[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Ivan Trundle]

On 27/09/2006, at 8:01 AM, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:

> And there are basic design issues as well. It's almost impossible  
> to get <stereotype> computer geeks </stereotype> to understand  
> this, but typography matters - hugely. Sans-serif fonts reduce  
> readability.

Old research. You'll note that contemporary studies on this subject  
are split on this point. YOUNG readers prefer sans-serif, old readers  
prefer serif. It depends upon your frame of reference, and what you  
are used to seeing most of the time.

> Long columns reduce readability.

That'll be 'wide' columns... Long sentences reduce readability, but  
this is not the issue here - it is generally accepted that a column  
width no greater than the number of character in the alphabet is  
optimal. However, there is a trade-off - this assumes that the reader  
is not distracted by seeing a narrow column on a wide screen, which  
reduces readability further. Swings and roundabouts, perception and  
habit...

> "Ragged right" in short columns reduces readability.

I've not see this, but I'm sure that ragged left is worse. Justified  
columns only work when there is sufficient width to avoid rivers (in  
printing, 'rivers' are the obvious snaking spaces of white that are  
found in poorly-hyphenated justified columns).

> White type on a dark background, ditto.

Not entirely - white type on a blue background was always thought to  
be more readable.

But in all this, much is based on both habits and pre-conceived ideas  
about what is good and bad in typography. Our reading habits  
generally dictate what we are comfortable with.

> All of these lessons seem to go by the board when it comes to  
> designing a Web page.

that's another matter entirely!

iT