28
Replies
Thanks for sharing! I train a lot of new InDesign/FrameMaker users with no background in the principles of setting type or designing pages. I'll add the first one to my list of resources. 
With the explosion of Web Fonts now available from Google, Typekit, Edge and others, we're not limited to the dreary Win/Mac (web safe) font stacks anymore. But too much of a good thing can backfire and lead to abuses. When I see more than 3-4 web fonts on a page, it's distracting and pages tend to load much slower. I think Web Fonts are great but they should be used sparingly.
My biggest other complaint lately -- and this is not limited to the web, it effects all UIs -- fonts are too small and/or lack sufficient contrast to be comfortably viewed on screen. Who decided that gray text on a gray background was a good idea? 
Nancy
<Take away -- if you want to appear credible and authoritative do not use sans-sarif fonts for body text.>
That statement is rooted in past century print conventions; not the modern digital age. While serif might work well in print, usability studies show that sans-serif fonts are much cleaner & easier to read on screen. If you use an Android device, I'm guessing that your web experience is all in Droid Sans.
Web designers are at the mercy of the end user's web devices and settings. We can build great stylesheets with terrific typography but that doesn't mean the end user sees it that way.
Nancy
Nancy O wrote:
"That statement is rooted in past century print conventions; not the modern digital age. While serif might work well in print, usability studies show that sans-serif fonts are much cleaner & easier to read on screen. If you use an Android device, I'm guessing that your web experience is all in Droid Sans."
When I hear someone say "studies have shown" in my mind (and sometimes popping out of my mouth) comes the question: "whose studies?"
"Not the modern digital age," as you are fond of saying, things move fast in web design and that we need to keep up so that also applies to typography. The modern digital age refers to -- after HD screens. Jakob Nielsen had this to say with the advent of HD screens (emphasis in red added):
"The old usability guideline for online typography was simple: stick to sans-serif typefaces. Because computer screens were too lousy to render serifs properly, attempting serif type at body-text sizes resulted in blurry letter shapes. ...
The old guideline was dictated by the poor screens on all mainstream computers. Now that we have high-quality screens, it's time to change the guideline.
In general, usability guidelines remain unchanged decade after decade because they're determined by human characteristics. However, every so often, some guidelines change due to the influence of technology or a change in user habits. For example, 10% of the original web usability guidelines from the 1990s have now changed because of technology improvements. Count this article as changing one more of those old guidelines.
Unfortunately, the new guideline is not as clear-cut as the old one. Legibility research is inconclusive as to whether serif fonts are truly better than sans serif.
Almost all mainstream printed newspapers, magazines, and books use serif type, and thus people are more accustomed to reading long texts in this style. However, given the research data, the difference in reading speed between serif and sans serif is apparently quite small. Thus, there's no strong usability guideline in favor of using one or the other, so you can make the choice based on other considerations — such as branding or the mood communicated by a particular typographical style." Jakob Nielsen - Serif vs. Sans-Serif Fonts for HD Screens
Here is a scholarly article (in serif font 
) by another usability consultant Alex Poole : Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
From the conclusion:
"What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. ...
"Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility."
Here is another article: Serif vs. Sans Serif Fonts: Is One Really Better Than the Other? It debunks the myths that serif is for print and sans serif for digital.
One user at https://www.reddit.com/r/userexperience/comments/2tvm2i/is_serif_more_readable_than_sans_serif_on_mo... made the following comment containing a list of major sites (as of 2015) using both font types:
I don't think there's a big difference, but just to see I did a little experiment. Here are major websites who publish lots of articles.
Serif train: New York Times, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Reuters, NPR, New York Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, TIME, Bloomberg Businessweek, Newsweek, Forbes, Washington Post, Politico, LA Times, The Boston Globe, Wired
Sans serif boat: BBC, NBC, Vox, Medium, Buzzfeed, Fox, ABC, CNN, Mashable, Us Weekly, The Onion, People, USA Today, Telegraph, NY Daily News, Fast Company
I think both serif and sans serif fonts can be readable if you pick a nice one. Leading, tracking, kerning, font weight, contrast, hierarchy, and minding characters per line are also important factors in readability. If you're still font curious and want help making better font choices read Stop Stealing Sheep and Find Out How Type Works.
So the main point that both Jacob and Alex make is that now with the improvement of technology there are no grounds for using the "better legibility" argument for sans serif in digital medium. That is is now a myth. But rather the choice is now stylistic, based upon the designer's subjective aesthetic sensibilities. My personal taste is san serif or flared serif for titles and headings (or "flared" sans like Trajan sans pro) with a serif body font. Your taste may differ. De gustibus non est disputandum -- In matters of taste, there can be no disputes.
Nancy wrote: "Web designers are at the mercy of the end user's web devices and settings. We can build great stylesheets with terrific typography but that doesn't mean the end user sees it that way."
But at least when it comes to what type face they see I can control that using "@font-face"
https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea wrote
How many people have some level of visual impairment?
Nancy
That'll be me then. I am borderline able to keep my driving license, but this is when getting my eyes tested in Specsavers dark cave with a barely lit eye chart. When I see the hospital consultant his chart has windows with decent daylight, and I can pass it easily. Still not flash though. 
https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko wrote
And many high traffic sites use serif fonts. Are they losing traffic because of visually impaired readers?
As I stated back up the thread, my sight is not great, and I can barely read your posts as the letters are smeared into each other. And that's with my browser zoomed in to 110% on a 30 inch monitor (1920x1200). My sight issue is partly due to having LASIK surgery 20 years ago, and while I have needed glasses for most of that time, I have trouble at night because of glare and multiple ghosting. (Instead of one streetlight I see half a dozen or more).
I saw the eye consultant today as it happens, and I was pleased to discover that the macular degeneration that my optician thought was causing my failing sight, was just cataracts, and I now waiting to get them fixed — and it won't even cost me anything ).
I bring you Google Font Effects (Beta) 
. NOTE: You need a webkit browser (Chrome or Safari) to see most of these:
Get Started with the Google Fonts API | Google Fonts | Google Developers
Nancy
AdChoices