TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-05 > 0957317445


From: JEFFREY OWENS <>
Subject: [TMG-L:] TMG-L: Re: Font-handling & Typography
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 21:30:45 -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$1660f7a5@lautman> <390D7E4F.6B970164@epix.net> <390DAC62.B35F8EF9@uswest.net> <390DE65F.12BC7A73@epix.net> <005a01bfb3d4$c468bba0$ef500a3f@1pka7>


THIS MESSAGE IS NOT ABOUT TMG.
DELETE IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST.

Dear Ms. Mills and others who responded,

Mills wrote:
>
> <snip>... a sans serif font, used for the text-body, is "institutional-looking."
> For financial reports, then, Arial, Helvetica, and their kin can be quite
> appropriate.
>
> However, without exception, in every guide to typography and "desktop
> publishing" that I've ever seen, as Ken, John, and Chris have amply noted,
> just about the *first* guideline given is to use serif fonts for the body
> and sans-serif for the headlines or subheads.

As I indicated, my survey was most unscientific, and because of my
particular interests not a sample of mass circulation. They could be
further described as: 1. Technically oriented magazines from the
electronics and
telecommunications field; 2. Corporate annual reports and other similar
communications.

I won't list the many examples of font-rule breaking, but
my samples all seem to be in contradiction to the style recommendations
cited by everyone, with these exceptions: Boeing's report was entirely
in serif
font, and most proxy notices (printed on lesser quality paper) were
serif. The magazines employed many fonts in their advertising copy.
However,
the article texts were nearly entirely in sans-serif. My assumption
about these publications is that the largest corporations in the U.S.
are using skilled and trained personnel or contractors to produce them.
The graphics, and quality of printing and paper, certainly seem to be of
the highest quality, so I make an assumption they are also using skilled
typographic designers.

It seems that from these brief samples there may be a trend to use
sans-serif in this genre of publication because of certain visual impact
and/or "institutional" feel as was suggested. These types of
utilizations are more aptly described as _art_. Hence, we have the
'typographer's art'. Now with
this in mind, we can analyze from a different perspective why certain
typefaces might be selected. They are based more on reader response and
focus of attention than on specific physiological limitations or
abilities of the body's wonderful instrument, the eye. Maybe there is a
different set of rules for various types of applications. The volume of
text sections can not be the deciding factor because many of the
contraindications are quite
lengthy.

The majority of sources presented in our brief examination state that it
is the 'rule', the 'convention', the 'guideline' to use serif for large
blocks of text. There is some insinuation that this rule stems from some
kind of reader ability to 'see' it better. If we apply a little of the
critical eye toward establishing proof that the genealogist might use
about their great-grandmother's birth date, we can see that nothing has
been put forth that approaches a high standard of proof about the
selection
of serif being physiologically mandated. Some of the statements about
'many tests', and so on, if measured against the rigor we apply to
genealogical evidence, fall into the hearsay and supposition category.

I repeat my acceptance of the suggestions and guidelines which were
presented as being the current standard of the typographer's art as
stated within their
respective bindings, but I would reserve my judgment about serif being
necessary in
all mediums for maximum clarity and/or
comprehension. Some of the sources quoted, and personal preferences
mentioned, rate the typefaces similar for reading speed or appeal. So I
question whether the references offered fall into a similar category of
much
of the genealogy found on the internet which suffers from repeat of the
same tainted information until it is impossible to discern the
underlying facts.

Hey, this is a small, insignificant point in the scope of life and world
affairs. And maybe the whole thing is boring and annoying. So I hope
you haven't read this far if it is. My initial message was for the
purpose of eliciting a brief response from someone who might have had
the information just lying on the surface. It was not my intention to
start a debate or injure anyone's credibility. However, I still seek
the results of some form of scientific basis which indicate, that for
visual acuity, sans-serif is inferior somehow, thus justifying the 'art
of typography' as more than preference and convention. Many think
Picasso was great, and others consider it bizarre and hideous. I was
trying to confirm my observations of fonts, and determine if there is a
different aspect about certain configurations making them truly a
biological necessity. [As an aside,
what do typographers say about Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, etc.? It would
be interesting to hear what kinds of comparisons and differences in
visual perception are encountered. Obviously, serifs don't count here.
But that would definitely widen the discussion.]
>
> (2)
> > 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.
>
> No, the rules haven't changed on this point.

My thought was, that due to the lesser quality paper in times past, and
still in most newspapers, there is blurring of the printed letters which
is due to ink being absorbed into the paper irregularly thus causing
fuzzy line quality. This factor was compensated for by the design
modifications of existing serif fonts by the London Times. Today's
paper, printing and ink technologies can eliminate this consideration
for all but microscopic examination. Accordingly, if the reason for
developing improved serif fonts was due to the above, then tests
conducted would have
verified the same. However, now that this blurring is not a
consideration in most cases,
what research verifies that serif fonts are still the most 'readable'?

One might ask from what basis would I have any knowledge of the eye and
its physiology. It is not from any experience in typography. It results
from my training and experience with flight physiology and visual
perception of flight instruments. I don't claim to be any published
expert in the field. I am a professional pilot with twenty years plus
of experience in the engineering, design and maintenance of cockpit
layout and installations. I wasn't making any claims, only seeking
knowledge.

The original nature of my question was one of inquiry to determine what
claims are there in the body of typographic knowledge that indicate this
supposed superiority of a particular font. Thinking that somehow this
might be useful knowledge to me. BTW, I checked through a number of my
technical aviation magazines, not for what font the magazine was printed
with, but to verify what was on mind about serif fonts. (I am
semi-retired and wondered if I have missed something new before
writing.) I could find no examples among all of the major manufacturers
of serif fonts being used to label electronic equipment controls or
instruments via labels, placards, silkscreening, etc. Also, the video
tubes used in the electronic cockpits of today all display text in
sans-serif. I wonder what aspects of the printed page make the
necessity for serifs? I don't offer any proof of what's more
'readable', but doesn't it say something about flight safety if
sans-serif is somehow less readable?

One must be prepared to catch some flak when espousing a viewpoint not
situated near the center. I asked about something I was observing,
which in my ignorance, was far out by some evaluations. I learned
something about the intellect of some of the list members. One must be
careful about the usage of Mother English. There are too many skilled
listeners to fracture anything and have it go unnoticed. In trying to
be brief, my initial message was obviously nerve stimulating for some.
I'm
running this through my spell checker twice, and waiting until tomorrow
to post it for fear that I have inadvertently expressed something
irritating enough to incur wrath, or grammatically incorrect enough to
invert meaning. Sorry to be so lengthy, but obviously I wasn't being
clear in my brevity.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Owens
P.S. (Likely there are still errors. I am not a professional writer.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: