Maybe I'll just use Comic Sans and hork *everyone* off

December 20, 2007 11:07 AM

What one font is the easiest to read on both on a computer screen *and* off a sheet of paper?

I have just taken over the creation of our knitting guild newsletter. It is sent to some members as a hard copy, to others as a PDF file. (I don't know how many of the PDF receivers print it out to read it, but I usually read it directly off the screen.)

Since time immemorial, the text of it has been 10pt Arial. No one has complained about it, but I'm wondering if there is a better font that can be used that might be easier to read in both cases (on screen and on paper).

(And so people can gripe about the changes being made, and how much nicer the newsletter looked *before* Lucinda took over, etc., etc.)

posted by Lucinda to computers & internet (30 comments total)

Short answer: No.

Very slightly longer answer: There's a reason Helvetica (of which Arial is a near-clone) is so ubiquitous. You could always try a serif font like Times New Roman, but I think 10-point Arial is probably a fine choice.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:13 AM on December 20, 2007

two suggestions: Lucida Sans Unicode and Trebuchet. You might also like to consider Verdana (which was specifically designed for on-screen readability by Microsoft).
posted by davemack at 11:17 AM on December 20, 2007

I have become very, VERY fond of the new Microsoft "C" fonts. Especially Calibri.
posted by fusinski at 11:18 AM on December 20, 2007

The recent Microsoft font Constantia was designed to look good both in print and on-screen. Georgia is also quite nice, though it was designed as a screen face.
posted by stopgap at 11:18 AM on December 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Adding to my previous comment, apparently Cambria is more legible than Constantia. I prefer Cambria anyway, but it's not the prettiest print face. This test was only comparing screen legibility and not print legibility.

If you're going to use a sans-serif, Calibri is pretty good. Note that it has rounded edges, so it might not seem as crisp in print as other sans fonts. [I haven't seen it much in print. YMMV.]
posted by stopgap at 11:24 AM on December 20, 2007

The new Microsoft cleartype fonts are a good choice, fusinski. I think Helvetica Neue is, for all Arial's similarities to it, much more legible AND readable. Georgia is excellent in print, too, as stopgap notes, even though it wasn't designed for that purpose.

Personally, I don't think there's a better face for BOTH purposes than Joshua Darden's Freight text.
posted by luriete at 11:28 AM on December 20, 2007

I recently had a large part in production of a multi-hundred page work that used Candara as headings/subheadings and Georgia as the body text font. Wonderful. Both print and screen.

(IANATypesetter, but I can dress myself and have an uncanny ability to pick the right thread colors to go with fabric)
posted by LoraxGuy at 11:29 AM on December 20, 2007

Verdana. No contest.
posted by zadcat at 11:33 AM on December 20, 2007

I am a big fan of Garamond, although I am not a font nerd.
posted by Irontom at 11:38 AM on December 20, 2007

Georgia, I think, is really classy, was designed for on-screen legibility, and in my opinion looks great on the printed page too.
posted by tepidmonkey at 11:58 AM on December 20, 2007

Seconding Garamond. To the nth degree. One of the most beautiful fonts ever created.
posted by General Malaise at 12:00 PM on December 20, 2007

Verdana or Georgia. Easily readable on-screen and they look nice (and a bit modern) in print, even though they weren't designed for it.
posted by ssg at 12:02 PM on December 20, 2007

We use InfoText at work and I'm pretty happy with it.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:05 PM on December 20, 2007

I wouldn't use Garamond on-screen; I love it dearly, and use it for all of the hard-copy writing I do, but I even sometimes find it a little hard to read as I'm writing. I'd use Georgia, because it's a serif font designed for on-screen use. IMHO, sans-serif fonts just don't work well for body text in print.
posted by goingonit at 12:15 PM on December 20, 2007

While these are all nice typefaces, remember that your point isn't to pick a nice font - it's to focus on legibility. Zuzana Licko (emigre) said that "people read best what they read most." If your readership is used to 10pt Arial, you should have a really really good reason for changing it before you do so. None of the typefaces above are inherently "better" than Arial. Arial is generally legible. Yes, Garamond is beautiful. Yes, Helvetica Neue is refined. But are your readers being under-served by Arial?

It's awesome to question design. It's also very seductive to look for something "better" before figuring our if there's a problem.
posted by ochenk at 12:15 PM on December 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

The general theory, as it was explained to me lo these many years ago, is serif fonts (Times, Garamond) read more easily on paper, especially in smaller font sizes, but sans-serif fonts (Ariel, Helvetica, Impact) read more easily on screen due to screen resolution. So, my schooling and experience says, no, there's no one font that meets both requirements.

From a stylistic perspective, you'll find that Helvetica, Garamond and Verdana all have vocal fans, and with good reason. You really can't go wrong with these choices.
posted by lekvar at 12:21 PM on December 20, 2007

Sans: Verdana.

Serif: Georgia.
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:27 PM on December 20, 2007

I'm a big big fan of Calibri, but I like sans-serif. Constantinia is a very nice semi-serif font that I'd also recommend - better for print, not as good for on screen (serifs look nice in print but are hard to read on screen). What's your screen resolution, though? If you're running anything higher than 1600x1200 constantinia should be fine; 1600 and down I'd go with a sans-serif for screen legibility.
posted by lrodman at 1:53 PM on December 20, 2007

As we've talked about before, the whole "sans for screen, serifs for print" thing is actually just received opinion, not based on any actual research. The differences between any two serif fonts (or two sans fonts) far outweigh the differences between all serifs and all sans.
Arial is a really crappy font, as is Times New Roman. Bad kerning, lettershapes, etc. Georgia is meh.
Use a quality font both on and off screen. Microsoft's new C**** fonts, as already suggested, are probably a safe bet. You might also switch to Helvetica, to get a less crappy font that will still look familiar to your readers.
posted by signal at 2:01 PM on December 20, 2007

Georgia is a good font, its only weakness on the computer is that it's rather "cluttered" if you use a small font size. However, for a knitting newsletter, you probably don't want that small of a font to begin with if you have any readers over, say, 50 years old who will tend to gripe about their loss of vision.
posted by dagnyscott at 3:12 PM on December 20, 2007

On the advice of an accessability specialist, we switched all our printing to Verdana on the XP machines and Calibri on the Vista ones. We also use Gil Sans MT for somethings, but that's mostly because it very closely matches the font of our primary logo.

I'd suggest following Lifehacker's tutorial on using Cleartype, I've become fond of it.
posted by TomMelee at 3:53 PM on December 20, 2007

If it's a knitting guild, I'm going to stereotype and say there's a good chance you'll be getting read on some old PCs with 15" CRT displays. On those, serif fonts look mush. So use a sans font. I'd second Helv Neue, as it has enough weights (light, bold, black) to allow you to do actual design, but won't look very different from Arial to the casual eye.
posted by bonaldi at 4:09 PM on December 20, 2007

Ask your readers. It's really more up to them and your publishing system which appears to be PDFs. You could create a sample page with maybe 4 different fonts and ask your readers what they prefer.
posted by chairface at 4:53 PM on December 20, 2007

Lucida is nice. I'm a big fan of Tahoma. It looks better in some sizes than others. Really good and clear for small captions, where you have to use 6-7-8 point type.
posted by nax at 5:42 PM on December 20, 2007

TomMelee, you have got to be shitting us. Some accessibility expert told you to switch fonts? On what basis? (I have more than one horse in this race.)
posted by joeclark at 6:15 PM on December 20, 2007

Well, thanks for all the opinions, I'll keep 'em in mind. For now, though, font is put on the backburner as I try to FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT THIS @(#$*&@#()*&@#(*$& THING TOGETHER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

(sigh)
posted by Lucinda at 6:25 PM on December 20, 2007

You might find the new documentary on the ubiquity of Helvetica interesting.
posted by HotPatatta at 9:57 PM on December 20, 2007

HOW TO PUT THIS @(#$*&@#()*&@#(*$& THING TOGETHER IN THE FIRST PLACE

InDesign.
posted by signal at 1:50 AM on December 21, 2007

From the mixed use of Times and..uh...something skinny and ugly, yup. Don't know what the real issue is though, they both look excellent on screen and in print.
posted by TomMelee at 4:56 AM on December 21, 2007

IANAfontexpert but I like the way Lucida Bright looks and often use it in syllabi.

(and believe it or not, I was going to ask this very question a few weeks ago... )
posted by wittgenstein at 8:14 AM on December 21, 2007