[huhtenberg]

Pedantic nitpick incoming

Sans-serifs are generally harder to read. Note, for example, how virtually all books are set in serifs. The primary reason sans-serifs are widely used in computers is the lack of decent display resolution required to display the actual serifs. So if you are using a larger font size to read something off the screen, there is no reason not to use a serifed typeface.

[gliptic]

This might very well be a myth. See e.g. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s....

[huhtenberg]

Everything that has to do with the perception might very well be a myth :)

However, in typography and type designer circles it is commonly accepted that Serifs are superior for consuming large quantities of text. Also in layman terms - serifs make the glyphs more distinct and easier to recognize at a glance, in contrast to the sans where there are several glyph pairs that look virtually the same.

[dpark]

"Commonly accepted" isn't worth much when it conflicts with actual science. Lots of things commonly accepted are simply incorrect.

[huhtenberg]

Please don't pull a Wikipedia on me here. As an old physicist joke goes -

  Experimental physicist comes to a theoretical physicist office,
  bring a graph from a recent experiment and asks for a help with
  interpreting the results. 

  - Well, it's all rather obvious. Here's a peak, here's a dip,
    because of this, that and third.

  - Hold it, hold it... you are looking at it upside down.

  - Ah, right, right. *Rotates the graph*. Oh, it's now even more 
    obvious than before.

In other words, the "actual science" you are referring to frequently ends up to be nothing more than a matter of interpretation and a subject to all sorts of biases. Especially when it concerns something as unquantifiable as "comfort of reading". Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself.

[dpark]

You can't just dismiss science and fact when it's inconvenient. Well, you can, but then your beliefs have no more backing than those of astrologers, and you're guilty of willfully spreading misinformation. You asserted a falsifiable statement as fact ("Sans-serifs are generally harder to read") and in the face of fairly compelling evidence that it is in fact a false statement, you immediately appealed to "common knowledge". It's also "common knowledge" that Einstein failed math as a kid and that eating before swimming will give you cramps, but these are both untrue statements.

Comfort of reading is very quantifiable. You can present text to a bunch of people in serif and sans serif fonts (double-blind and randomized) and ask them to rate how pleasant the text was. You can be clever and ask questions that measure understanding and retention, or you can ask them how much they enjoyed reading the passage, and these will give you indirect measures of reading comfort. Or you can be blunt and ask if they enjoy reading in the font, though this will pick up biases more. Either way is significantly more scientific than an appeal to common knowledge, though.

> Just pick up a couple of fiction books, one set in serif and another in sans-serif, go through a pageful of text and see for yourself.

This isn't science. This is just bias confirmation. ("Wow, I prefer the one I expected to prefer!")

But for the record, my e-reader font is set to Gill Sans.

[huhtenberg]

I have no immediate way of verifying that what you call a compelling evidence referenced in that blog post is in fact compelling and accurate. I could go through all linked sources, but I don't presently have time for that. On the other hand I read several books on typography and I am partial to the type design. From that exposure I do know that the common consensus between people involved in creating said serifs and sans-serifs is that sans-serifs are generally harder to read. So when I am presented with an evidence to the contrary, you can be damn sure I will doubt it.

Throwing around power words like "science" and "compelling evidence" based on a couple of references plucked from a blog post - sorry, but you are well in a meta area, preaching about general subject matter without any regard to the context. You are not the only one who's aware what science and scientific methods entitle, but then you should also be well aware of a bunch of junk that gets published in a format of scientific research, gets quoted and re-quoted and eventually accumulates notable status even though it hasn't even been peer-reviewed once. This happens all the time and it's a part of "science", so being skeptical is a part of the package. And the more obscure the area of the research, the more skepticism is warranted. You surely know that being that well-versed in all things science.

  --

Your e-reader doesn't have the resolution required for good quality rendering of serif fonts. Hence the Gill Sans.

[b0rsuk]

My university teacher who was a fan of LaTex, taught web development and actually had a job outside the uni, told us that Serif fonts look bad and unreadable on computer displays. He said the reason is resolution. Books don't have DPI limits, and you can have a serif font look good to the tiniest detail.