| ▲ | phantom784 21 hours ago | |||||||||||||
I was once taught that serif fonts are better in print, and sans-serif is better on a screen. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kccqzy 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Yeah right. Times New Roman rendered using late 1990s software on monitors of that era certainly looked awful. These days text on screens can reasonably look like print. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | skywhopper 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
This was definitely true in the days before hi-res screens and good anti-aliasing, simply because the serifs get lost or become noise in lower-resolution settings. It’s probably less true today. Of course, in terms of accessibility, there are any number of reasons why someone might prefer to read content in any number of typefaces. Certain typefaces are better for folks with dyslexia. Others may be better for certain folks with ADHD. People with low vision may just prefer a larger typeface. We have these amazing machines we’ve invented that can display the same text in any number of different ways. At this point, it seems ridiculous to need to mandate a specific typeface for electronic usage. Sure, pick a well-regarded default, but if we want to mandate something, it should be that software provides tools to allow users to adjust textual elements of documents they are reading to suit their own needs. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||