TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-05 > 0957212255


From: JEFFREY OWENS <>
Subject: [TMG-L:] Re: TMG-L: Font Handling Problem
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 16:17:35 -0400
References: <3902069B.7C595110@epix.net> <4.1.20000423183814.009619e0@pop.mis.net> <390453DB.B70ADF18@epix.net> <000a01bfae2b$167a3e00$4a6130c1@in2p3.fr> <012401bfb0fd$5432e7e0$caa15ac2@1> <004601bfb12b$8e842c00$1da70218@mrdn1.ct.home.com> <010e01bfb2fc$1dba13e0$c9a15ac2@1> <00f801bfb308$8ca07720$1660f7a5@lautman> <390D7E4F.6B970164@epix.net> <390DAC62.B35F8EF9@uswest.net>


JH&K Whitehead wrote:
>
> JEFFREY OWENS wrote:
>
> [snipped quote of Fran Jacobowitz's message]
>
> > Quite a long explanation of what seems to be your personal observations
> > and preferences.
>
> Fran did a good job of explaining standard typographic conventions for a
> beginner. If, in an investment forum, someone recommended that you buy low and
> sell high, would you ask them for their sources?

I would certainly want to know what the pertinent factors were if
someone said buy XXYZ @ 23 1/2, including where it was going and when.
Your example is too general. Fran's suggestions were very specific.

Fran stated, "when printing on paper, it is ALWAYS preferable to use a
SERIF typeface such as Times Roman." Always is absolute, meaning no
alternatives. In the context of her preceeding paragraph, she was
indicating that the 'convention' of serif was actually due to some
physiological factor that makes it easier to read. My request was for
some source of this conclusion as a result of scientific study. I
accept all her statements about 'convention', but that does not make it
easier to read. Take Old German script for instance, it was the
standard of its day, but why is not in general use today? Maybe because
it's hard to read, I don't know. My point - standards and conventions
change.

> A huge amount of study has gone into determining how to make print legible -
> the number of factors involved is not likely to be believed by someone
> unacquainted with the field. Other things being equal, for long passages of body
> text a serif typeface is preferred by the readers in controlled experiments.
> "Readers also prefer a serif to a sans serif typeface although there is no
> difference in reading speed between the two." [ _The Illustrated Handbook of
> Desktop Publishing and Typesetting, 2nd Edition_ by Michael L. Kleper. Blue Ridge
> Summit PA: Windcrest Books, 1990, p. 24]
> "Use serif type such as ITC Garamond for body copy. If you think traditional
> serif type looks too formal, use a modified serif typeface such as Souvenir or
> Optima." [_Editing Your Newsletter_ by Mark Beach. Portland OR: Coast to Coast
> Books, 1988, p. 60]
> These are just a couple of things I was able to lay hands on in _my_ cluttered
> office. I'm only an amateur at this, and no doubt there are differences among the
> professionals, but I think Fran's advice was on-target.

Thank you for providing these references regarding style and convention,
but yourself and others who respond missed my question, which I guess
was not clear: What source says serif is easier to read that sans-serif
because it has some visual physiology factor that makes it so?
>
> > I just did a most unscientific survey. Here in my messy office I picked
> > up at random, (everything's at random) six catalogs and magazines, and
> > six corporate annual reports. All twelve of my highly scientific survey
> > were in ARIAL typeface.
>
> This is certainly conceivable, but I think you are likely mistaken. Given the
> number of faces available, the chance of any one face being chosen by twelve
> different designers for twelve different publications seems remote. Some of the
> modified serif faces are quite subtle. In any case, the subject was books, which
> are quite different in design principles simply because of the amount of text to
> be read.

OK, at quick glance, I really can't say they are definitely Arial,
however they are sans-serif of some name.

I checked a few more annual reports. They are about 3 to 1 sans-serif,
so not all in that typeface, and some have a few serif sections, but are
mostly (85-90%)sans-serif.
>
> > What authority do you quote as your definitve pronouncement that Times
> > New Roman is the world's most readable typeface for English?
>
> As I'm sure you're aware, this is not what Fran said. I imagine she
> recommended Times Roman because it is _the_ serif font that is virtually certain
> to be available on anyone's PC. In fact, Times Roman and the other "Dutch" fonts
> are optimized for newspapers, where poor printing quality must be taken into
> account.

I guess what I meant to say was 'serif' instead of Times Roman.

What you might be indicating is that the convention of serif was due to
printing methods of the past, and because of limitations serif was
deemed more readable. That does not mean it is that way for all
printing methods of today.
>
> In my experience this has been an extremely civil mailing list, on which
> people feel quite free both to ask questions and to offer solutions and advice. I
> don't think we are well served by jumping on someone who is trying to be helpful.

I apologize if my question seemed somehow abrupt, but on a list where
many questions nit-pick over the smallest nuances regarding sources and
proof of data, and how to record and present them, I don't think asking
for a source for such a distinct and absolute recommendation, that
_appeared to me_ to be more personal than general usage, was uncivil. I
did not call anyone inferior or make any accusations. I am not sure why
asking someone to give a source of something so basic in communication
as their typeface convention is wrong. It was her "personal" post, I
only asked for some verification of her unsourced directives.

Jeff Owens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: