[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Ivan Trundle]

On 27/09/2006, at 9:34 AM, Pilcher, Fred wrote:

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

And I should have been more diligent in keeping my research on this  
topic. My university education was (wasted) spent looking at  
perception and cognitive processes, and the world has moved on a good  
deal since then (I hope that we all have!).

>
> 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.

I think that part of the problem with readability studies is that  
they are all based on no-longer contemporary perceptions of the day.  
Some of these:

Print-based media has been the primary interface for learning written  
language. Older print-based media had limitations in rendering  
capability.

Print-based media has been held back by the available technology,  
inks and paper quality.

More-recent comparisons involving computer technology for cognitive  
processes are flawed in that modern high-resolution flat-screen  
devices were once extremely rare, but now more common-place. Further,  
pixel counts on screens have been woefully low, and the pixels  
themselves have not, until recently, involved anti-aliasing to  
improve the definition of type.

Plus, screen brightness has had a major impact on readability. A  
comparison between a printed page and a computer screen has, up until  
recently, been no contest, since most computer screens have had poor  
brightness and contrast compared with dark ink on light paper. This  
is slowly changing.

Computer typography is now much-improved, too - and better typefaces  
have been developed expressly for computers. This began in the days  
of OCRA etc, but Apple brought it into a new era with their 'New  
York', 'Monaco', 'Geneva' and 'Chicago' fonts (note the theme), which  
were optimised for computer screens, and not print. The afore- 
mentioned anti-aliasing of pixel edges has helped tremendously -  
offering better 'hints' as to the actual shape of a character.

Interestingly, you'll find that most younger people using computers  
will, by default, use sans-serif fonts. Though I'm not sure why.

An observation: on my computer screen (and I'm not what I'd classify  
as 'young'), I have nine active windows, and not one of them displays  
a serif font. I'd be hard-pressed to find one, unless I open my DTP  
apps and find something that I designed expressly for print, and for  
an 'older' demographic, to boot. For me, font usage depends entirely  
upon market audience, and output rendering capability (regardless of  
being digital or ink).

For me, this all began many years ago when one of my teachers  
dogmatically proclaimed 'It is universally known that serif fonts are  
more readable than sans-serif fonts'. A debate ensued, which I'm sure  
continues today.

iT