Ship of Fools: Fonts (typography!) used in church

Thread: Fonts (typography!) used in church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027845

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Hello All,

Having suffered through years of badly designed church publications - to say nothing of the wickedness of Comic Sans - in the foreseeable future the role of designing these things might inevitably fall on me.

I'm wondering if there are any fonts which you could recommend for church newsletters? Requiem HFJ is gorgeous but expensive.

x

AV

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

As long as it's readable, and relevant to the piece (Comic Sans still has its place), then I've got no real preference. I do like Arial though.

Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Hello All,

Having suffered through years of badly designed church publications - to say nothing of the wickedness of Comic Sans - in the foreseeable future the role of designing these things might inevitably fall on me.

I'm wondering if there are any fonts which you could recommend for church newsletters? Requiem HFJ is gorgeous but expensive.

x

AV

Tahoma, Trebuchet, Arial all do the job... I'd never pay for a font just for a church newsletter, when there are plenty of free ones that will suffice.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

This is a really nice font but, for a church bulletin, go with those in your word processing package. I think that Times New Roman or Trebuchet works better than Arial, given the uneven lighting in many churches, but that's me. Comic Sans is of Satan, and offends the martyrs and confessors, not to mention the virgins. I'm personally fond of Narkisim and Optima, but I fear that few agree with me.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I use easily-read lower-case Calibri for our weekly pew-sheet/bulletin, and for the majority of posters on or near our church/hall doors. For occasional posters e.g. those we put up in our local Community Centre/supermarket, advertising special services or events, I use Kristen ITC on bright yellow or orange paper (so as to stand out amidst the throng of other adverts!).

IIRC, it's widely accepted that a simple and easy-to-read lower case font is better than some of the more elaborate fonts......of which Microsoft Word (which is the source I use) has quite a variety.

Ian J.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

A church bulletin should be set like any other short piece of text that's going to be printed on a low resolution (well, for print) laser printer on basic, often colored, paper. Keep things simple, keep them clean, keep it on the conservative side as regards taste, and, when in doubt, use Caslon. Also keep in mind that you're going to want to be considerate of older folk with eyes that don't read small print like they used to—set everything in 14 point type or larger, consider widening your leading by a point or two (if the situation warrants it) and don't mess with the kerning! If you run out of space, use the Editor's Red Pen of Doom and cut words, but don't shrink the type.

I, personally, generally avoid Gothic or geometric san serif faces in print applications like this; while they've been extraordinarily popular in recent years because of their simplicity, slick contemporary feel, and relevance to electronic applications at ultralow resolutions (note the display face here on the Ship), they're not as readable when you're actually dealing with blocks of text, nor do they have quite the same "old familiar feel" that a good garalde or even early modern face will. Times is hackneyed, and really only useful for setting lots of text in a small space—which is what it was designed for, after all. It's not especially readable, though, which is part of why people have been moving away from it more and more. Caslon is familiar to many people, but many commercial (and especially free) Caslons I've seen have really wonky leading and incomplete character sets—which is a shame, since you won't find anything better for setting short paragraphs of text. Garamond is a classic, doesn't take up too much space, is as readable as they come, and always a good decision, especially for longer blocks of text. As far as common typefaces go, it and Minion are the ones I see book designers using most often.

Of course, if you really want to get into this, see if you can track down a copy of Robert Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style. It's far and away the best book on the topic I've ever seen, for reasons that would take me far too much gushing to explain here.

tl;dr: stick with serifs, avoid TNR, 14 point, find Bringhurst now.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The Book of Common Prayer '79 is in Sabon. Garamond is the closest standard font on Word, and thus the best choice for liturgical materials.

[ 15. January 2014, 19:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Garamond is not bad either, but perhaps for some not quite as easy to read as Arial, Tahoma or Trebuchet. TNR is not at all easy unless you increase it to at least 14 point. Comic Sans is legible and does have its uses in children's material.

The Requiem is attractive, but has 2 counts against it. You have to buy it - and with so many others free,, can you justify* it? And the language of the site! Weasel words everywhere turned me away.

We use the New English Hymnal. Not sure what font that is, but it is very faint and not at all easy to read for those of us of advancing years.

*No pun intended

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Common Worship, unaccountably and counter-intuitively (given that most people seem to say that serif fonts are more legible), has gone for Gill Sans. Which is a very attractive font but not, to my mind, particularly suited to large blocks of text. The ASB was set in Palatino which is OK. I like Calisto which you don't often come across but it is towards the top of the list on my Mac and is very readable.

If I was in charge of these things I would decree Gill Sans for the church noticeboard, and maybe for section headings in liturgical books (I might use Gill Sans Light for rubrics and non-liturgical stuff like bulletins) ; and a simple but dignified serif font for liturgical texts. Garamond, Caslon or Baskerville are all acceptable but Times New Roman is overdone and hackneyed and makes me cringe. Comic Sans and any form of mock-medieval 'gothick' or pseudo-renaissance calligraphy should be banned.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

We recently did a trial edition of a document I have some responsibility for, setting the same block of text in 5 or 6 different fonts, filtered from a bigger list. We canvassed our usual readers on their preferences. Garamond won easily.

The problem with Times NR is its over-use really. It seems to add a general feel of "technical report" to everything.

[ 15. January 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

From the POV of someone who struggles to read in dim light and needs reading glasses, I'd suggest avoiding serif fonts altogether unless your church (I'm assuming most people will initially at least glance at the newsletter there) is brightly lit. And what may appear adequate to you may not be to the older generation. It might be useful to test some font samples on someone with less good eyesight and get their opinion.

Calibri is nice though you do have to bump up the font size a bit. Verdana is also clear and easy to read and Gill Sans is another attractive sans serif font. Trebuchet and Maiandra are slightly less formal.

When you make your final choice of font, make sure it's capable of doing bold, italic, and any special characters you may need. There are literally hundreds of fonts out there, free as well as purchasable, on the internet if you don't like the alternatives your computer offers, but some only offer the bare minimum of the alphabet in roman.

[ 15. January 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Keep in mind that if you are working with others and sharing the newsletter via email as a PDF, there are still many fonts that don't appear properly to others. I have had difficulties with this when I have chosen more unique fonts.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'd say:-

Serif - Garamond every time.
If you really don't like it, you could try Gentium, 'the Christian font' which is encouraged by SIL. Baskerville is nice but a bit wispy and old fashioned when it comes to reading it easily.

Sans - Calibri or Lucida (but I think that may be Mac only). Not Arial, which is the boring Sans equivalent of TNR. Tahoma and Trebuchet are both OK.

For liturgical use it really has to be Gill Sans, whatever your personal views because that's what Common Worship is printed in.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For liturgical use it really has to be Gill Sans, whatever your personal views because that's what Common Worship is printed in.

There are many of us who might use fonts in various liturgical contexts for whom the font in which Common Worship is printed is neither here nor there.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I think that Times New Roman or Trebuchet works better than Arial, given the uneven lighting in many churches, but that's me.

To cater for those who have visual impairment the various charities for the blind say that sans serif fonts should be used. That rules out Times New Roman

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I was using Poor Richard but I'm just strange ...

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Okay, if you must do san serif, then stay away from Ariel (no, not that one, she's perfectly nice) and go with one meant for text and visibility, like Helvetica light (the ultra light, while quite contemporary, can be a bit much and might be hard to read; its time is also soon to pass, I'd guess) or Century Gothic. At all costs, avoid Optima. While it's an amazingly subtle and beautiful face if done in offset lithography or (be still, my heart!) metal type, the delicate curves and angles get lost on laser printers and computer screens, making it less legible and, frankly, less beautiful. Hermann Zaph faces (Palatino, Optima, Zaphino, Zaph Chancery) are very, very subtle and, especially for Optima and Zaphino, need to be handled with care. If you're doing a church bulletin, I doubt people are going to give you enough lead time to individually select each individual character and stylistic alternate; use something that looks good even when abused and is hastily amended three minutes before the service. Garamond and Baskerville both look liturgical*, while Helvetica and Century Gothic are classic sans serif faces, albeit very different ones, that can still be read in text settings.

*We recently had a Cardinal Newman icon and printing implement blessing at work (though for the fax machine, I think an exorcism would have been more appropriate); the Ordinariate officiant informed us that he had chosen Baskerville for the order of service handouts because it was both English and properly liturgical, so the Blessed John Henry would have approved.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

A lot of this is cultural. Some typefaces look more American, some more British, some European.

Helvetica (at least some of its many variants) is a good readble standard sans face, if a bit boring and dated. It shouts 1950s or 60s - a sort of high-tech chrome European 60s rather than a rock-and-roll one. Arial is a second-rate Helvetica rip-off made unusably boring by its use as the default for Microsoft Word so everyone associates it with tedious work documents.

Comic Sans has no valid uses. If you find yourself thinking that it does, take thar as a sign from God that you are not called to edify the church through typography.

Gill Sans is wonderful but very English. It has been the normal face of Church of England liturgy for a while. Also heavily used by the BBC. I always use it for the body of text in service sheets when I can. There is really no other choice Sometimes with other faces for headers.

Serif faces are not neccesarily more readable than sans in cheaply reproduced documents and can be much worse at small sizes. 14 point is good, 12 borderline, anything less and sans is safer. The various Times Roman faces are also overused and overreminiscent of work word documents.

Microsofts other standard faces are much better, because less overused - Georgia and Verdana and Tahoma and Trebuchet all look better than Arial or Times and you can't beat the price. Trebuchet is another one of those rather mid-century faces that looks a bit English.

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 16. January 2014, 08:51: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Also, you all probably know this, but it has to be said: for a newsletter, use no more than two different fonts: one for headlines, the other for text.

Websites like this one can be helpful in choosing combinations.

Here's another, but it doesn't show you the type faces, only gives their names. But you can use it to get suggestions for a font to pair with one you're thinking of using.

And ken's advice,

quote:
Comic Sans has no valid uses. If you find yourself thinking that it does, take that as a sign from God that you are not called to edify the church through typography.

is going in the quotes file.

[ 16. January 2014, 02:52: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Baskerville can be good in headers, titles etc.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

The Microsoft default on my pc uses Calibri as the main font with Cambria, which is a serif font, as the heading font. It's actually quite a good, clear and legible combination. The Cambria has a nice bold look to it and makes a good heading font.

If you pick two fonts that you like which you think will work well together you probably don't really need any more for your newsletter, because you should also have the options of bold and italic to add variety within those, plus altering the size, adding shaded panels where necessary, etc etc. Quite a lot can be achieved with just two typefaces.

Garamond (serif font) is one of my personal favourites but it is quite light, and depending on which manufacturer has supplied it, can vary more than you expect, from the pleasing to the difficult to read. Sabon is a good all-purpose serif font as is Baskerville, and both are mainstream choices for book publishers, partly because Sabon is one of the few fonts that can cope with a wide range of special characters and diacritics.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

....er......just what is so awful about Comic Sans?

.......if necessary, I'll get me coat........

Ian J.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Also, you all probably know this, but it has to be said: for a newsletter, use no more than two different fonts: one for headlines, the other for text.

Websites like this one can be helpful in choosing combinations.

Here's another, but it doesn't show you the type faces, only gives their names. But you can use it to get suggestions for a font to pair with one you're thinking of using.

Thank you for those links. I'm probably a bit boring but I think there's usually quite a good case for sticking to only one font, and just using combinations of size and the bold and italic versions of itself for headings, variety etc.

A good font draws attention neither to itself nor to the claims of the person who chose it, to be clever, creative or a dtp version of Linda Snell.

quote:

And ken's advice,

quote:
Comic Sans has no valid uses. If you find yourself thinking that it does, take that as a sign from God that you are not called to edify the church through typography.
is going in the quotes file.

Brill. That gets 2 [Overused]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
....er......just what is so awful about Comic Sans?

I wouldn't say it's awful in and of itself, but it's awful in any context other than on cards telling children about a birthday party.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Good to know that those with reading difficulties aren't welcome in church.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Good to know that those with reading difficulties aren't welcome in church.

In the canvassing exercise I referred to earlier, there were several people with visual impairment/reading difficulties. One of the reasons we went with Garamond was because they all preferred it - though it was also the general preference too. Not a church document BTW.

ExclamationMark wrote:

quote:
To cater for those who have visual impairment the various charities for the blind say that sans serif fonts should be used. That rules out Times New Roman

We checked that. Most say either can be used, some say that san serif is better for onscreen work and serif for printed work (I think that's current government Office for Disabilities recommendation). RNIB says either provided the characters are distinct.

But in any event, there are potentially many different reasons why people may have impaired reading ability. You'll need to ask them specifically, and not assume a one size fits all solution is going to work.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
....er......just what is so awful about Comic Sans?
I wouldn't say it's awful in and of itself, but it's awful in any context other than on cards telling children about a birthday party.

- er - WOW! That was almost word-for-word what I was going to post.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Good to know that those with reading difficulties aren't welcome in church.

(I would say that the lower case 'a' in comic sans is insufficiently different from the lower case 'o'. Letters being distinct is more important than similarity with how they might be written - and handwriting is not generally noted for legibility.)

What I would suggest is showing some samples to those in the church who might have difficulty reading. We did not do this in my church when the format of the bulletin was changed, and some of the older folk with weaker eyes complained.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

incidentally - in case anyone thinks font choice is all a bit geeky, even if your audience has no disabilities -

Read this.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read.

I'm pretty sure it isn't. Any real research?

In fact its rather bad for continuous text because its so jerky. It's meant for short lines and captions - it is of course a comic-book face though there are better ones - and tends to throw the eye badly if used for multiple lines.

quote:

This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Same as who would write it? Different handwriting styles have different forms of the letters. It varies hugely between countries, generations, schools, and individuals. Educational fashions change. I was taught two quite different handwriting styles at school and lots of letters, including "a", were different between them.

Anyway, there are plenty of other typefaces with similar single-storey "a"s. Starting with Futura, one of the best-known of all modern typefaces. And most classic italic faces as well. And others.

As for the snarky comments about people not bed welcome in church, readability is exactly why we care about type so much.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read.
I'm pretty sure it isn't. Any real research?

Can't say I've noticed it at my son's school.

I have been trying for two years to think up a tactful way to ask our otherwise admirable PCC secretary to stop producing minutes in Comic bloody Sans. [brick wall]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

The DejaVu family of fonts is completely free:

Sans: Book, Bold, Oblique, Bold Oblique, Condensed, Condensed Bold, Condensed Oblique and Condensed Bold Oblique, Extralight
Serif: Book, Bold, Italic, Bold Italic, Condensed, Condensed Bold, Condensed Italic and Condensed Bold Italic
Mono: Book, Bold, Oblique, Bold Oblique

They are very "clean" fonts and cover as wide a range of characters as possible. The latter might make them very attractive in a Church context: you can use the same font for all sort of "weird" letter (Greek, Cyrillic, Coptic, Georgian, all manner of accents, diacritical marks, phonemes, ...).

I often use DejaVu Sans Mono when programming computer code, that's where I know these fonts from. Many Linux installations have them preinstalled.

[ 16. January 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read.
I'm pretty sure it isn't. Any real research?

In fact its rather bad for continuous text because its so jerky. It's meant for short lines and captions - it is of course a comic-book face though there are better ones - and tends to throw the eye badly if used for multiple lines.

There is research on the readability of different type styles, if not actual typefaces. For instance, after the issues with our own bulletin, I went in search of the idea I had heard that serif typefaces were easier to read (particularly for body text) than sans serif typefaces. The theory was that the serifs make the letters more distinct, and therefore easier for the eye+brain to distinguish. However, it seems that this is not the case, and there is no particular difference in readability.

However, your point about different fonts being suitable for different places in a typeset document is very valid. Up-thread someone has already made the observation that Times Roman is intended for narrow dense columns of text - as in a newspaper.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

You find very few novels set in any sans serif typeface, and if you try to read more than a page at a time of such you'll see why. Or at least to my mind: it is much more tiring. Sans serif is fine for captions, short paragraphs and such like (hence tolerable for liturgical use though I find a good serif font easier on the eye when leading services)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never seen any novel set in Comic Sans.

Posted by JH (# 17310) on :

It enrages me that my local police send out their formal legal representations on applications for licences for pubs, clubs etc in Comic Sans.

They even use Comic Sans when requesting that a licence is reviewed because of a spate of stabbings and brawls.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JH:
It enrages me that my local police send out their formal legal representations on applications for licences for pubs, clubs etc in Comic Sans.

They even use Comic Sans when requesting that a licence is reviewed because of a spate of stabbings and brawls.

omg. omg.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The Chief Constable should promptly arrest himself for criminal breach of taste. And Lesé-Majesté, as I am appalled one of Her Majesty's servants would be so crude in representations on her behalf in an official capacity.

[ 17. January 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

When discussing fonts, does anyone else find themselves singing "I shot the serif"?

Just me then.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Entertaining though it is to discuss the misuses of C*mic S*ns, this thread is here to debate the use of typography for worship handouts in church. Please try to keep the contributions useful where possible!

Your cooperation is, as ever, appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

C***c S**s isn't the only font that isn't suitable for serious use. Curlz may be OK for an invitation to a children's party, but not for service sheets or the Parish Magazine. I'm not too sure about Harrington or Mistral, or any fonts that are supposed to look like either felt tip pens or copper plate handwriting with flourishes.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Yes. Avoid any "script" typefaces or imitation handwriting. Used unthinkingly they are unreadable. Used professionally they at best make your text look like the labels of cheap supermarket own-brand clothing lines aimed at older middle-aged women.

And if you don't believe me on that, take a look at this page on the BBC website which includes a disastrous example of corporate rebranding when Gatwick Airport replaced a rather boring but functional logo in Frutiger with a dismal piece of namby-pamby crap in some utterly inappropriate fake-handwriting typeface.

Apparently their marketing droids said the old logo was too "uncompromising". And Frutiger is one of those mid-20th-century high-tech Teutonic shiny moderne typefaces. Well, personally I want air travel to be uncompromising, efficient, modern, fast, and safe. Leave soft, cuddly, homely, and friendly to the railways where they belong.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I know it's trendy to make fun of comic sans, but I genuinely find it one of the easiest fonts to read. I think what people are calling its jerkiness is part of the reason for that. The letters are very easily distinguished from each other by the various angles. With the kind of fonts that people normally consider to be more appropriate, the letters are much more similar to each other - at a glance, an 'a' and an 'e' can both look like a circle with a horizontal line through it. A page of Comic Sans is so much easier on the eyes, I find. I have Irlen Syndrome, which is apparently quite common in people on the autism spectrum and also in dyslexic people. I spent quite a while trying to work out the easiest fonts for myself, and if I ever have the option of altering the font on a webpage, I always change it to Comic Sans, or the Mac alternative (which I have a slight preference for, because the letters are slightly wider).

Just thought I'd speak in favour of Comic Sans, because it always gets a bad rap! I'm not expecting churches to use it in their bulletins, but I certainly wouldn't complain if they did.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You find very few novels set in any sans serif typeface, and if you try to read more than a page at a time of such you'll see why. Or at least to my mind: it is much more tiring.

It was used in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. I found it incredibly easy to read, but apparently neurotypical people find it hard. There was a Guardian article about it: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/may/08/markhaddon

But it's worth bearing in mind that not everyone finds the same fonts easy to read, and there may well be people on the autism spectrum in any church.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You find very few novels set in any sans serif typeface, and if you try to read more than a page at a time of such you'll see why. Or at least to my mind: it is much more tiring.
It was used in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. ....

I'd forgotten that: another reason why I| disliked the book, I suppose.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Zamyatin is better.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

A nice clear and reasonably dignified font: reminds me of spelling cards and so on from primary school. Don't know how good it would be for extended blocks of text, but then, apart from I suppose the Creed and possibly bits of the Eucharistic Prayer (CofE/CinW background showing here) there aren't normally that many of them in a service sheet, are there?

[ 17. January 2014, 16:48: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We try to explain about fonts to wedding couples and the like.

Best/Worst example looked beautiful - but was almost unreadable: all italics, in tasteful grey on a cream background and at something like 10 point for headings, 9 for text - dreadful.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.

Zamyatin is better.

Some of those letters look a little weird to me (the "s"s arege ugly, the "9" squashed, and where did they get that lower-case "t" from?) and the whole things a bit stencil-like. Also a bit of a 1/I/l problem.

I've never used it, but this Sassoon Primary typeface looks pretty much exactly like the letter forms kids are taught to write in school. Whether or not that helps poor readers I do not know.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JH:
It enrages me that my local police send out their formal legal representations on applications for licences for pubs, clubs etc in Comic Sans.

They even use Comic Sans when requesting that a licence is reviewed because of a spate of stabbings and brawls.

Does the chief wear a red nose, a fright wig and size 19DD boots?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

I like Perpetua, especially for titles.

Best part is that I think it comes standard with Microsoft Office.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
C***c S**s isn't the only font that isn't suitable for serious use. Curlz may be OK for an invitation to a children's party, but not for service sheets or the Parish Magazine. I'm not too sure about Harrington or Mistral, or any fonts that are supposed to look like either felt tip pens or copper plate handwriting with flourishes.

Papyrus: Also awful. Also used by my church when the person who produces the bulletin wants to give something vaguely resembling an ancient Near East feel. You know, like Jesus.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

On those occasions when I preach from a prepared text I print it out in Comic Sans. I find it the easiest to read at a glance as it's 'jerkiness' seems to make it easy to find my place in the text.

I think this may be related to the fact that I used to be able to flick through a book and find my place by the shape of the text on the page. Comic Sans gives quite distinct 'page shapes'.

Not that that is necessarily useful in Church bulletins....

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
On those occasions when I preach from a prepared text I print it out in Comic Sans. I find it the easiest to read at a glance as it's 'jerkiness' seems to make it easy to find my place in the text.

I think this may be related to the fact that I used to be able to flick through a book and find my place by the shape of the text on the page. Comic Sans gives quite distinct 'page shapes'.

Not that that is necessarily useful in Church bulletins....

I read somewhere that Comic Sans is useful for people with dyslexia because the nature of the disorder makes it difficult to distinguish letters, especially serifs, and the irregularity of CS characters makes it easier to distinguish.

That said, it's a terrible font for general presentation. If it works for you to use Comic Sans for your notes, power to you.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Comic Sans is actually used a lot by those involved in Special Educational Needs provision since it is one of the easiest fonts for those with reading difficulties to read. This is because the lowercase 'a' is formed similarly to how one would write it.
Zamyatin is better.
Some of those letters look a little weird to me (the "s"s arege ugly, the "9" squashed, and where did they get that lower-case "t" from?) and the whole things a bit stencil-like. Also a bit of a 1/I/l problem.
I've never used it, but this Sassoon Primary typeface looks pretty much exactly like the letter forms kids are taught to write in school. Whether or not that helps poor readers I do not know.

Actually, you're right about the lack tail on the 't' in Zamyatin, but that is how teachers here (in Malaysia) are instructed to teach new entrants how to form the letter - like a cross. I hadn't considered the 1/I/l thing. Sassoon is lovely, but Zamyatin is free. Even though the punctuation reverts to TNR and sits above the line, we still use it a lot for young readers (we just fiddle with the full stops to make them work). We are discouraged from using CS when preparing materials for teachers to use in very young learner classes because of the jerkiness others have commented on, as well as the lack of tail on the 't' and the angled 'horizontal' bar on the 'e' .
I don't know how Zamyatin would play out in church, though.

Posted by Ana (# 11667) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I read somewhere that Comic Sans is useful for people with dyslexia because the nature of the disorder makes it difficult to distinguish letters, especially serifs, and the irregularity of CS characters makes it easier to distinguish.

That said, it's a terrible font for general presentation. If it works for you to use Comic Sans for your notes, power to you.

Open Dyslexic is designed to be more easily read by dyslexic people, mostly by making the letters "bottom heavy" so that 'b' can be distinguished from 'd', 'p' and 'q'.

I have to say though, I read by word shape and find it gives me a headache to read any significant amount of it.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Good to know that those with reading difficulties aren't welcome in church.

I missed where someone said that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ana:
Open Dyslexic is designed to be more easily read by dyslexic people, mostly by making the letters "bottom heavy" so that 'b' can be distinguished from 'd', 'p' and 'q'.

I have to say though, I read by word shape and find it gives me a headache to read any significant amount of it.

I agree. I find that font difficult and uncomfortable to read.

Going back to Mockingale's recommendation of Perpetua, I think the Church in Wales uses it for its service books.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ana:
Open Dyslexic is designed to be more easily read by dyslexic people, mostly by making the letters "bottom heavy" so that 'b' can be distinguished from 'd', 'p' and 'q'.

I think the problem with that apporach is that it assumes "dyslexia" is one thing. it clearly isn't. There are loads of reasons people have trouble reading and what works for one may not work for another.

quote:

I have to say though, I read by word shape and find it gives me a headache to read any significant amount of it.

quote:

I have to say though, I read by word shape...

Almost all skilled readers read by word shape, at least some of the time. If they didn't they couldn't possibly read as fast as they do. Typical readers do 100-200 words a minute - much faster than speech - and most people can raise that to 300 or more. People who teach speed reading often claim you can up that to 700 wpm or more though others doubt how much comprehension that involves (there is a lot of bollocks spread around by peole trying to sell patent speed reading courses)

Its possible to scan text for key words much faster than that, or what some people call "skim" reading to get a general outline of a text while skipping the detail. I think I can do 2000 words a minute (I can get through the whole Bible in a couple of hours or the NT alone in less than one) and some people report 3000 or 4000. But that does involve skipping what doesn't seem interesting.

Anyway, you can't do that by sounding out words in your head, or by paying attention to every letter.

quote:

...and find it gives me a headache to read any significant amount of it.

Just looking at that web page made me feel nauseous.

But then I'm rather ill at the moment so lots of things make me feel sick!

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Good to know that those with reading difficulties aren't welcome in church.
I missed where someone said that.

That's cos no-one did.

[Edit: UBB]

[ 19. January 2014, 17:53: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

I've always found Garamond - Adobe Garamond is a great example - a fine typeface for extensive text. Times New Roman isn't awful either - a bit banal due to its status as the default in most versions of Microsoft Word, but it does the job admirably. Helvetica and its cousin Arial are great for headings and especially for signage, hence their frequent appearances in corporate logos, but variably spaced serif fonts give a bit smoother look on paper.

Above all, though, use actual publishing software for your bulletins and missals, not a word processor (though Apple Pages is probably the next best thing). Something like InDesign just takes less effort to give you attractive results. Same goes for your newsletters, too.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

Our parish uses Garamond for all official publications. It works reasonably well. I have, though often wished to see more liturgical books printed in the style that William Morris used for the Kelmscott Press. Failing that, Daniel Berkeley Updike Standard Version of the 1928 American BCP is a model of good, sensible, liturgical typography.

I may say, though, that the standard of typography in parish churches is usually acceptable, but the quality of paper used is invariably substandard light-weight printer paper. This is more difficult to fix, as good paper requires money and the better the paper the more expensive it is.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

One parish church which shall be nameless used Comic Sans for its Easter High Mass. What can one say? [Confused]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
One parish church which shall be nameless used Comic Sans for its Easter High Mass. What can one say?

If I were forced to create a service sheet in Comic Sans, I would set the closing versicle and response in word balloons being said by Lucy Van Pelt and Charlie Brown respectively.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

Charles Schulz might have been offended by Comic Sans being let near his creation...

I used Palatino Linotype for my wedding Order of Service. It worked well, serifs in all the right places.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Does anyone know where this vogue for Comic Sans came from?

At least with Papyrus you can point the finger at something.

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

All these postings about Comic Sans made me look it up (I'd never heard of it). It looks like a fine font for something geared toward children or selling toothpaste in an advertisement, but not for anything serious.

At my church we now use Palatino Linotype, and have also used Garamond. Both of these are easy to read and look dignified.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Does anyone know where this vogue for Comic Sans came from?

It's a comic book face. And it came free with Micro$oft. Some foolish people think that comics are only for children and some of them suffer from the delusion that children must find that sort of style easier to read.

Horses for courses. Small captions or word bubbles maybe (though there are other far superior comicbook typefaces) but not blocks of text. Or running heads.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Does anyone know where this vogue for Comic Sans came from?

Yes: primary school teachers (like my wife) who use it for everything! It's apparently considered both friendly and legible.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

There used to be a font called "divorce" - I can't find it now. With somewhat dark humour I used it for our wedding service ... fortunately the marriage has lasted longer than the font, it seems

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Thanks guys - horses for courses indeed. Though it still doesn't really explain why adults have suddenly gone gaga and infantile when grownup is called for. I've no objection to people using it for children's birthday cards.

A bit of a tangent - one of my daughters is an illustrator, but she does hand-lettering for her captions.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
A bit of a tangent - one of my daughters is an illustrator, but she does hand-lettering for her captions.

As the great illustrators and cartoon artists always have.

To relate it to the topic, I once rummaged through a file of old service sheets at our church, as you do, and found a series that had a hand-drawn angel on the front and all the parish information on the back was hand-lettered. Looked rather jazzy for an Anglo-Catholic shrine parish, but it was the 1960's, IIRC. Nowadays it's Sabon, with the hymns imported from RiteStuff in crisp Baskerville.

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

I've been using Constantia* as my default font for both my technical reports and liturgical pieces. Even though Seminary rules requires TNR or Arial, no one seems to have noticed. Not everyone likes the numbers, though.

* It's been coming free with MS Office for a while now.

[ 27. January 2014, 18:30: Message edited by: Episcoterian ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Your college rules require a particular typeface in submitted work? [Eek!]

Obsessive-compulsive-anal (as devotees of discredited outdated pop psychological insults might have said)

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

My experience, Ken, is that most US colleges require humanities* papers in Times New Roman, 12 pt, double-spaced, 1 inch margins. They also tend to give length requirements in terms of numbers of pages (hence why such specifications are necessary) whereas British universities tend to ask for a range of numbers of words.

--
* Sciences, engineering and business seem to be different.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Many grant proposals specify 12-pt TNR so biology too. Others are satisfied with 'any standard legible font'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

They may do, but that doesn't stop me from thinking Ken's adjectives are more polite than they deserve.

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Your college rules require a particular typeface in submitted work?

Obsessive-compulsive-anal (as devotees of discredited outdated pop psychological insults might have said)

Ken, all College-level and higher education institutions in Brazil are bound by ABNT Rules of Style (a national organization akin to the ISO). The rules are akin to the APA Style, although different in many aspects.

On top of that, Universities have some freedom to deviate from ABNT rules, so if you are taking some credits elsewhere, your head might explode with ridiculous minutiae as 1,5 or 2,0 spacing between lines, 1,5 or 2,5 centimeters for new paragraphs. Some allow you to choose between Arial and TNR, some will pick one as mandatory.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Weird. Just weird. Maybe this should transfer to that odd things thread.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. Just weird. Maybe this should transfer to that odd things thread.

Research councils in the UK specify font size and recommend fonts. For example, the BBSRC wants typefaces Arial, Helvetica or Verdana. The EPSRC wants Arial or Helvetica. I would say (from reviewing applications) that few if any researchers deviate from these recommendations in practice.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Episcoterian: Ken, all College-level and higher education institutions in Brazil are bound by ABNT Rules of Style (a national organization akin to the ISO).

This is my experience too.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Research councils in the UK specify font size and recommend fonts.

I always thought this was to restrict length of the attachments for applications, which is often set at a maximum number of pages. It isn't fair if one applicant squeezes in a few thousand extra words by selecting a smaller font.

And some applications on that basis also limit the margin sizes - for those that don't one can often squeeze in a few hundred more words per side without it being obvious.

The final trick in the last few hours before submission is to reduce the size of the paragraph breaks - so far no-one seems to restrict those.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I always thought this was to restrict length of the attachments for applications, which is often set at a maximum number of pages.

Font size, yes, but as EPSRC says: "For accessibility purposes, a sans-serif font style such as Arial or Helvetica should be used, as these are more easily readable to those with visual impairment."

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

That led to an interesting discussion in my last church. Conventional wisdom is indeed that sans serif fonts are best for accessibility purposes, and I have seen documentation to that effect with regard to a corporate rebranding in an organisation about seven or eight years ago.

The person who assembled the Order of Service in my last church pointed out with considerable validity that actually, serifs can be a great aid to legibility. He was however taught about typesetting in a time when even Arial and Helvetica were considered to be fonts for headers, not block text!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
That led to an interesting discussion in my last church. Conventional wisdom is indeed that sans serif fonts are best for accessibility purposes, and I have seen documentation to that effect with regard to a corporate rebranding in an organisation about seven or eight years ago.

The person who assembled the Order of Service in my last church pointed out with considerable validity that actually, serifs can be a great aid to legibility. He was however taught about typesetting in a time when even Arial and Helvetica were considered to be fonts for headers, not block text!

We touched on this a bit earlier. So far as printed documents are concerned, there do seem to be certain forms of visual impairment where that is true. But there are other forms where it is not true. And for the general population, many people find serif fonts easier on the eye when reading extended passages of text. The general consensus, based on actual research rather than theory, appears to be that what you gain with one font class is likely to be balanced by losses elsewhere.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Does anyone know where this vogue for Comic Sans came from?

It's a comic book face. And it came free with Micro$oft. Some foolish people think that comics are only for children and some of them suffer from the delusion that children must find that sort of style easier to read.

Horses for courses. Small captions or word bubbles maybe (though there are other far superior comicbook typefaces) but not blocks of text. Or running heads.

Comic Sans was created by a Microsoft typesetter to put easily accessible hints into software manuals for software used by non-technical people. It was intended to make the less formal bits look less daunting. It was styled after the lettering style used in comics and hence the name.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
If I were forced to create a service sheet in Comic Sans, I would set the closing versicle and response in word balloons being said by Lucy Van Pelt and Charlie Brown respectively.

I think you could develop this idea for the service sheet for all-age/family mass. An alternate to the 'celebrant says the normal, congo say the bold' convention.

You could still lose the comic sans, though.

Posted by magnum mysterium (# 3418) on :

Garamond. Or Gill Sans.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Calibri for the main texts - any of our visual impaired members find it easy on the eye and accessible. For major headings we use Brush Script St.

Helvitica seems to have disappeared with latest Microsoft upgrades.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

Two further notes, regardless of actual font used:

1. White space is a lovely thing and helps people find things instead of trawling through dense text (since most orders of service pack more text into a square inch than most novels)

2. Another accessibility tip. If you are presenting block text for any reason, left range the text. Don't justify it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
If you are presenting block text for any reason, left range the text. Don't justify it.

And if you are presenting texts to be said corporately (e.g. confession), put line breaks at appropriate pauses-for-breath. Common Worship and similar official books do this by default, but all too often I see such texts that sprawl across the page and reduce the congregation to incoherent mumbling. (The fewer such examples of choral speaking in the liturgy the better, IMHO, but that is another discussion)

Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :

Just out of interest, what font does Ship of Fools use? It looks like Gill Sans to me; and on that subject, I heard that the Church of England had some misgivings about using that font on account of Gill's unorthodox sexual preferences.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
Just out of interest, what font does Ship of Fools use? It looks like Gill Sans to me; and on that subject, I heard that the Church of England had some misgivings about using that font on account of Gill's unorthodox sexual preferences.

What you're reading now is in Verdana. As for Gill Sans, the C of E seems to have gotten over its misgivings, as everything in Common Worship is in Gill Sans!

[ 10. February 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

The BCP here is set in TNR, but promises to be re-issued in a typeface that is NOT Times New Roman.

Is all.

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

I was wandering down Hatton Gardens, London's diamond & jewellery street, the other day and saw this splendid example of inappropriate font usage.

If it's not Comic Sans it's something very similar to it and a wonderful way to make your high end, expensive jewellery shop look cheap and childish.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I think on a service sheet a sans font for the minister and a serif font and bolded for the people assists in understanding.
On an A/V system the only option I htink is a sans font like Tahoma or arial should be used.

On a notice board despite the C of E love of serif fonts TNR, garramond, etc i think a sans font is best possibly Avenir, futura because they are amongst the clearest at a distance. I consider that bland serifs like arial and Helvetica should be avoided.

I was wondering if any church had used the the free signika font for church signs?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yangtze:
I was wandering down Hatton Gardens, London's diamond & jewellery street, the other day and saw this splendid example of inappropriate font usage.

If it's not Comic Sans it's something very similar to it and a wonderful way to make your high end, expensive jewellery shop look cheap and childish.

I think it's intended to back up the third word at the bottom 'affordable'.

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

I use one called Linux Libertine that I really like. It is a nice serif font that is easy to read and there are many characters in the character set. I usually use 13 or 14 point in service sheets.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0