TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Dick is quite correct, although I tend to avoid six-point type for anything that must be read accurately and easily!
Another element is the type style. Quite a few people today seem comfortable with sans-serif typefaces for body copy. This may also have an impact on readability, depending upon point size, line length, line leading, and the actual family the font belongs to.
However, in lengthy documents of any sort I have found that the "conventional wisdom" is generally correct that serifs help readability.
The second element I think is important that Dick only mentioned in passing is the x-height of a font. Different fonts can be quite different depending upon the relationship of the x-height to the length of ascenders and descenders. In most of the more highly-styled documents I am involved with, I examine the various fonts that are to be used and set point sizes for each according to visual weight or apparent size. When I get a serif and a sans looking the same in visual weight for the regular face, I work on the relative sizes for various levels of heads from there. That way, I usually get a more pleasing result.
This avoids any sort of hard and fast "rule" that can be so wrong in application. One font in ten point may look to the eye as large as another at twelve.
However, I for one would be a little hesitant with most common fonts to use a twelve point body face on small page sizes. Perhaps for poetry, but probably not for technical docs!
All of this begs the question--seeking support for a proposition that a particular combination of fonts and sizes is better than one presently being used. The fact that you may be aware of these issues means you are developing good typographic taste. Unfortunately, that's fairly rare among doc managers.
DISCLAIMER: For Andrew and others, font selection issues are certainly not among the most important that confront us. In the case that showing some examples of improved font usage doesn't do the case, perhaps the ammunition should be conserved for more important fights on more significant issues!
David
-----Original Message from Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net>-----
Anna Langley wrote:
>
> Can you point me to any research proving that printed text should not fall
> below a minimum font size?
No, and I wouldn't if I could. All such so-called research is highly
suspect, for reasons I've elaborated on in the past...
