Content Fonts

Everything related to the visual and coding aspects of websites.

Serif vs Sans Serif?

Serif
3
25%
Sans Serif
9
75%
 
Total votes: 12
User avatar
Anise
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:24 pm
Contact:

Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:22 pm

I had a professor who always followed serif for headings or large text and sans for body and smaller text. That being said, I always take it on a case by case basis. I usually like to use Century Gothic for content and various google fonts for headings.

On occasion if I have a layout that fits it just right I like courier new but that's hard to find.
The Second Guardian Network ☆☆ Esperits.ORG

User avatar
Destinie
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Columbia, MD
Contact:

Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:26 am

All helpful input. :D It's interesting that Verdana is the screen-standard because I always thought it was Arial -- huh!

@Larissa I agree that size is really important! I have been trying to design using em the past few years (my shrines might not entirely reflect this atm lol) since it's more consistent over various browsers and OS than pixel size, but I think that's another conversation lol.

User avatar
dubiousdisc
Administrator
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:49 pm
Contact:

Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:41 pm

Hold on though: on Windows machines, the default sans-serif in the font stack is indeed Arial.

Also, I haven't had time to research the matter more in-depth (sorry!), but I've just stumbled upon one study and, yep: the study was conduced on 1024 x 768, an older monitor, and smaller font sizes, so I would need to find solid proof that it is no longer applicable, but at this point, considered that nobody uses 1024 x 768 anymore and monitors are better and we've shifted towards bigger font sizes than 10-12px, I say that the things that the study proves might no longer be applicable to current technologies.

This on my own supposition: after all, the main problem with small serif fonts being a bit complicated to render on older monitors and smaller resolutions as opposed to paper is that, on those screens, the serifs themselves might end up being rendered as literally one px, or even less than one px (which leads to all sorts of attempts to render it through antialiasing and all that shit). Now that screens render things much smoothly at much bigger resolutions, that is no longer an issue. But I gotta find some actual data to back it up. :D

User avatar
Mikari
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:30 pm
Location: Coruscant
Contact:

Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:00 am

I generally use sans for content and some cutesy special font for the site name. XD Overall I'm not bothered by either style, but then I don't actually read, and the text to audio program doesn't particularly care. ^^;; Some people might prefer to read sans because it's clearer though.

User avatar
Todd
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:18 pm
Location: Zanarkand
Contact:

Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:23 am

For me, it depends on the layout! I either use a combination (for text, em, b, etc) of Georgia and Times or Arial, Verdana, and Tahoma. How I decide which is usually (but not always) to look at the font of the title in the graphic. If it's more sharp, I go with Georgia. If it's more round, I'll go with the Arial combo. Tidus' title is more sharp and I used Arial because I find it easier to read and the site is so content-heavy.

Georgia combo: Magus, Henry, Poe

Arial combo: Knuckles, Reiko

User avatar
FandomSavant
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:52 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Fri May 06, 2016 10:21 pm

Destinie wrote:Thanks, Robin! I love the Georgia/Century Gothic combo. Century Gothic is honestly my favorite font - haha. I, too, and just sick of Arial and Verdana and think that in this day and age it's really easy and appropriate to embed fonts into our sites. I was using embedded fonts just for headers but I think I can branch out into using them for content as well. :)

I also appreciate Gill Sans ♥ and Trebuchet, hehe.
*gasp* I forgot how much I love Trebuchet!

Hi! I'm Patricia.

FandomSavant.com - home of my stuff
Twitter: @FandomSavant

User avatar
Chibi
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:17 am
Location: Themyscira
Contact:

Sun May 08, 2016 4:52 pm

Oh boy, I can't choose!

Like everyone else, I've heard sans-serif is better for content, but for me, it depends heavily on the layout and the "feeling" of the website: if the website is supposed to read like a book, is elegant and feels "old-fashioned", I'd appreciate a serif font because it goes well with the general theme of the website (case in point: Dubs' Egyptian Vulture website); if the website is going for a different and more "modern" theme, then I'd prefer sans-serif.

In general, though, sans-serif seems to be the safest choice for content. :)

User avatar
Robin
Events Staffer
Posts: 3161
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Sun May 08, 2016 7:06 pm

Chibi wrote: Like everyone else, I've heard sans-serif is better for content, but for me, it depends heavily on the layout and the "feeling" of the website: if the website is supposed to read like a book, is elegant and feels "old-fashioned", I'd appreciate a serif font because it goes well with the general theme of the website (case in point: Dubs' Egyptian Vulture website); if the website is going for a different and more "modern" theme, then I'd prefer sans-serif.
I agree with this too :D I usually try to match the aesthetic of the font with the aesthetic of the layout when possible :)
~ a dream is a wish your heart makes ~
withinmyworld.org

User avatar
Lysianthus
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 9:34 pm
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Thu May 12, 2016 2:02 am

I don't have a sans-serif/serif rule when it comes to typography, but I notice that I do use sans-serif for body copy most of the time. I tend to use serif, cursive, or display fonts for headings, too. However, for me, it also really depends on the general feel of the design. (However, I do agree that sans-serif looks best for smaller font sizes.) For example, if I feel a website is text-heavy and the design is more content-based (the content being text), I would use a serif font. In the end, it really depends on how a website should "feel" like and if the fonts used in the layout fits the "mood".

I don't have a rule, but the only rule I have regarding fonts is the content font size should be 16px (1em) or greater. I broke my vision because of poor font size choice. :ack:
Affelius (creative) ☆ Asclaria (network) ☆ Lysianthus (personal)

User avatar
isavarg
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:04 am
Contact:

Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:44 am

I only use what I term 'fancy fonts' for headers, and links. For main blocks of text, I tend to use Arial, Tahoma, Trebuchet MS and Verdana for the main body of text. (There are probably others which are similar which I sometimes use, but these are the ones off the top of my head.) What I don't like are font sizes below 12px because I find these make me squint a lot and I can't read them properly, and I assume that other people have the same problem, BUT it always seems to be a popular choice among layout designers to use smaller font sizes. I also find there's a tendency for people to use light coloured backgrounds and I find these hurt my eyes if I look at them for too long. I need contrast on a page and the whiteness needs breaking up with colour.

My rule of thumb is therefore:

Headers and Links need to stand out on the page, so you can do fancy things with those, but the font chosen still needs to be readable.

Fonts used for the main text should be easily read on a screen, a reasonable size and stand out against the background so that people aren't squinting.

The background needs to be a reasonable brightness so that it's not a strain on the eyes to look at for long periods.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest