[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Richard Chirgwin]

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.
>   
I agree that there's a lack of new research, Karl.
>   
>> 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.
>   
Actually, "comfort" is highly correlated with retention when objective 
measures are applied.

The old research looked at how much the eyes moved when reading a set 
amount of text, on the hypothesis that more eye movement was more 
tiring, therefore would inhibit comprehension and retention.

Less eye movement was correlated with better comprehension.

RC
> Regards, K.
>
>