Serif & Sans Serif

[Avan]

Are serifed fonts really that much easier to read on paper? Since I have issues reading either on-screen or on-paper. I don't like anything except for Sans-serif.

And serifed fonts (except when of course put on for thematic reasons) - especially times new roman - on a website is like... *dies*
Times new roman is the halmark of unprofessional webdesign IMHO, as it shows someone was too lazy (or inexperienced) to change the font from something other than the default. Beyond (but just barely so) flashing backgrounds and unrelated animated .gif's that someone threw on because they thought it 'looked cool'.

So what is your opinion on the use of serifed fonts? (and sans-serif?)

Serifed fonts are really a legacy from back when methods of printing on paper (and the paper itself) were bad, and caused all sorts of problem with things like inconsistent amounts of ink and the ink bleeding, and thus the serifs actually were necessary to aid in distinguishing one from another, and thus really have relevance only in the printing of cheap paperbacks and newspapers (And people with really old printers/lousy paper), or on websites where they are actually thematically appropriate. (or if it's a site that is... distributing fonts. I mean, you have to put up examples of what the font looks like...  )

[Drake Blackpaw]

I though Sans Serif has become the norm.  I know on the Dept of Education sites I work with, Sans Serif font is the mandatory font to use for regular text and Serif is only used in special instances, such as equations.

[Avan]

You guys are awesome.

Anyways, up until office 07, serif fonts were the norm for MS content creation software. Open office and a good number of other programs still have hideous serif fonts as the default settings. One of the first things I do when I install a new program is change the default font settings, right after installing it and running it...

[Yip]

Generally speaking, for printed material I don't mind serif fonts at all and will use whichever one seems most appropriate given the subject mater. For on-screen, I prefer sans-serif. Though serif is fine where appropriate for thematic reasons and such.  Now, if you are saying we should do away with serif, then you might be interested in the Universal Font by Herbert Bayer. He developed it for Bauhaus back in 1925.  Not only did Bayer do away with serifs, he also seemed to find capitol letters unnecessary.

A sample can be seen here:
http://www.type.nu/bayer/univer.gif

[Kobuk]

I fail to see why this is even a debate? 

[furtopia02]

I fail to see why this is even a debate? 

Me either, it's all preference.


Speaking of preference. Times New Roman is my favourite font to read and use in documents and on pages. I find it easier to read than say, Arial.

[Arbutus]

<3 <3 I LOOOOVE sans serif fonts!!!!!! LOL <3 <3

*dodges a hailstorm of tomatoes and rotten eggs* Help! Help! I didn't mean it! I take it back!


My preferences are about the same as Vararam's. I prefer sans serif on a screen and serif in print (sans serif looks jarring to me in a book or a magazine), but I'm sure there are all sorts of exceptions to that rule. And there are fonts in each category I just don't like, Arial being one of them.

I close with an Achewood comic: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007. (some language)

[Kobuk]

I prefer Arial.

[Alsek]

<3 <3 I LOOOOVE sans serif fonts!!!!!! LOL <3 <3

Comic sans is very different.  x3

Personally i prefer verdana,   which is becoming very common on the web,  and as a default for IRC clients.   I like the way it looks and reads,  very clean looking.

[Avan]

I fail to see why this is even a debate? 

That was... pure evil. 

I like arial or verdana myself (though arial always appears at the top of the list because it starts with an "a"), though most sans-serif fonts are good (You can still end up with ugly fonts of any kind). Comic sans gets horribly misused... a lot.

[Foxpup]

Arial? Arial? Arial, like all Monotype fonts, is hideously ugly (though not quite as ugly as Comic Sans (thanks, Microsoft Bob), which is so mind-bogglingly terrible that I have uninstalled from all my computers so I'd never have to see it again). Helvetica is the proper, beautiful, sans serif font to use. Do not accept cheap imitations.

[Avan]

Arial? Arial? Arial, like all Monotype fonts, is hideously ugly (though not quite as ugly as Comic Sans (thanks, Microsoft Bob), which is so mind-bogglingly terrible that I have uninstalled from all my computers so I'd never have to see it again). Helvetica is the proper, beautiful, sans serif font to use. Do not accept cheap imitations.

Arial is not monotype... >.>
Oh wait, I'm thinking of monospace.

Anyways, I just care if I can read it XD  (in the context of this discussion anyways)

Still, I don't think its bad per-say.

[Foxpup]

Arial is not monotype... >.>

Say what?

EDIT: this was actually posted before Avan edited his post without saying what he edited, despite what the timestamp says

[Avan]

Arial is not monotype... >.>

Say what?

I edited my post already >.>

[Avan]

You seem to have double posted...

And helvetica doesn't even seem to come with these computers - apparently it is an apple font?

[Yip]

I like comic sans, so long as it use fits the style of whatever it is. It's not for serious stuff, but that should be obvious from the name.

[Foxpup]

Arial is not monotype... >.>

Say what?

I edited my post already >.>

No you didn't. I posted that half an hour ago...

You seem to have double posted...

And helvetica doesn't even seem to come with these computers - apparently it is an apple font?

Um... okay what the heck?

And Helvetica is a Haas'sche font, not an Apple font. I don't think Apple even existed back in 1957! Seriously though, it's used in Linux, Macs, you know, platforms which actually care about beauty.

[Avan]

Wow... ok, so the forums are behaving really weird then (since I also saw that mooshi's post got double-edited.)

ok, so it's a free font then.
TBH, I fail to see how arial is hideously ugly though... Personal taste I suppose.

[Mooshi]

FONT WAR!

Arial is BORING and Comic Sans is abused too much. oo For everything else..meh. As long as the font is clear & crisp on a webpage, that is all that should matter. I prefer the unique fonts from dafont.com when it comes to something I like to play with..default fonts for logos and all takes no creativity (STOP USING COMIC SANS >:O) But, yus..for a webpage, keep it clean and easy to read.

[Avan]

Boring.
*headdesk*

[Kobuk]

I fail to see why this is even a debate? 

Me either, it's all personal preference.

[Mooshi]

Yus, boring. Dull. Not interesting. Beige. Opposite of exciting. Doesn't mean it's not practical..just..boring.

[Avan]

Yus, boring. Dull. Not interesting. Beige. Opposite of exciting. Doesn't mean it's not practical..just..boring.

The whole point is if it is PRACTICAL (can you read the text) or not. NOT if it is EXITING. *headdesk^2*
*is trying to beat a stupidly hard boss in some game right now, so is really, really not in a good mood, but that doesn't change the fact it is not a very good criticism, because it is irrelevant from the discussion*

[Foxpup]

TBH, I fail to see how arial is hideously ugly though... Personal taste I suppose.

Well, there's the stupid tail on the 'Q', the almost-but-not-quite-a-serif on the 'a', and the stupid curly bit on the '1'. And that's just for starters.

[Yip]

Ariel may not be the best, but it's generally not hard to read on-screen and is one of the standard fonts that you know everyone is going to have, and therefore makes it decent choice for web pages and such.