[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Marghanita da Cruz]

On the topic of fonts, perhaps we could ask the experts...though we 
would need to debate
whether they are more interested in influence or advertising

www.smh.com.au
www.news.com
<http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521826845> &
<http://books.google.com/books/cambridge?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521534267&refid=ca-print-cambridge&q=HIH&submit=Go> 


all use san serif fonts

Getting back to the need to print. For record keeping...there is still 
problem of half paper/half electronic....so in some instances it is 
better to keep a printed record. Though ofcourse places like the 
landtitles office have gradually eliminated the paper record. Though I 
think the land title is still an authorised bit of paper.

M

Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 08:19 +1000, Ivan Trundle wrote:
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Where is the new research? There is a big difference between what people
> prefer and what they actually read more easily. Young people may prefer
> a sans-serif font, but is their comprehension or retention better? I
> don't know, but it certainly isn't necessarily the case. Serif adds
> redundancy to most fonts, and in general, redundancy assists
> comprehension and retention.
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Again, comfortable isn't necessarily the same thing as comprehensible or
> retainable.
> 
> Regards, K.
> 


-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au/itgovernance
Phone: 0414-869202
Email: marghanita at ramin.com.au