Why Fonts Matter

[Paul Whybrow]

 

[Carol Rose]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[David Steele]

On this question, I've released my paperback with Helvetica as the font for all body text. Most of the advice I've written says something very much like "You can get away with a modern font in books designed for Europe, but America is not ready for serif-free fonts yet," (I'm paraphrasing).
So, going with Helv was a deliberate choice. It's already available as an option on Kindle, but I know Windows has dropped it in favour of Arial, and I don't think Macs support it natively (Or do they?) For me, Helvetica is always my go-to typeface. I have a lot of love for it! Maybe it's not what "proper" publishers would choose, but I'm a designer by trade, and I'll use it for as long as I have the option.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

And then there were 11, then 12, then.... etc. etc..

 

[Jennifer Stone]

On this question, I've released my paperback with Helvetica as the font for all body text. Most of the advice I've written says something very much like "You can get away with a modern font in books designed for Europe, but America is not ready for serif-free fonts yet," (I'm paraphrasing).
So, going with Helv was a deliberate choice. It's already available as an option on Kindle, but I know Windows has dropped it in favour of Arial, and I don't think Macs support it natively (Or do they?) For me, Helvetica is always my go-to typeface. I have a lot of love for it! Maybe it's not what "proper" publishers would choose, but I'm a designer by trade, and I'll use it for as long as I have the option.

As long as you're happy with the style, does it really matter? Especially if you're not taking the traditional publishing route.

 

[David Steele]

As long as you're happy with the style, does it really matter? Especially if you're not taking the traditional publishing route.

Personally it's something I really wanted to do, but I'll be curious to see if anybody actually complains at some point.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

I like Calibri, Verdana and Garamond better than the eternal Times New Roman. Work in those, change fonts if there is a submission preference for TNR. Usually there is. I think it looks 'bitty.'

 

[Jason Byrne]

On this question, I've released my paperback with Helvetica as the font for all body text. Most of the advice I've written says something very much like "You can get away with a modern font in books designed for Europe, but America is not ready for serif-free fonts yet," (I'm paraphrasing).
So, going with Helv was a deliberate choice. It's already available as an option on Kindle, but I know Windows has dropped it in favour of Arial, and I don't think Macs support it natively (Or do they?) For me, Helvetica is always my go-to typeface. I have a lot of love for it! Maybe it's not what "proper" publishers would choose, but I'm a designer by trade, and I'll use it for as long as I have the option.

I think if I saw sans-serif outside a computer screen, my delicate sensibilities — nay even my sanity — might be shattered.

 

[David Steele]

I like Calibri, Verdana and Garamond better than the eternal Times New Roman. Work in those, change fonts if there is a submission preference for TNR. Usually there is. I think it looks 'bitty.'

Agreed. "Bitty" is exactly what I'd call it!

 

[David Steele]

I think if I saw sans-serif outside a computer screen, my delicate sensibilities — nay even my sanity — might be shattered.

Too late.

 

[Jason Byrne]

Too late.

Fair point. Mm. Delicious fish.

 

[James Marinero]

LOL. It's not that font that's the problem. It's the huge missed opportunity - why the F is their brandname not prominent? Such a superb viral chance missed.

 

[Richard Sutton]

Re: Font choices. I've always been of the opinion that legibility and rhythm are the deciding factors along with size and "appropriateness" if that's the right word. Jason makes a case for Helvetica, which certainly was the font of choice for almost everything in print during the 70s when I was in the ad game. On the other hand text in Helvetica (or Arial, for that matter...) in sizes smaller than 12 point can fatigue the readers eyes as the strong vertical movement in the font makes word-flow begin to fail. Serif fonts have the added touch of the serifs (the little feet) which carry the readers eye along, improving word flow even in smaller sizes. Of course, my own readers are usually well over forty, so I set my books in twelve point minimum. Then there is the relative open-ness of the font, how many characters can line up within the column width chosen. While you can get more characters of some more condensed fonts on the line, the most comfortable number of characters the eye is capable of reading without strain hovers around 40, which means that some fonts are much too open for a given width while others much too condensed. Finding the comfortable medium is the best way to go. The whole appropriateness thing for me has to do with the apparent age and style of a font, visually. Some fonts feel more antiquated, which for some text works really well, as long as the readability isn't sacrificed completely in favor of mood. There are more modern fonts that seem to work really well in mood for speculative writing, etc. Then there are screen versus print fonts, which have to do with specific hinting and nuancing done by the font designer to aid in word flow particular to the medium. It all gets pretty tangled up academically, so I often will just find a similar, popular book for the same niche reader and see what the publisher's designer chose font-wise. They don't get it wrong often. There. that's my spiel.

 

[Karen Gray]

It's not the font choice that is the issue here, it's the kerning (space between the letters) Basically that's a poor graphic designer job, not a poor font choice, the font actually is quite appropriate in my mind for candles, just needed spaced out better.

Ok, typography.

So anything smaller than 9pt is too hard for people to see. Anything 14pt and over is considered a display size so should also be avoided. This gives you range of 10pt to 12pt, 12pt being the most easy to read and usually industry standard.

There should be no more than 60 characters to a line including spaces. 60 characters is the natural arc that the human eye can see and as such, having more than this would cause the reader to have to move to see the remaining characters, this tires the eyes and is hugely undesirable.

Sans-serif fonts are best for digital media as pixels are square and screens cope better with the straight lines of sans serif-fonts.

Serif fonts are recommended for printed work as they are easy to read. Times New Roman was created by a newspaper because they wanted more words on the page without using up any more space. People find the feet and little "ticks" help ground and connect the letters. Also it makes the problem letters for dyslexic people i.e. qp db nu to look a little different which helps them to distinguish between like looking letters

 

[Richard Sutton]

60 characters seems a bit crowded, but there are lots of interpretive variations in typography. I still get a chuckle out of that Flickering Lights image.

 

[Jennifer Stone]

As long as it's readable, I wouldn't worry about what font it is. I probably couldn't tell one font from another tbh, as a reader. If anything, I enjoy a book where the author has gone for something different, rather than the standard ariel or sans. To me, it makes the book stand out and appear more unique.