A good web site provides key and critical information to the web user. A poorly designed site will cause the user to flee, and possibly never return. Make sure information is presented in the most readable manner possible.
Here are three things to consider when choosing a font.
1. Choose readable fonts.
While the Arial font may seem basic and boring it is the easiest font to read, particularly for the elderly and dyslexic reader. Unless you have a specific reason to use creative and cute fonts, resist the temptation. You want the user to notice the content, not the font.
2. Choose a font color that pops against the background color.
While this seems obvious, I am always surprised to find this problem. A black font on a dark blue background does not work! Most do-it-yourself web site systems offer a wide range of pre-defined fonts, font colors, and backgrounds that work together.
3. Choose a font size that is not too small or large.
A font that is too small is hard to read. If you are younger than forty, it may not be obvious that the text on your site is too small. If the web user has to find their reading glasses, they will find something else to read. Ask someone over sixty to read the content of your web site out loud, and see where they have problems.
A font that is too large will come across as harsh. Just as typing in all capital letters denotes YELLING in the cyber world, an overly large font can give a negative impression.
For more information on do-it-yourself web sites:
If you would like Judi to evaluate a specific do-it-yourself web site system, contact her at examinerjudi@gmail.com.
Comments
Thank you for the article! Absolutely agree with it :)
I'd add some points like leading and number of letters per line.
Good post, but one thing. Arial is by no means "the easiest font to read". That's silly talk. Always using Arial would be the same as telling people always to use black and white - extremely boring, and not always the right choice.
I agree with Joshua N Taylor on the choice of Arial. Arial is basically just a poor man’s Helvetica minus the care.
Generally speaking, serifed typefaces are more legible, hence their domination in print for the last six centuries. The serifs guide the eye along the page and give the letter forms stability. Sans-serif typefaces are have traditionally been used for headlines and such as you could “fit” more letters on a single line than you could with serifed letter forms.
Besides all that, one should pick a typeface based on the content. Arial is not the most legible typeface to read, and many designers despise using it (and Helvetica, for that matter) as they are both letter-spaced very very tightly (again, good for headlines, not so much for body copy).
Since the internet, there seems to be this line of thought that sans-serif typefaces are more legible because they are not as “busy” as serifed faces. The only serifed fonts we could use back then looked atrocious at low resolutions and, as such, the letter forms looked blurry at text sizes.
Now, we have typefaces that have been designed specifically for our low resolution monitors. Georgia and Verdana are two that come to mind immediately and are two typefaces that would go Master/Blaster on Arial if it were a Thunderdome match (two fonts enter. one font leaves.)
Otherwise, great post. I’m a type nerd who is an aspiring type designer so I’m not dissing on your post as a whole. Just spreading what I know and what I’ve learned through experience. :-)
As Robert Bringhurst said, “…typography exists to honor the content…”.
Cheers.
Hmm... this bob guy, he's on to something...
While I agree that Arial's not the most gorgeous font in the world, I think you've got to be really careful w/ serif fonts on web pages: they tend to go to crap on screen really quickly, whereas web-safe sans fonts like Verdana, Trebuchet, Lucida Sans, and, for that matter, Arial, stand up a lot better in the readability department.
In my experience, it's less an issue of letter spacing and whatnot and more an issue of the combination of limits of type display, screen capability, font rendering, etc etc, that make serif fonts great choices for print, but mediocre to poor choices for screen.
Stick w/ sans fonts online, but don't limit yourself to Arial only.
I've always heard that hand lettered typefaces (similar to those in comic books, but not necessarily Comic Sans) were good for dyslexic readers as there is a greater difference in rotated letters like: n, u, m, h or p, q, d, b.
Arial is a very readable font for body copy, but that doesn't mean you can't use so called fancy fonts for display copy/titles.
Standard theory for positive/negative contrast is about an 80% difference. Hence why most printed material isn't pure white and pure black. 0% Black background would work with 80-90% Black foreground.
I guess typeface size is up to the designer based on some focus group studies with the user base.
…i'm wondering if this site should have a dedicated design examiner…
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!