[adwf]

Interesting read, but I still think that people spend faaaaaaaar too much time thinking about typefaces. I just don't think they make as much of an impact on the page as people think they do.

At first glance, I thought the "elite" and "subtle" were both the same face, and likewise with the "informal"/"playful". It's only because they were blown up to a large size that I actually started noticing a tiny difference. Maybe it's just me?

To me, the overall layout of the page is far more important. eg. margins, font-size, line-height, paragraph width, etc.

The exception to my rule, that I might spend more time on, is for big newspaper style headlines. Those I treat more like images/artwork than like text, so they get commensurately more attention devoted to them.

[anandgrafiti]

Thanks for the comments. But the web and the resolutions are changing. The web is the new Print. Take a look at projects like Medium or Flipboard... they all strikes you as impressive not just because of the beautiful layouts but with the intelligent choice of typefaces. Try turning off the webfonts on Medium and see if the impact remain the same? The general design trend moves towards bigger fonts and lavish use of while space on the web. Which means, you need better typefaces to make your designs stand out. With better font rendering engines, its a reality now.

[adwf]

Yes very good point. Particularly with tablets, the use-case they are frequently replacing is that of an old-fashioned print magazine.

I did just test turning off webfonts on Medium and I still honestly can't see any huge problem with my default system typeface. This could possibly be because I have nice defaults, but at the same time, I think the good readability of Medium is far more about the overall style/layout of the page (particularly the decent large font-size), than about any particular typeface.

Example 1 - normal Medium: http://i.imgur.com/D4hYBPy.png

Example 2 - default system fonts: http://i.imgur.com/Jvnuhkm.png

Whilst I can see the difference in typeface, I can't honestly say that I'm experiencing any huge readability changes. Perhaps if I were to switch to a Sans of some sort, but that's not exactly a huge decision that needs to take a lot of time and fuss. By far and away the most important thing that makes this page readable and nice is the font size, closely followed by the line-width.

[anandgrafiti]

Good typography is often invisible. I clearly feel far more elegance with the original typefaces:) Its a subtle thing, something that cannot be quantified. Ofcource, content is the king, but in a world where everyone can create good content, how well will you present your content will be key.

[kevgnulldev]

I completely agree. A solid typeface evaporates between the page and the retina. Its shapes ease reading and allow the reader's vision to soften around the text and concentrate on the signal rather than the delivery modality. This is especially clear in mathematical typesetting and no discussion of type on a site with hacker in the name would be complete without a nod to the godfather (Donald Knuth) of both digital type and typography (both micro and macro see:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_elements_of_typograp...

for a discussion of LOD in typography from a master designer)

To properly design his multi-volume set of CS/mathematics books:

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html

Knuth developed an entire software toolchain that spans type face creation (metafont) to the document layout programming language TeX (yup, it's an actual Turing complete language!):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67555

He is also responsible for the creation of "literate programming"... All this in his spare time, of course, while he wasn't occupied with his responsibilities as a CS professor at Stanford, teaching, doing research (on things other than digital typography, e.g. the content of his books, combinatorics, etc. (...). Truly an inspiration!

[vdaniuk]

Sure it can be quantified using the same instruments growth hackers use daily. You can measure time on page, click through rate, conversion rate and anything else you wish. I am sure that the difference in the metrics for the A/B test version that use fonts from GP post will be negligeble.

[sp332]

When you're on the page, you might not notice. But when you see a page out of the corner of your eye, you will be able to recognize it if it has a distinctive look. Even if the "distinction" is just in the layout and font.

[huhtenberg]

You are wrong.

Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than Source Sans, so if you are to use for a product that is meant to exude lightness and airness, it would work worse than if you were to use SS.

Things like overall feel and the "rhythm" of a typeface take an effort to notice, quantify and rationalize, but they are of an UTMOST perceptive importance. Ever noticed the quirky lowercase "a" in Proxima Nova? Ever noticed how that "a" just steals the show if it appears in a sizes larger than 16px? No? Just pay closer attention next time ;) The same goes for HF&J's Whitney - it looks like just another sans-serif font on the surface, but it just feels friendlier. Try and quantify that (Kotaku uses it, go check it out).

First impression is hugely important and a typeface choice plays a very big part in it. Don't make a mistake of underestimating it.

[ajross]

Has that actually been studied? I mean, is there a quantifiable "2 second impression" that can be measured as different between Roboto and Source Sans? I see this kind of argument made all the time by afficionados of some aesthetic or another (microbrew fans, car nuts, etc...) and invariably the science ends up showing that e.g. wine quality can't be measured objectively at all.

My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wrong.", but more that I think you need to get some perspective about the distinction between strongly held opinion and objective fact.

[vdaniuk]

Yep, there is quite a problem with that. I've recently was looking for proof that Golden Ratio aesthetical qualities are indeed the global optima for at least some categories of objects. I've found nothing.

[huhtenberg]

There's at least one published study with a very large sampling base. I know because I was as skeptical as you are, then I saw the study mentioned in some design book, looked it up and it did in fact exist. I'll try and find the name, but I'm not sure if I still got the book where it was mentioned.

[cpeterso]

The Golden Radio is numerological nonsense. There is no evidence supporting some inherit beauty of the Golden Ratio.

[pikewood]

It would be interesting if someone set up a test similar to Harvard's Implicit Association Test to see if this is true.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/agg/blindspot/tab...

[adwf]

Perhaps. But speaking as a person from a physics background, a difference you can't quantify is a difference that may as well not exist...

I went back and checked the Medium website with a handful of different typefaces on the body text, and whilst I could tell a large difference in readability between the default (ff-tisa-web-pro?) and my systems DejaVu Sans, I honestly couldn't tell the difference the default and Georgia (serif) (screenshots in another comment below).

Which brings me back to my point, that the typeface is highly overrated in importance on a page. The choice of font-size, Sans/Serif, line-height/width, etc. all play a far more important role when it comes to readability.

I will admit that I do come from a strong science/programming background, so sometimes the more arty, design side of things escape me!