[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Pilcher, Fred]

I remember seeing that research; I had a copy of it and used it as my bible, but it's long-gone now, more's the pity.

> 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.

It was oldish but IIRC there were no age correlations; it was about the way our eyes and brains process information and it offered some information about why serif fonts were more readily processed.

> > 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...

Wide, yes. Again, IIRC, the optimum was something like 12 words, again to do with the way our brains and eyes work. If that's right, the width of the screen would seem to be irrelevant.

Personally, I find it incredibly difficult to read an article with embedded animations, just as I find it impossible to watch "news" on the teevee where there's a scrolling message at the bottom of the screen. Those specific distractions weren't mentioned in the research, which certainly predated those particular abominations.
 
> > "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).

I have no recollection of any reference to that in the paper, but I'd certainly support the "ragged left is worse" and "justification doesn't help" hypotheses from personal experience.
 
> > White type on a dark background, ditto.
> 
> Not entirely - white type on a blue background was always thought to  
> be more readable.

The paper had some excellent information about the use of colours. IIRC the stats were something along the lines of black on white - 80% readability, white on black - 40%, and dropped into the 20%s where colours were used.

> 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.

The research, again IIRC, didn't support that. Damn I wish I still had it!

It was about printed material, and I and my colleagues often wondered whether everything in it was relevant to screen-based stuff. I'd love to see any more recent research comparing the two if any knows of any.

Cheers all.

Fred 
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------