I recently discovered Practical Typography [1] and Typography for Lawyers [2] by Matthew Butterick which have changed the way I've approached presenting information. I would highly recommend each for anyone who uses text to communicate. Butterick is a Tufte for text.<p>[1] <a href="https://practicaltypography.com" rel="nofollow">https://practicaltypography.com</a><p>[2] <a href="https://typographyforlawyers.com" rel="nofollow">https://typographyforlawyers.com</a>.
My personal experience, if I have to sum it up, would be, “Sans Serif is cleaner and easier for normal reads, such as shorter text, menus, and overall interfaces. Serif for longer reads where I need deeper focus.”
To sum up almost 160 pages:<p>> [T]he overwhelming thrust of the available evidence is
that there is no difference in the legibility of serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces either when reading from paper or when reading from screens. Typographers and software designers should feel able to make full use of both serif typefaces and sans serif typefaces, even if legibility is a key criterion in their choice.
Interesting! Does it touch on why people initially became so opinionated about serif/sans readability? And what’s a meaningful characteristic if not serifs?<p>I realize it’s lazy to just ask, but… 160 pages…
Thank you, as much as a 160 page book about fonts is probably thrilling, I probably won’t get around to it for a while so was going to ask for the tl;dr