 page book about fonts is probably thrilling, I probably won’t get around to it for a while so was going to ask for the tl;dr
I recently discovered Practical Typography [1] and Typography for Lawyers [2] by Matthew Butterick which have changed the way I've approached presenting information. I would highly recommend each for anyone who uses text to communicate. Butterick is a Tufte for text.
Butterick introduced me to Bitstream Charter for which I'm very greatful. However, I would very strongly urge people to disregard his recommendations for representing hyperlinks.
Instead of just underlining hyperlinks, he has this demented nonsense:
> Cross-references, denoted with small caps, are clickable.
> Links to outside material are denoted with a red circle, like so.
Hyperlinks are almost universally distinguished by underlining them. There is no rational reason to invent a new design language and expect people to learn it. And for what benefit? The seemingly random capitalisation of words and weird circles in the middle of the text makes it much more jarring than simple underlining.
It is kinda funny you recommend those books as a reaction to the linked book.
> Nowadays, we expect such matters to be determined by empirical evidence, not by majority opinion. This book is concerned with the empirical evidence concerning the relative legibility of serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces
Meanwhile Buttericks books are very much "some guys opinion". Granted, that guy has a big passion, but at the end of the day, his books are not grounded in empirical evidence.
My personal experience, if I have to sum it up, would be, “Sans Serif is cleaner and easier for normal reads, such as shorter text, menus, and overall interfaces. Serif for longer reads where I need deeper focus.”
> [T]he overwhelming thrust of the available evidence is that there is no difference in the legibility of serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces either when reading from paper or when reading from screens. Typographers and software designers should feel able to make full use of both serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces, even if legibility is a key criterion in their choice.
I realize it’s lazy to just ask, but… 160 pages…
As for where it came from to me it very much feels like the defense of serif typefaces is largely typographers defending existence of their craft and people talking past each other with overgeneralized claims. There is definitely value in the art and craft of typography and I respect that. It would be too bland if everything used plain sans serif fonts that barely differ from each other, and you can definitely mess up typography making text hard to read when done badly. But I also believe that there is plenty of things based on traditions and "everyone knows x because that's how we have always done it".
As for sans serif for screens the obvious reason and also thing that comes up multiple times is low resolution text. At certain resolution there are simply not enough pixels for serifs. The author of paper suggest that with modern high resolution screens this argument doesn't stand. My personal opinion is that it's not a big issue at sufficiently high text size. But even on somewhat modern 2560x1440 screen I can find plenty of UI elements that have only 7-8 pixels high labels. Not everyone is using retina displays and not everything is long format text. Screen resolutions have increased, but so have information density compared to early computer screens, although there is recent trend of simplifying UI to the point of dumbing it down and adding excessive padding all over the place. There are other screens beside computers and mobile phones, many of them not very high resolution even by standards of early computer screens. It doesn't make sense to put high resolution screen and Linux computer in every little thing. Problem is made worse by lack of antialised text sometimes due to screen, sometimes MCU memory and compute limitations. You are probably not going to have modern font rendering stack on something like black and white washing machine screen, gas station pump or thermostat The research multiple times mentioned stuff like low resolution, but it hardly ever quoted hard numbers in a meaningful way. How many pixels a typeface needs to be comfortably represent serif? How many arcseconds? Surely there must be research related to that one. This might be part of problem for some comparative research - can't compare readability of serif/sans serif if there is no serif typeface at those resolution. Stuff like point 10 or point 12 without additional details is meaningless.
Some personal anecdote -> text antialising has huge effect. Made a sample text of serif and sans serif font and zoomed out to the point where lower case letters are ~6px high. I wouldn't expect there to be enough resolution for serif but you can perceive surprising amount of detail in letter shapes. Zoomed in on screenshot it's a blurry mess, but at normal zoom level the serif letters are fine. It's readable but wouldn't consider either of 2 comfortable. When scaled up to 8px both pieces were still harder to read than same height text in UI labels. Why is that? Why is one identical height sans serif text much more readable than other? Are UI labels better pixel aligned? Is it due to subpixel antialising? That's on a 90deg rotated screen, is subpixel antialising even working properly there?
Just for fun switch OS UI font to serif. Due to font sizing inconsistency it ended up being 1 pixel shorter (7px) than same size default UI font. Can those even be considered serifs when they are hardly a pixel each? It felt weird, nowhere near as bad I expected, but still weird.
That's the default state of all questions. It doesn't need to be explained.
Why do you think people had opinions on whether Pluto should be called a "planet"?
For a meta-study finding a different result, it'd be great to qualify how was the previous research wrong so we learn something from it.
I've marked as something to pick up as I am very curious.
[1] https://practicaltypography.com
[2] https://typographyforlawyers.com.
Instead of just underlining hyperlinks, he has this demented nonsense:
> Cross-references, denoted with small caps, are clickable.
> Links to outside material are denoted with a red circle, like so.
Hyperlinks are almost universally distinguished by underlining them. There is no rational reason to invent a new design language and expect people to learn it. And for what benefit? The seemingly random capitalisation of words and weird circles in the middle of the text makes it much more jarring than simple underlining.
> Nowadays, we expect such matters to be determined by empirical evidence, not by majority opinion. This book is concerned with the empirical evidence concerning the relative legibility of serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces
Meanwhile Buttericks books are very much "some guys opinion". Granted, that guy has a big passion, but at the end of the day, his books are not grounded in empirical evidence.