Sans Serif Serif
Recently, I have been engaged in an ongoing discussion with a colleague (a financial guy, no less) about the use of serif versus sans serif fonts. I just expected it to drag on in a Seinfeld-esque could-Mighty-Mouse-take-Superman?** standoff. In fact, I was firmly in the sans serif camp – always used Arial, always would – and didn’t take much stock in what the money man had to say. He claimed to have a book that argued why serif fonts were better but never produced it.
Our Billy Madison argument went something like this.
Me: Sans serif fonts are cleaner and have more aesthetic appeal.
Him: Serif fonts are easier on the eyes.
Long on opinion and short on data.
Finally, last Friday, I decided to consult The Google. I found that we are both right. The common wisdom is that serif fonts are more readable (i.e., easier on the eyes) except on computer screens where sans serif fonts are more legible (due to varying screen resolutions). This is why the Wall Street Journal is publised in a serif font while WSJ.com is in sans serif.
Anyone have another preference or opinion?
**Ironically, the writer who created Superman was named "Jerry Siegel" – look it up.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
A childhood friend of mine, David Rakowski, actually created many of the fonts in use today. Connected with him after a 30 year gap or so and that was one of the tidbits I learned. Like the answer to many questions on which is better: It depends.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
It totally depends. I’m thinking of inventing a font called sans sans serif. But then that would just be serif, wouldn’t it?
March 28th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Yes, it depends. So, beside web versus print, readability versus legibility, what are the other depends?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Brand guidelines and, of course, personal preference.