I don’t know of any statistics off-hand, but did refresh my memory of the long history of sans-serifs. If you have The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst, you may want to read section 10.3, “Userifed text faces,” page 239.

In my continuing search for a high-profile source for current statistics on serif vs. sans, I have read through a bunch of information that I disagree with. The few people who mention their references are getting their information from sources at least 9 years old. Aside from research on readability on the web (which strongly favors sans serif), I can’t find anyone who says sans serifs are easier to read in body copy in print.

My theory is that we are increasingly seeing more and more sans serif fonts used in print, and therefore sans serifs are becoming as readable, if not more readable that serifs. I think the internet has a lot to do with it. I just wish I could find some high profile source to back me up.

Good point, Chris. I suppose there will never be an absolute answer to the serif vs. sans debate no matter what the research would say. In the hands of a sensitive designer the choice of font is a design element, and readability is a given. Like you said, context would dictate the appropriate font selection.

1) What makes you think that serifs are the key factor in readability?

2) What makes you think that readability in various circumstances is inherent to the typeface?

3) What makes you think David Ogilvy was right when he wrote about the subject?

This doesn’t have anything to do with serifs, but I thought it was an interesting study: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/62/whitespace.htm It has to do with the effect of white space and leading on readability.

Well, from what seems would be an easy answer - it seems like many factors go into readability…i have used both serif and sans serif for the body of annual reports and sometimes…actually much of the time…appreciate the simplicity and clean lines of a sans serif…super thin and super condensed please…but i have noticed that older clients prefer the type to be at 14 point if i take that route….i can get away with using a smaller size when using serif and it seems to not pose as much of an issue. however, increased leading and tracking out a bit also lends itself to easy reading.

here is a site i found with some interesting remarks…it appears that it also depends on what the person is used to reading…if they grew up reading serif faces, their eye will naturally find that easier to read.

http://www.atsrc.com/futint/filogo.htm

After 30 years as a graphic designer having type set for one thing or another, it always seemed to me that serifs were most valuable because they created more equal spacing for each letter. Obviously “m’s” take up more room than “i’s”, but with serifs the playing field is more even.

That said, reading is more instant recognition of total words rather than a collection of individual letters (we all have probably received the e-mail where the gibberish is actually recognizable because our eyes and brains recognize words).

Sans Serif make word recognition slower at best, and more difficult at worst because the “i’s” get lost among the “m’s” without more the reader needing to concentrate more.

So - serifs make reading faster (therefore probably easier) because we can recognize the words quicker using optical spacing on a more level playing field between thick and thin letters.

Because we all use Arial (or equivalent), we are getting used to “recognizing” words without having to recognize the letters. However, it seems to me that any serif face is instantly more readable than a sans serif face the first time; as well as for unfamiliar words, etc.

The U.S. Postal Services uses a Sans Serif font throughout their DMM (Domestic Mail Manual). 800 some pages of picky, technical regulations, etc.

This is either a huge endorsement of or a great argument against using sans serif fonts — I can’t decide which.

Maybe the USPS has a study they based their decision on?

I haven’t read any of the sources you all have sited, so I’m talking blind here, but let me tell you what I think (at the risk of repeating someone else)

Here is what I know — and this thread is getting long, so I’ll keep it super clean:

a) Serif fonts have a lot more variation between letter widths. Readability is better for it.

b) Cap height vs x-height. Lowercase is always easier to read. Why? Because of the ascenders and descanters — they break up the word. To test this, read a road sign from as far away as possible, and see if you can make it out. This is exactly why road signs have lowercase text (except the capitalization of the first letter).

c) Ligatures. Sans serif fonts don’t have them. Period. These glyphic letterforms are highly readable and stand out.

d) Density — for lack of a better word. If the font itself is more modern, it is more difficult to read. Modern serif fonts have a lot of contrast between Stems and Strokes. Too much contrast is hard to read. Test it yourself.

e) Finally, ANY font that is closer to the letterforms of the 1800’s are based more closely to freehand text that predated press. So what does that mean? Old printers based their fonts on shoulders, spines, tails, stresses, ears etc that closely resembled what the clergy (for example) were doing by hand! It cannot be disputed that these make a font more readable. The of a Times New Roman ‘g’ that distinctive ear is an instant label!

That’s my bit. I would love to hear replies — maybe I’m dead wrong? Cheers everybody!