>My understanding (disclaimer - through what I've heard/read and not
>from any formal training!) is that serif faces are indeed easier for
>persons with vision falling in "normal" ranges.  The serifs form a
>horizontal "line" along the top, middle, and bottom of the type line that t=
ies
>the letters together and makes it easier for the eye to follow.  However,
>for persons with low vision, sans serif faces are easier to read because
>there's less "clutter" from the serifs, so the letter shapes are more easil=
y
>distinguishable.
>
>
>Sans serif faces can actually be relatively easily legible for most people
>if enough care is taken to use a large enough type size and adjust
>kerning/tracking (spacing between letters - "horizontal" spacing) and
>letting (spacing between lines - "vertical" spacing) accordingly.

=46irst of all, it's "leading" not "letting" and comes from the old days of
lead (pronounced led) type used for typesetting-leading is the strips of
lead used to push the lines of type further apart.

Secondly, doesn't it seem odd that a device can at once be unifying and
complicating for the viewer? The latest info that I have, and one that
seems to make sense, is that we read most easily what we grew up reading.
Hence, in European studies sans serif fares well, and in American studies,
serif wins out.

As a typographer and graphic designer, may I suggest that simple, clean
faces set in a decent size with 3 or four points of leading and line
lengths no longer than 50 characters will be readable by almost
anyone.Don't indulge in "jamma-type" (cramming it in so it fits a smaller
space) or ornate faces, and position the labels at a readable height and
you should be fine.


Ivy Fleck Strickler                     Phone 215-895-1637
Drexel University                       Fax 215-895-4917
Nesbitt College of Design Arts          [log in to unmask]
Philadelphia, PA 19104

"Never forget that life is like a Fellini movie, and you're getting to see
it for free=8A"