The Serif Readability Myth
23rd January 2013
I’ve been involved in publishing all my life, and like many others I’ve always accepted as axiomatic the notion that typefaces with serifs (such as Times-Roman) are, in general, are more readable than non-serif typefaces (e.g., Helvetica). It never occurred to me that there was any doubt about the matter. Were the monks who invented serifs and other text ornamentations merely engaging in idle doodling? Weren’t they consciously intending to increase the legibility of the important documents they were transcribing?
It turns out that, as with so many of the things we “know” are right, the idea that serif typefaces are more readable than non-serif typefaces simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
January 24th, 2013 at 21:34
The evidence may be against it, but I personally find a serif font, as long as it doesn’t get crazy, to be easier to read. And, yes, I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data.