What is Sans-Serif Sucks?
I started Sans-Serif Sucks, after finding out that the difference in esthetics between serif and sans-serif fonts is worth being discussed.
Serifs are details on the ends of letters’ and symbols’ strokes.
For years, I idolized the simplicity of minimal, sans-serif, mono-spaced fonts. My font designs were based on that ideal.
For the first time I consiously realized that sans and sans-serif have different effects when seeing an image by Lars Willem Veldkampf.
The intension of the image is to say “Edwardian Script is for wankers”. I didn’t realize that instantly. My immediate interpretation was that Edwardian Script is an esthetically pleasing font and that the sans-serif font (Arial?) is for arses.
Shortly after discovering the image, I finished reading The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte. When mentioning type, Tufte quotes Josef Alberts:
The concept that “the simpler the form of a letter the simpler its reading” was an obsession of beginning constructivism. It became something like a dogma, and is still followed by “modernistic” typographers… Ophthamology has disclosed by that the more the letters are differentiated from each other, the easier is the reading. Without going into comparisons and details, it should be realized that words consisting of only capital letters present the most difficult reading—because of their equal height, equal volume, and, with most, their equal width. When comparing serif letters with sans-serif, the latter provide an uneasy reading. The fashionable preference for sans-serif in text shows neither historical nor practical competence.
Josef Albers, Interaction of Color (New Haven, 1963, revised edition 1975), p. 4.
Now I scout the web for sentances on the topic of serif type. When I find discussion material, I link it here and quote what I find most important.
