As an old printer I know that serif type faces are eminently more readable over non-serif fonts when used in body context. Most non-serif fonts can provide eye catching attention, so are used for headlines and shorter messages. Serifs add leading visual aids to allow the eye to follow more easily and with less fatigue. In the case of the journal, the actual font may not be as pleasing to some, and as has been pointed out, the 'weight', spacing, or shape of the typeface might be conveying less of an impact to the eye. The amount of possibilities for transmitting information via the galaxy of type available is staggering. Obviously lots of folks can't agree on a universal type, hence the options available. For what it's worth, I find the current typeface hard to read as well. Now that would be a change I could support. I doubt it's the ink, although current soy based inks employed for environmental reasons might be less dense when really stretched thin and thus appear less black, resulting in less contrast for the eye. Joseph Alkana RPT (Retired) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100813/7de76d45/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC