 |
 |
I prefer serif fonts too. It turns out that we are *not* a minority
> icons, icons + text, text only, and despite the received
> wisdom that "everyone reads sans-serif better" you want to
> give options for Serif and SS fonts because there's a
> significant minority of people (including me) that read serif
> fonts much more efficiently than sans fonts, even on screen,
> and there is a proportion of dyslexic users that find serif
> fonts relatively legible, ss significantly worse.
after all: according to an article on WebAIM (an accessibility group)
recent studies and surveys have shown that there is actually a very even
mix of serif/non-serif preference/ease of reading. It seems that the
"sans serif is easier to read" myth started in the days of DOS and green
on black monitors when it was pretty impossible to reproduce a serif
font legibly: modern monitors do not suffer from that problem.
Penny