Re: Font Peeves

[Don Plummer <donp -at- BGNET -dot- BGSU -dot- EDU>]

>> Re fonts looking "old and dated":  perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt that a
>> lot of those reading my manuals would know an Arial from a Times from a
>> Garamond etc.  I don't this it really matters (apart from personal
>> preference) as long as the font selected is READABLE by the end user.
>
>No one (except a few TWs :-) say "oh, look, it's done in Arial" when
>they open your manual, but the font *will* have an effect on the reader.
>Even fonts that are equally readable have different "personalities."
>Picture a font that feels old and solid, even stodgy (New Century
>Schoolbook comes to mind, although it may be so "retro" now that it's
>considered hip). It might be appropriate for a stock prospectus, but if
>you opened the manual for your newest computer gadget and it was printed
>in New Century Schoolbook would you be tempted to check the copyright
>date? Mightn't you wonder, even for a split second, if this company
>really was on the cutting edge of computer technology? I know I would.

Absolutely.  Smart document design will always include consideration for
the overall impact of the chosen font on the document.  Even though readers
are unlikely to recognize the font, or care even if we tell them what it
is, we will be sending them a subtle message by the font we choose.  When
choosing a font, readability is certainly a very important consideration,
but it is not the only one.

Tracy's statement is a fine illustration of the message various fonts can
send a reader.  This is the primary reason printers and typesetters have so
many fonts to choose from.

--don

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Don Plummer  <donp -at- bgnet -dot- bgsu -dot- edu>
Bowling Green State University   Bowling Green, Ohio   USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *