Serif or sans serif? When and where is it best to use one or the other style of font? Which is most readable?

Among the many dilemmas currently plaguing mankind, this appears to be the least dire. But the answer is crucial, for it involves us as writers not only because our priceless verbiage will appear in print on a page (and readers should receive our words in a format that puts them in a good mood right from the start), but also because we spend a lot of time staring at screens covered in text — and again the look of it will at least partly affect how it is received.

In professional print publishing circles, the issue was more or less settled long ago: sans serif in large blocks of text = bad. It works in coffee-table style books where the text is an adjunct to visual material. Or for headings. Or where text is used as part of a logo or as cover art. In other words, it is said to be good as a design element, but not so good for continuous reading. Serif fonts, with their little horizontal caps and footses, seem to work better at easing the eye along the line of text. Various studies can be quoted to support this contention: that serif fonts (such as Times New Roman, Palatino, Century Schoolbook etc. etc.) are best and easiest on the eye when said eye is reading ongoing blocks of text. Sans serif (Arial, Century Gothic, Verdana etc. etc.) generally looks cleaner and more elegant, but it simply doesn’t read well at length.

But what about on screen? Do the rules that apply to printed text apply on the web as well?

Many give a resounding “Yes!” and quote the same or similar studies to prove their point. It is, after all, received wisdom. Some (hello, Garth!) claim the idea that sans serif fonts read better on screen is fostered by those crazy designers, who are more interested in appearance than readability — and that they shouldn’t be encouraged.

As a designer, a reader and a writer, I thoroughly agree that sans serif fonts used in a block of text on the printed page make for a less-than-perfect reading experience. They seem much less readable than serif fonts in this context. On the screen, however, there’s no contest; to me, sans serif is much more readable, much more elegant and much more professional in appearance. Compare the examples in this link:

http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm

It seems to me that serif fonts on websites are less effective than sans serif and look infinitely more amateurish. Resolution issues (which make text less distinct on screen than on the printed page) have a tendency to blur the variable thickness of stroke and the narrow fiddly bits of serif fonts. It’s an effect of limited pixel space.

However, despite statements to the contrary, research on the subject appears to be indecisive and depends on other factors as well. See the article to be found at the following address:

http://www.alexpoole.info/academic/literaturereview.html

Mr Poole’s conclusion is instructive:

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’. Is it the case that more than one hundred years of research has been marred by repeated methodological flaws, or are serifs simply a typographical ‘red herring’?

It is of course possible that serifs or the lack of them have an effect on legibility, but it is very likely that they are so peripheral to the reading process that this effect is not even worth measuring (Lund, 1999).

Indeed, a greater difference in legibility can easily be found within members of the same type family than between a serif and a sans serif typeface. (Tinker, 1963 , Zachrisson, 1965). There are also other factors such as x-height, counter size, letter spacing and stroke width which are more significant for legibility than the presence or absence of serifs. (Poulton, 1972 ; Reynolds, 1979)

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. (Bernard, 2001 ; Tinker, 1963)

Take up your weapons, guys, whether they be seriffed or sans-seriffed.