Comments on: Serif vs. Sans Serif

By: Robin Clarke

Robin Clarke — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:19:33 +0000

I get lots of direct marketing mailings here. These people thoroughly research what mailings make them profits v losses. They know what theyre doing (have built millionaire businesses on these letetrs) and they nearly *never* use sans-serif fonts.
I rest my case.
Meanwhile the early computers weren’t up to serif and the computer world has therefrom got stuck in its rut of “modern” tradition.

By: Monogrammed and Personalized for Mom | My Unique Shower Curtains Blog

Monogrammed and Personalized for Mom | My Unique Shower Curtains Blog — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:55:18 +0000

[…] as honor the room’s most frequent visitor. The text font used in monograms can be either serif or sans-serif, fancy or tamed, unique or plain. Have fun with the font chosen. Allow it to speak to your […]

By: Steph

Steph — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:22:32 +0000

Pointless discussion — sorry.

By: MARTIN GUSMAN

MARTIN GUSMAN — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:52:00 +0000

need to put all the information in spanish if someone does not know how to read english.….

By: dont talk fluff.. talk fact and justify fact

dont talk fluff.. talk fact and justify fact — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:06:00 +0000

Mr. Ted– Don’t tell me you are unaware of other visual variables and composition techniques that can help govern the readability of text on a page in comparison to another other than the font and its treatment itself.

By: Kevin Harrison

Kevin Harrison — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:33:00 +0000

Any e-commerce site that i have my hands in, i always make sure every font is sans-serif.

By: Ted Swart

Ted Swart — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:26:00 +0000

It is always best to use an actual example:

Go to the February 2007 issue of Discover magazine and turn to facing pages 12 and 13. On the left is serif font and on the right a sans serif font(in the same size). I challenge anyone to deny that the serif font is both aesthetically more pleasing and easier to read. Of course there are circumstances in which a case can be made for using serif fonts. But in the main, sans serif fonts are massively overused because of the faddish notion that they are more modern and high tech. Donald Knuth — who is high tech par excellence — designed some of the most beautiful fonts which have ever existed for use in TeX and Latex. Go for beauty I say.

By: Mortal

Mortal — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:41:00 +0000

I agree with Katherine. I think Georgia is one of the few fonts that can and should be used online and on-screen.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:27:00 +0000

To be honest, I’m still very suprised that many sites still use Serif fonts. I find that Serif fonts are slightly harder to read then sans-serif fonts. When i design i usually stick to sans-serif fonts.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:21:00 +0000

I have no problem with Georgia on screen. Infact, Georgia was created with that intent in mind. While I also believe in using sans serif for on line and serif for print, I think the exception is Georgia.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:08:00 +0000

I code small e-commerce websites all day, 99% of the fonts we use are all sans serif.

By: Alex Lotensin

Alex Lotensin — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:04:00 +0000

My theory is that legibility has much to do with familiarity. One who grew up with Helvetica, Times, etc. will scan those faces faster…

By: Theodore Rosendorf

Theodore Rosendorf — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:48:00 +0000

Sorry about the type here...
Quality on-screen type rendering has not been a priority for Microsoft. They've passed that savings on to you.

[Note (August 08)]
[This thread is old. The site has been redesigned since]
My rational for the use of the Georgia face on this site was that Microsoft would release their new version of Windows with better type rendering soon enough. Now that's been postponed...again.
Now I'm in a position of needing to redesign the site, so by the time I do that, Vista may be out and the serif type---I plan to continue its use---will look right to [some] of you.

For those of you running Windows: You will have to wait until Vista is released before you'll have quality type rendering on-screen. Serif and Sans Serif..
You can also try tuning your ClearType:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx

By: Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:58:00 +0000

Well said Genius Girl. I totally agree with you 100%. Everything you said is correct and you definitely hit the target on that one. You are definitely the genius and I commend you. For sure, Genius Girl knows what she’s talking about!

Right now, I am definitely hurting my eyes reading this serif text. What a bummer!

By: Genius Girl

Genius Girl — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:45:00 +0000

There is no right or wrong. The answer is "C" both.

Serifs are good on lengthy texts due to its legibility and readability. They are prefered on the context of physical pages (i.e., books, mags, etc).

Sans serif are more stylistic and works well on short context (i.e., titles, headings, etc). However, sans serif are much more legible and appropriate on screen (i.e, online text).

Right now, this type choice is all wrong--we should be on a Sans Serif typeface, because we are all straining our eyes trying to read this blog. How sad is that? =(

By: Achim

Achim — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:50:00 +0000

Either OR! But never mixed!

By: Mister Thorne

Mister Thorne — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:32:00 +0000

What an interesting question!

Studies consistently show that serif type is easier to read. But that's when the type is printed on paper. When it comes to on-line type, other issues weigh in, especially the size of the type.

If you want to know how to set type, just look around -- a newspaper, a magazine, that horrific looking piece that just came out of a laser printer . . . .

By: Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:00:00 +0000

Well said, Jim.

By: James Arboghast

James Arboghast — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:03:00 +0000

It's a moot question. Why should one be preferable to the other? Both type forms exist and their merits are relative.

Tremendous discussions by very knowledgable typographers on this subject exist at typophile.com
http://www.typophile.com/node/17236

and typographi.ca
typographi.com/000276.php

By: Ambrand

Ambrand — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:52:00 +0000

Sans-serfi for header text, but always Serif for body text, Times New Roman is so pleasing to read.

By: Mort Knach

Mort Knach — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:10:00 +0000

I insist on only using typefaces that use both serif and sans serif mixed together. It’s stupid but it’s my signature touch. A trade-off no worse than my wearing under outside my jeans. 100 percent style and 0 percent class. My way.

By: Chris Jansen

Chris Jansen — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:07:00 +0000

Technical issues aside, I go with whatever reflects the mood of the piece. //c

By: Richard Parsons

Richard Parsons — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:42:00 +0000

i would have to go with "c" because it absolutely depends on the circumstance. i did enjoy the irony of the baner graphic for this discussion topic.

p.s. new freeway signage font = http://www.clearviewhwy.com/

By: Eric K Stevens

Eric K Stevens — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:53:00 +0000

"Legibility" is a funny thing. This reminds me that Verdana was designed for the screen, yet is not a particularly attractive typeface. It has characteristics of both a sansserif and a serif face.

Anyone have a link to the new freeway signage font that come out a little while back? I remember people finding it 'ugly' though it was highy legible...

By: Stefan Kjartansson

Stefan Kjartansson — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:43:00 +0000

My theory is that legibility has much to do with familiarity. One who grew up with Helvetica, Times, etc. will scan those faces faster…

By: Fisheye

Fisheye — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:39:00 +0000

Differing studies have concluded that each is more legible than the other. Personally (and not scientifically) I feel that legibility has to do more the the particulars of the specific design of the typeface, not the general family to which it belongs. Also, legibility is dependent of circumstance. For instance, a bold sans face may be more legible on a road sign, but a delicate serif may be more legible for 9pt book type. Therefore, I think either is appropriate depending both on the function of the text and the mood the designer wishes to convey.

By: Coudal

Coudal — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:33:00 +0000

Like asking “food or oxygen, choose one.”

By: Kristopher Cargile

Kristopher Cargile — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:29:00 +0000

I’ve always read that sans serif is more readable on screen, while serif is better for print.

So, I’ll take door C Pat.

By: stephanie aron

stephanie aron — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:24:00 +0000

A.

I would have to go with sans serif type. Of course they are both needed buti cant seem to think of a time i use serif except for body copy.….….

sans serifs are more fun to alter and i think there is more of a need for these faces. legibility