Old Court Rule Now Disputed
Recently, I’ve had a number of conversations about typography, and typesetting legal documents. Some (e.g., Kenneth Adams and Si Daniels) dispute the idea that serif type should always be used for body copy because it is more legible than san serif type.
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, has sided with the traditionalists by adopting this comprehensive set of rules for typesetting briefs.
According to the court:
Studies have shown that long passages of serif type are easier to read and comprehend than long passages of sans-serif type. The rule accordingly limits the principal sections of submissions to serif type, although sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions. This is the same approach magazines, newspapers, and commercial printers take. Look at a professionally printed brief; you will find sans-serif type confined to captions, if it is used at all.
The Supreme Court of West Virginia goes in a completely different direction with these rules:
Except by leave of Court, all pleadings and briefs, including footnotes, must be in at least 14 point type, must use Courier, Arial, or Verdana font, and only one side of the paper may be used.
Go figure!
15 January 2008 at 10:28
Mister,
There were studies in Australia almost 20 years ago (at their Communication Institute which now mat be closed) that found this is a generational issue.
Old fogies like me learned to read in primers that used serif type. The major studies on type that were done in the 50s created the belief in serif type for text.
Awhile back, various publishers started producing children’s books in sans-serif and Disney moved to sans-serif also. Children gained comfort in going back and forth from serif to sans-serif.
Those kids grew up and they don’t care which font is used.
Microsoft has done more recent studies on font styles that are appropriate to computer screen reading. But I don’t think much has been done to update the research on reading fonts on paper.
15 January 2008 at 10:48
Cheryl:
That doesn’t jibe at all with my understanding of the issue.
Educational publishers have done much to study how children read. There’s no dispute about it — children, like adults, find body copy set in serif type easier to read.
Take a look at how professional publishers (of children’s literature as well as adults’) set body copy: in serif type.
Go to a bookstore and see how books from professional publishers are set: the body copy is almost always set in serif type, even for books for younger readers.
The new tendency to set body copy in sans-serif type comes from two sources: 1) much reading is now done on line, and serifs don’t always work so well on monitors with low resolution, and 2) everyone with a computer now believes he’s a typesetter (and knows better how to set type than the pros).
15 January 2008 at 13:05
Mister,
I did not mention educational publishers. But, do you have proof that they have done recent research?
I refer to general publishers. I have gone to bookstores and looked at the children’s books for just this purpose.
I do not want to get into an argument with you. I can only lead the horse to water…
15 January 2008 at 13:37
Hmm . . . I can’t imagine that the results would be different today than they were 30 years ago, or 60 years ago. Kids are still kids — everything is new to them. And I have no reason to believe that the psychology of reading has changed much in the past few hundred years.
When you look at children’s books in the bookstores, look at those published by established publishers (rather than some mom-and-pop outfit than knows nothing about setting type, or some big established company that’s got a kid heading the design department).
If you’re correct, than newspapers might start setting body copy in sans serif type to appeal to younger readers. But . . . just imagine a newspaper set in sans serif type! What a horrible looking paper that could turn out to be (depending on the actual face selected).
Interesting it is that lots of Web sites use Arial for body copy — a face specifically designed for heads. This trend is really Microsoft’s fault. They make it the default face, people with no education in typesetting use it because it’s the default, and then readers are burdened with less than very legible type.
To those who claim that reputable studies show that Arial’s a good face (even better than Times) for body copy, I’d like to see the studies. I’d like to get a sense of how they were conducted.
Nope. I’m not looking to get into an argument, but I enjoy a good discussion.
15 January 2008 at 18:34
It seems to me that you are missing the point.
How children learn to read and the assortment of media they use for that has changed in 30 years. In the tests that were done, comfort was measured. A person is comfortable with the fonts that were used in the materials they used to learn to read.
Nowadays children have many books in their homes, public libraries, day cares, and other places that were not published by educational or “established” publishers. They have toys with the alphabet and whole words; they use computers.
The research done in Australia, that I mentioned, had raised enough of a concern about the generational differences that have developed that the organization called for new research. I agree with that.
16 January 2008 at 10:17
Cheryl:
Yes, things have changed in the past 30 years: computers have become pervasive, and children can’t read as well as they used to (and don’t read nearly as much as they did 30 years ago).
You mention some test that measured comfort. What test was that?
Should we test again? Sure. Why not? You might be right. Serifs aren’t part of my religion.
Years ago, I imagined that sans serif would be better for kids because the font they use to learn to write is sans serif. But I was very wrong. Perhaps things have changed, but — so far — I’ve seen nothing to support that at all.
The democratization of typesetting has yielded much more type, but not better set type.