WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Serif vs sans-serif

for

From: Harkins, Denise
Date: Jan 3, 2007 1:00PM

You have a very good question. Everything that I have read on this
issue: is to USE SERIF FONTS FOR PRINT, and USE SANS SERIF FOR SCREEN
READING. However, this is probably in reference to non-visual impaired
readers.

I came from designing for the printing industry and then became more
involved with on-screen designs, and that is one of the things they also
say to do. But remember one can also think OUTSIDE THE BOX if you want
to be creative.

I usually go with this rule of thumb. If it a lot of copy to read, use
serif, if it is shorter or broken into smaller chunks of text, then you
can use sans serif.

Denise A. Harkins
Publications & Web Site Coordinator
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Customer Services Division
PHONE: 405-702-1010
FAX: 405-702-1001
<EMAIL REMOVED>
-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Terry
Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:31 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: [WebAIM] Serif vs sans-serif

Hi All,

I know this is an old debate, but I thought I'd revisit it, and see if
anyone is aware of conclusive evidence that supports either serif or
sans-serif fonts for legibility and/or readability on the web.

There's an excellent literature review by Alex Poole that cites a large
number of studies which combined yield conflicting results. However
there's
no specific mention in this article of users with visual impairments, so
I'm
assuming all of the research Poole cites is based on samples of people
with
"normal" vision. The Poole article is here:
http://www.alexpoole.info/academic/literaturereview.html

Is anyone aware of objective research that explores the question of
which
font style works best for users with visual impairments?

Thanks!
Terry Thompson
Technology Specialist, DO-IT
University of Washington
<EMAIL REMOVED>
206/221-4168
http://www.washington.edu/doit