I find just the opposite. I like a font like "Ariel". I tend not to read anything that is in a font like "Times Roman" or something similar. Of course I officially become a senior citizen this month with somewhat poor eyesight. Terry Beckingham RPT At 10:53 AM 8/13/2010 -0700, you wrote: >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)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC