[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:01:49AM +1000, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
> These days, most research seems to focus on different aspects of 
> on-screen readability, but the basic "which is easier" is not so easy to 
> find.
> 
> 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. Long 
> columns reduce readability. "Ragged right" in short columns reduces 
> readability. White type on a dark background, ditto. All of these 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that is true for a medium which relies on reflected light (e.g. paper)
but is not true for a medium which actually emits light (e.g. a computer
screen). black text on a white background is MUCH harsher on the eyes
and causes more eye strain because it is much brighter.

for paper, black-on-white is easier to read (and cheaper to print). for
a screen, white-on-black is easier (and costs the same).

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

for essentially the same reason that print publication design went
down the toilet with the advent of desktop publishing - the design is
perpetrated nowadays by unskilled amateurs who go by personal taste
(no matter how garish) because they have no training in design. hence
the prevalence of blink and marquee tags, gratuitous animation, and
complementary-colour abominations like green text on a red background.




craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)