Freelancer.com

Go Back   Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace > The Warrior Forum > Copywriting
Register Blogs Social Groups Advertise with usHelp Desk

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Unread 9th December 2011, 06:18 PM   #1
DirectResponseCopywriter
War Room Member
 
saleswriter101's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 81
Thanks: 139
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Default SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Hello all!

Legendary copywriter Joe Sugarman says (in 'Advert. Secrets of the Written Word' p.113) that SERIF fonts (ex. times new roman) perform FIVE TIMES better in legibility tests than 'sans serif' fonts (ex. arial, verdana).

I WONDER WHY almost all sales pages on the Web do NOT use serif fonts?

Any idea?

Last edited on 9th December 2011 at 06:20 PM. Reason: typo
saleswriter101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 06:46 PM   #2
Conversion Consultant
War Room Member
 
Andrew Gould's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2009
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 808
Thanks: 868
Thanked 706 Times in 419 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

On screen, serif fonts tend to be harder to read because the lower resolution (72dpi compared to print at 300dpi) means the actual serifs take up more space and become distracting.

If you did want to try a serif font, then go for something designed for the screen such as Georgia.

Andrew Gould
Andrew Gould is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 06:55 PM   #3
DirectResponseCopywriter
War Room Member
 
saleswriter101's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 81
Thanks: 139
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Gould View Post
On screen, serif fonts tend to be harder to read because the lower resolution (72dpi compared to print at 300dpi) means the actual serifs take up more space and become distracting.

If you did want to try a serif font, then go for something designed for the screen such as Georgia.
I'd been wondering about this for SO long. Thanks for the thorough answer. (:
saleswriter101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 07:16 PM   #4
Who is Warrior X?
War Room Member
 
Warrior X's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2010
Location: Just outside the Motor City
Posts: 845
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 112
Thanked 235 Times in 170 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

I road the sans-serif train blindly until I read Lenny Eng's book (one of the very best about copywriting for the web.) He wrote that he had never seen a shred of real evidence saying that san-serif was more readable on a computer screen.

I always intuitively liked the serif look better, but avoided it. No longer!

-Jeremy

Warrior X is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 07:38 PM   #5
Conversion Consultant
War Room Member
 
Andrew Gould's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2009
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 808
Thanks: 868
Thanked 706 Times in 419 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

For a more scientific look at this, check out:

Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? – alexpoole.info

He comes to the same conclusion as Lenny, that there's no definitive proof one way or the other.

Personally, Verdana's my "go to" font simply because I like its clean, modern look.

And (to save someone else the trouble of typing it) you can easily test different fonts to make sure personal preference isn't getting in the way of maximum response.

Andrew Gould
Andrew Gould is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 07:40 PM   #6
Who is Warrior X?
War Room Member
 
Warrior X's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2010
Location: Just outside the Motor City
Posts: 845
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 112
Thanked 235 Times in 170 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Gould View Post
you can easily test different fonts to make sure personal preference isn't getting in the way of maximum response.
Ah spoken like a true direct marketer.
-Jeremy
Warrior X is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 07:45 PM   #7
Senior Warrior Member
War Room Member
 
joe golfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2010
Location: In the money
Posts: 2,572
Thanks: 1,678
Thanked 2,909 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Just a side note- Google has a collection of free webfonts here:
Google Web Fonts

Here is a WP plug-in with the same fonts:
WordPress › WP Google Fonts WordPress Plugins

joe golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9th December 2011, 07:46 PM   #8
HyperActive Warrior
War Room Member
 
OutOfThisWord's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 268
Thanks: 61
Thanked 93 Times in 78 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

It takes longer to read online (estimated 25% longer) than in print because of the imperceptible flicker of monitors.

Do serifs slow that down even further? A lot of experts believe so.

In my opinion, there is more to flicker.
OutOfThisWord is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10th December 2011, 06:36 AM   #9
Living Abroad
War Room Member
 
awddude's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2011
Location: China
Posts: 143
Thanks: 37
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Lightbulb Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfThisWord View Post
It takes longer to read online (estimated 25% longer) than in print because of the imperceptible flicker of monitors.

Do serifs slow that down even further? A lot of experts believe so.

In my opinion, there is more to flicker.
Very interesting.

For our perceiving self, the flicker is imperceptible, but not for our visual system. The information travelling from the monitor to your eyes is going light-speed. Perhaps our visual system needs a little more work to filter through the flickering, decreasing our reading speed. At the same time, our perceiving self is completely unaware unless we test ourselves.

The test I see on Wikipedia states:

Quote:
The average American adult reads prose text at 250 to 300 words per minute. While proofreading materials, people are able to read at 200 wpm on paper, and 180 wpm on a monitor. - Ziefle, M. (1998), Effects of display resolution on visual performance, Human Factors, 40(4), 555568.
Another test I read finds DPI and resolution critical to the debate. Because with low quality, visual fatigue incurs and decreases overall performance. But whatever is true, all sources agree that online reading is slower.

This one vouches for 30% slower:
http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/fi...II_reading.pdf

In their findings - 1 column of text decreased speed 32%, but when they arranged it into 3 columns of text, speed was only removed 11% from the paper reading speed.

They suggest:
  • using bigger font sizes
  • high contrast between text and background
  • more research

I should also note on LCDds the flicker is not an issue.

---
Testing:

Times New Roman:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Georgia:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."


Arial:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Verdana:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
awddude is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11th December 2011, 04:01 AM   #10
HyperActive Warrior
 
thehorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2011
Posts: 103
Thanks: 53
Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

I would vote for 12pt Cambria. Cambria's a transitional font made to read as a on-screen-font, has even spacings, proportions and is aesthetically pleasant to read. Especially long reports & scientific journals.

Cambria was designed to join Calibri's design-interface and Times New Roman's Serif style and reads well on screen. I love either Georgia or Cambria on screen...

Times New Roman on magazines, newspapers, and then for direct mail pieces, the classic Courier (Though I go with Courier New instead).

If you notice, Sans Serif fonts tend to be harder to read the smaller the font is... so I'll definitely vote for a not-too-small Sans Serif like Calibri OR a "made for screen" Hybrid like Cambria.

Serif fonts = definitely for comprehension purposes.
thehorizon is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11th December 2011, 04:18 AM   #11
AuthoritySiteNomad.com
War Room Member
 
Profolegy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2007
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia.
Posts: 246
Thanks: 86
Thanked 110 Times in 98 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Is there a reason why Calibri 11p is the default font for Microsoft Word?
Is it because they have done loads of testing?

A large number of Free Videos to watch on my Wordpress Authority Blog.
Create your own Online Authority
http://AuthoritySiteNomad.com/members

Last edited on 11th December 2011 at 04:19 AM. Reason: Rewrite sentence
Profolegy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11th December 2011, 11:35 AM   #12
Stay Hungry-Stay Foolish
War Room Member
 
MoneyMagnetMagnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2010
Location: Location, Location...
Posts: 565
Thanks: 470
Thanked 1,738 Times in 1,262 Posts
Default Re: SERIF fonts 5X better than San Serif--Why aren't they used on WWW much?

Thanks for this discussion - very illuminating!
MoneyMagnetMagnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace > The Warrior Forum > Copywriting

Bookmarks

Tags
fonts, san, serif, serifwhy, www

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:01 AM.