[HN Gopher] Study for best font for online reading: no single an... ___________________________________________________________________ Study for best font for online reading: no single answer Author : JW_00000 Score : 156 points Date : 2022-04-25 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nngroup.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nngroup.com) | AnthonBerg wrote: | For me the best font for reading online is on paper, outside, in | the winter, Doves Type. Or SF Pro Rounded from Apple. | | If I can't read "online" by printing it on paper, I read on a | well-calibrated display that casts the same light to all viewing | angles, and 120Hz variable-refresh-rate. With macOS' font | rendering. | | I'm sure this is a perfectly unique combination of "best". | drBonkers wrote: | What's your workflow for getting digital text into print? | | Additionally, what display do you use and how do you ensure | it's calibrated? | AnthonBerg wrote: | Ha!, it hadn't occurred to me to call it a workflow - but it | is, I guess. Sometimes it's just hitting _Print_ in the | browser. Sometimes I turn on Safari's Reader view and print | that. For some reason, things printed on the Booklet setting | tend to get read sooner. ("Booklet" is a macOS printing | feature. It prints two pages on each sheets and orders them | so the pile of paper can be keel-stapled into a booklet. Some | printer drivers have it too, and Acrobat Reader as well I | believe.) | | I try to have fonts set to those two ones I mentioned. | Through overrides or preferences. On occasion I've converted | to Markdown and applied a stylesheet. This seems to work. I | read a bit more. Get around to it easier. It might be the | ritual, it might be the result. Probably both. | | I tend to be quite picky about monitors, though I wish I | wasn't. (It's a handicap, being this fussy!) The models I end | up buying tend to be pretty well calibrated from the factory. | LG IPS monitors are good. Right now I have an LG CX 55" OLED | TV as my programming display. It is _very good_. It's fussy | to set up; macOS doesn't support HDMI 2.1 so right now it | isn't possible to get full, crisp 4:4:4 color and 120Hz at | the same time. I go with 120Hz 4:2:0; Some color /background | combos are noticeably blurry, but the fluidity of 120Hz is | so, so nice. I don't agree with it or want it to be that way, | but it is :) | | I want a color calibrator. Haven't got one yet. I have | borrowed one on occasion from a photographer friend. I find | that it makes a difference. There isn't a glaringly obvious | difference, but everything feels tighter and more relaxed at | the same time. Grays are more neutral, colors are more | vividly themselves. It's easier on the brain? Kind of like | putting fresh tires on a car. Or working in a quieter place. | It adds up. | | Last time I looked at color calibration devices, the info | over at the DisplayCAL site seemed to be very good: | https://displaycal.net/ | AnthonBerg wrote: | ... and I have an HP m254dw color laser printer that can | print on both sides of the paper. It's been worth it! I | read WAY more after buying it. | | And, heh, I feel obliged to mention the long-arm stapler | too. I have a Zenith 502 long-arm stapler. It can easily | keel-staple folded A4 or Letter paper. And it's a really | good stapler. Staples everything, first try, also really | thick bundles of paper. It's funny how big a difference a | silly thing like a particular staper makes. They're made | for a reason! Here's the Zenith 502 CUCITRICI DA TAVOLO: | https://www.zenith.it/prodotti/cucitrici-da- | tavolo/zenith-50... | | (Cucitrici - stapler - means "seamstress-er". Haha.) | gnicholas wrote: | Very interesting takeaways regarding different results among old | and young: | | > _The takeaway is that, if your designers are younger than 35 | years but many of your users are older than 35, then you can't | expect that the fonts that are the best for the designers will | also be best for the users._ | | > _the differences in reading speed between the different fonts | weren't very big for the young users. Sure, some fonts were | better, but they weren't much better. On the other hand, there | were dramatic differences between the fastest font for older | users (Garamond) and their slowest font (Open Sans). In other | words, picking the wrong font penalizes older users more than | young ones._ | ChristianGeek wrote: | There was also the suggestion near the end to cut the number of | words for older readers, which is just ridiculous. | gnicholas wrote: | I work in the world of dyslexia and assistive technology. I | find it unfortunate that people (including folks who work on | WCAG) emphasize using simple words and short sentences as the | primary ways to accommodate dyslexic readers. These | strategies are helpful in making text easier to understand, | but they also undermine the nuance of communication. Before | doing this, designers should think about how text is laid out | so that it can be made maximally accessible in its original | form. | cheese_van wrote: | I do have font preferences but my greater preference is | background color. I've found that hex color #FEF0DF as a | background tires me less. For reference, it's roughly the | Financial Times background. | | Calibre allowing me to set the background color to my preference | is a godsend for a heavy reader. HN's background is pretty good | also. Anyone know the hex? | jaredwiener wrote: | #f6f6ef -- right in the HTML | ARandomerDude wrote: | I think the parent was saying "I like a color somewhat | similar to FT's background," not "I wish I could have FT's | background color but I can't figure out how to get it." | Wowfunhappy wrote: | GGP explicitly asked for the HN background color at the end | of his comment. | Sunspark wrote: | HN's background is too light. Try #EDD1B0 instead (R 237 G 209 | B 176). | layer8 wrote: | > I do have font preferences but my greater preference is | background color. | | Same here, I always want #000 on #FFF, so that I can take full | advantage of my display's contrast ratio. | pvinis wrote: | Did we need a study for this? | | Next study: "Study for best colorscheme for coding: no single | answer".. | | Kidding aside, it makes sense. No best option, just options | optimized for different things. | humanistbot wrote: | Do you just hate scientific research or something? | pvinis wrote: | on the contrary, I think it's great. But I don't think it's | beneficial for anyone when it's phrased as "looking for the | best X", especially on things that are obviously not going to | have a "best" thing, like fonts. Tradeoffs everywhere. | | Don't you think a title like "A comparison of fonts for | online reading" or something would be more fitting? | ad8e wrote: | Big warning: their summary is "Among high-legibility fonts, a | study found 35% difference in reading speeds between the best and | the worst." | | This is completely wrong and comes from an abuse of statistics. | See the original research at | https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502222#d1e6428 | | An understandable explanation: imagine having 5 dice. You roll | each die 4 times, then compare the highest sum to the lowest sum. | Then you report that the highest die rolls 35% higher than the | lowest. This is what the authors did, with each die being a font. | But the experiment does not actually show evidence of any | difference. If you rolled 500 dice, this method could claim that | the highest dice are 200% higher than the lowest, even though all | dice are still equal. | | The original authors seem aware of this shortcoming, but did it | anyway: "we are somewhat stretching the applicability of a | Cohen's d analysis for this data". This is likely because they | did not know of a better method. But it is wrong to be pushing | this analysis. The main author is from industry, so perhaps he | was unaware that this effect can be corrected for, or that this | type of misleading claim is malpractice. But someone in the chain | of publishing - the journal editors, the reviewers, the large | author list, or Jakob Nielsen who is promoting this - should have | caught this. It is their main result! | | In the absence of legitimate statistics, the article's | circumstances point to a failure to detect measurable differences | between fonts. There are two ways fonts may be better than each | other: | | 1. across the population, so that one font is better for everyone | | 2. personalized, so that different fonts are better for different | people | | The first case should be easily detectable, and the second case | should see some correlation between preference and speed because | of a familiarity bias | (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502222#d1e7351). These are the | Bayesian expectations I walked in with. Neither of these appear | supported by the article, although I have only skimmed it. | | To be clear, the experiment does not give evidence that fonts | perform equally either. It looks more likely that the experiment | design failed. | wolverine876 wrote: | Reading the article, what valuable things can we learn? | Imperfection exists in everything in the universe - even the | ideas in our minds we sometimes imagine to be ideal and | perfect, but they turn imperfect as soon as we write them down | (this cursed keyboard!). Imperfection does not destroy all | value, or we live caves and aren't communicating using an | imperfect alphabet and language, over imperfect signals, using | imperfect power, etc etc. (in fact, we would be dead in the | caves). Reading and learning from imperfection is the defintion | of 'reading and learning', because there's nothing else to | read. | | If I listened to HN comments, very little research would have | value, very little information would be worth reading. The top | comment is almost always of this nature; it's depressing to me | that it gets so many upvotes, still, after we have so much | experience on social media. | | > I have only skimmed it [the OP]. | | Maybe that should be at the top of the comment. Imagine an OP | which presented a detailed analysis and then, at the bottom, | said 'I only skimmed the thing I analyzed' - imagine what the | top comment would say. | zwieback wrote: | Never really thought about it before reading this article but I | think I prefer different fonts for different content: strong | preference for clean sans-serif mono fonts for coding, something | like Arial for general purpose content and something old | fashioned with serifs for literature/artsy content. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | This is like that Malcolm Gladwell story about the best spaghetti | sauce. There is no one size fits all - different people like | different things. | | https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_choice_happiness_... | redmen wrote: | I find it amazing that people ever think that there might be a | one-size-fits-all solution to a subjective human experience. | | Spaghetti Sauce, Fonts. | | Sure no one likes dog crap in their sauce, so there are obvious | experiences no one likes, but to assume that there is one | single one that everyone likes? | | Sometimes we get so nearsighted that by reframing the question | it seems obvious. | wolverine876 wrote: | Who says there is one thing everyone likes best? (The OP says | the opposite.) | cupofpython wrote: | We cant even agree on which water is best | brewdad wrote: | Water? You mean like in the toilet? What for? | iforgotpassword wrote: | It's probably about the font just being well designed, having | consistent kerning ans whatnot. | | Same as with design guidelines. Every couple years something | new comes along and is better than anything before. | | We had an intern a few years ago who was still working on his | masters and also made some money on the side with "web stuff". | He wouldn't stop talking about material design, how it is the | best ever and how every margin and padding is scientifically | proven to be perfect to the pixel, the blue they picked is | perfection, how rounded corners and 3D effects on buttons are | fatiguing to the eye, and so on and so on. I guess it was the | first time this fellow consciously witnessed the release of a | web design framework. It was near impossible to convince him | that using bootstrap is just as good, and while certain rules | for ratios between paddings, margins and font sizes exist it's | much more important your theme is consistent, and that you | apply it consistently. | slowhand09 wrote: | Came here to say "duhhh..." but the article is actually | interesting, especially to those early web usability followers of | Jacob Nielsen (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/author/jakob- | nielsen/) | Sunspark wrote: | The answer to this question depends on the resolution of the | display, the weight of the font, and a person's idiosyncrasies-- | e.g. nearsightedness. | | I use a different font for online reading, coding and reading | ebook on high-resolution phone display. | | All 3 are different, and are different sizes and weights.. the | purpose is different. | | You know what really helps? | | Don't have white as a background. I die now without the Dark | Reader browser extension. | layer8 wrote: | > Don't have white as a background. | | That reduces contrast, which makes text harder to read for me. | Today's prevalent IPS displays have a rather low contrast ratio | (typically only 1:1000). Please don't lower it further by | styling text as dark gray on light gray. If black on white | looks too bright, you probably have set your screen brightness | too high. | [deleted] | simion314 wrote: | >Don't have white as a background. | | I would say that more important is to check your cool design in | a normal screen and not on your super expensive designer | monitor. Too often I see light gray text on light background, | probably is only readable on the designer screen. | brimble wrote: | One of the worst things to happen to web usability was the shift | away from the user deciding how pages look. In an ideal world the | Web ecosystem would have grown up such that nearly all pages | respect user configured font and color choices. Then, it wouldn't | much matter which font the page creator decided was best, since | the user's browser would automatically override it. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Every time i need to read some text longer than a few lines, I | run Firefox Reader mode. It is great. | jeffbee wrote: | Yeah the web was much more usable when you could change it with | some simple and intuitive edits to .Xresources. | brimble wrote: | Yet theming with exactly two options (light/dark) is quite | popular. | | It was a UX problem, not a problem with the core concept. | | _Now_ , decades in to The Web, it's also a chicken/egg | problem, because almost no sites are designed to behave OK | under reasonable customization by the user, and almost no | users customize their browsers' default styles, so why would | sites change to accommodate that? Aside from the light/dark | thing, of course, and you _do_ see users pushing for support | for that, and sites putting in effort to support it. | | If Apple expands Dark Mode to include a half-dozen other | options for a11y and such, I bet you'd see support for those | become fairly common. It's just got to have a decent UI and | the push has to come from a browser with a large enough user- | base to encourage site operators to care. Once upon a time, | Firefox could likely have done it, assuming they could manage | not to screw it up. These days, Apple, Google, and MS are the | only ones who could realistically try. | | Actually, we have another version of this, now that I think | about it: reader mode. People seem to really like it. | pitaj wrote: | This died mostly because the defaults were so terrible. | new_stranger wrote: | This died because convention > configuration | | Most users do not want to configure fonts or anything really | to use the web. | cupofpython wrote: | I think it is deeper than personal want. i have a feeling | that the more people communicate to each other about | something, the more they value their personal experience to | be relatable. Every customization makes your experience | less relatable. | brimble wrote: | This could have ended up as a few simplified settings, as | presented to most users... as we have with light and dark | modes. Colorblind themes (for multiple kinds of | colorblindness, say), high-readability themes for people | who need the large-print editions of books, that kind of | thing. Doesn't have to mean making everyone pick exact | point values for every type of H tag, or whatever. A few | presets in a dropdown could be really helpful--again, just | look how everyone goes nuts over something as simple as | having a "dark mode" setting. | emzo wrote: | This died when the web became mostly a marketing tool for | businesses. It's a shame, but inevitable. | munk-a wrote: | I think it also died because styling could so easily destroy | legibility. If text display areas were specifically designed | with some fancy script like Helvetica in mind and I preferred | Courier New the UI (if poorly designed) would often just | break whole-sale. | leephillips wrote: | But all browsers can already do this. Most people don't enable | that setting, however. Could either be because they prefer to | see the site as it's intended to look, or because they're | unaware of the setting. | brimble wrote: | That's because it's buried (and has been increasingly so over | the decades), it'll mess up some sites and won't do anything | on a bunch of others because no-one accounts for user-defined | colors/margins/fonts anymore when designing for the web, and | it has more options than most people want/need to deal with. | | A simple browser-provided theme dropdown containing a few | nice options, directly in the main browser chrome, from a | major browser (perhaps Firefox, back when it still counted as | "major") could have changed things completely--see the | pressure on sites to support "dark mode" now that that's a | simple option to enable. | | It'd be nearly impossible to change now, but 10-15 years ago, | _maybe_ it could have been changed, if any of the very small | number of entities steering the direction of the web had | tried. | zwieback wrote: | Good place to ask this: what about the "standard" academic paper | font(s) from the LaTeX tradition. I hate it but it gives an | immediate gravitas to anything. | a-dub wrote: | > The test stimuli were at an approximate 8th grade reading | level, which matches our recommendation for web content targeted | at a broad consumer audience. | | that's depressing to read. but i suppose different people have | different strengths. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >that's depressing to read | | congratulations! Depressing reading is second year of college | level! | a-dub wrote: | that's an even more depressing thought. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | tsk, nobody appreciates Sylvia Plath anymore. | tasuki wrote: | I find it hard to believe that Open Sans has the worst | readability of all the tested fonts. I'm pretty sure the humanist | Open Sans is faster to read than the geometric Avant Garde. | | With Garamond winning, what about Palatino and other old-style | typefaces? There's a million generic sans-serifs in the study and | not a single Didone? Mind, I wouldn't bet on it, but it'd be a | more interesting comparison... | nerdponx wrote: | I wish this article included some discussion of serifs on "I" and | generally of distinguishing "I" and "l". It's a shame that Clear | Sans and Verdana were not included, because they do have a serif | "I". | magios wrote: | as usual, it is up to personal preference, but I've used Unifont, | specifically Unifont CSUR, a bitmap font, tho in ttf form, as my | sole font across the system, terminal, vim and web browser | (firefox) which allows me to enforce a singular font in webpages | by disabling font downloads, rotation and scaling. for me, it | appears that having text align to a grid and not have any | annoying ligatures or oversized characters makes it more | readable. | leobg wrote: | Much more important than the font, to me, is font size and line | width. Plus, for anything of article length, ability to take and | export highlights. That's why I import all longer form text into | Voice Dream Reader. Browser just isn't the place for reading imo. | illwrks wrote: | 100%. | | Line length, line-height and text-size in relation to my | distance to the screen are key to comfortable reading. | bluenose69 wrote: | I'm not sure the fonts are the sole consideration, anyway. Let's | talk about diagrams. | | The original article (https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222) uses the | click-a-thumbnail scheme for figures. I'm sure this is the | decision of the journal, but it is really quite annoying, since | you lose context. | | The actual figures are in the authors' control, however, and they | are not very clear. Take Figure 2, for a start, which combines an | overly small font and low-contrast colours, reducing legibility | for no good reason that I can discern. | | The PDF is a lot easier to read, as is common with online | journals. | | I'm not sure how many people will bother trying to read such a | long document online, as it is formatted. But sometimes I think | the point of such studies is simply to get cited, and this is an | ideal paper from that point of view: the title states something | that is likely obvious to most people, so this might get cited by | quite a few people who don't bother to read the details. | rbanffy wrote: | I really like the readability of avionics screens and their | recommendations. I like their simple, mostly monospaced fonts and | the uncluttered display panes. I'd love if more monitoring | applications used that. | | edit: | https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/... | has some interesting guidelines. | copperx wrote: | The lack of antialiasing in many avionics systems is highly | detrimental for reading, in my opinion. The use of monospace | makes numeric differences more salient, which I assume is a | safety advantage. In any case, nobody is reading many words off | avionics. | rbanffy wrote: | No. They are more related to the "glanceable" displays | mentioned in the article. | orlp wrote: | You'll like https://b612-font.com then. | rbanffy wrote: | I actually dislike this font - it reminds me of Microsoft | console fonts. I love its name, however. | munk-a wrote: | Their study excluded Courier New, how rude! But I love reading | text with an absolute lack of kerning & multi-character sigils. | (I mean this non-sarcastically just to be clear) | | I've always found that reading wide text comes at very little | legibility cost, personally, so I try and consume data in mono- | space whenever possible. | paulpauper wrote: | HN font is good | Isthatablackgsd wrote: | It is Verdana for those who wants to know the font in HN. | jdrc wrote: | the answer is verdana, but they didnt test it. | | I dont think this study is well done. Fonts are learned over | time, and people's performance will improve, but differently. | There's definitely certain fonts that are optimal. | layer8 wrote: | Seconding Verdana, especially on low-DPI screens. | Daneel_ wrote: | I agree. I couldn't help wondering while reading the article if | older users are faster with serifed fonts and younger users are | faster with sans-serif fonts, however they never touched on it. | gen3 wrote: | > A second interesting age-related finding from the new study | is that different fonts performed differently for young and | old readers. The authors set their dividing line between | young and old at 35 years, which is a lower number than I | usually employ, but possibly quite realistic given the age- | related performance deterioration they measured. | | > 3 fonts were actually better for older users than for | younger users: Garamond, Montserrat, and Poynter Gothic. The | remaining 13 fonts were better for younger users than for | older users, which is to be expected, given that younger | users generally performed better in the study. | | They kinda did touch on it. From what I can see, letter | sizing and kerning looks to make more of a difference. | vikingerik wrote: | I think the answer was Verdana years ago but not so much today | with higher dpi screens. Verdana was designed for CRTs around | 800x600, with wide letter forms and kerning, to get ample | spacing between glyph elements. It's the champion of | readability in that format, but on a modern 1920+ display with | subpixel rendering rather than an aperture grill, Verdana feels | too big and clunky. | aggie wrote: | Is there a better study you can point to? From what I remember | looking into this topic the research has always provided | ambiguous results with lots of context-dependence. | layer8 wrote: | The article doesn't address font rendering engines, screen DPI | and panel type, and font size, which are important factors for | which fonts work better than others. But they are right in the | conclusion that user customization is needed. | ZYinMD wrote: | If you do CSS you'd know the best fonts for 16px isn't the best | fonts for 18px, and definitely not the best fonts for H1 H2 etc. | | The Verdana font that HN and reddit uses are pretty good for | reading in small text. | cromniomancer wrote: | antiterra wrote: | > People read 11% slower for every 20 years they age. | | How can this be anywhere near a useful or accurate statistic? | Surely the rates depend on the age, and there's likely space for | significant improvement in someone's 20s. | | I can read in the neighborhood of 750wpm with good comprehension | while verbalizing. I'm pretty sure I never was able to read at | 900wpm no matter how many years you go back. I don't think | there's been any meaningful drop at _all_ in the past 20 years. | Further, in the next 20 years I wouldn't be surprised if my | reading speed took a huge hit, say 30%-50% (or more.) Even if | that averaged out to 10% per year, it would be a misleading | statistic. | | That's also ignoring comprehension and reading level. At 30, I | could focus throughout tearing through a Homeric epic and retain | a huge amount about the text, including themes, symbolism, | metaphors of note, etc. I couldn't do anything like that at 20, | even if my raw reading speed was faster. | Epiphany21 wrote: | The characters we use to interact with our computers were mostly | designed to be hand-written and minimize the amount of movement | your hand has to make going from one letter to the next. I | theorize that they don't translate all that well to existing | display technologies. Not so much because of the shape of the | fonts, but because format isn't conducive to sharing or receiving | information as quickly as our machines and our wetware could | allow. | | If you think about this a little more, programming is actually a | way to overcome the limitations of spoken/written languages to an | extent, since the machine can parse the text faster than you, and | it can read other forms of data that are even more efficient. In | my view a monitor displaying human-readable text is similar to a | legacy ABI that's kept around because of the technical momentum | and mindshare it has, not because it's particularly good. | Psyladine wrote: | >since the machine can parse the text faster than you | | You had me up until there; the machine doesn't know jack about | text. It knows arrays and sequences of numbers according to the | rules we've defined them by, for it. | | Yuo cna reda tihs raedliy btu teh copmtuer cna't. Your brain is | trained by billions of years of evolution for symbolic parsing | and pattern pairing, and language is just one flex of that | muscle. | | Where computers thrive is where we've done the hard work to | break down the syllabic system that is inherent to our biology | into mathematical abstractions that can be computed by | addition. Computers are great at solving problems we've already | done, and repeating the steps, nothing more. | | Our machines are beautiful, well designed levers. But they | don't move anything, they leverage our movement. | anonuser123456 wrote: | >Yuo cna reda tihs raedliy btu teh copmtuer cna't. | | It would be interesting to see what GPT3 would do with this | statement. | | Edit; just tried it. GPT-3 chatbot understood it instantly. | Epiphany21 wrote: | >Yuo cna reda tihs raedliy btu teh copmtuer cna't. | | Why can't it? Isn't that basically what current AI research | is doing? Using massively parallel systems to make quick | inferences based on existing data sets? | | >the machine doesn't know jack about text. It knows arrays | and sequences of numbers according to the rules we've defined | them by, for it. | | If you want to be pedantic and define a computer as the | hardware only, sure. The operating system (which contains | tools that can in fact parse text) is an essential component | in the vast majority of computers in existence. So when I'm | discussing computers as a complete, usable unit, then yes, | they parse text. | | >Our machines are beautiful, well designed levers. But they | don't move anything, they leverage our movement. | | Well said. | skilled wrote: | Isn't Georgia a very popular font? Interesting to see it isn't | mentioned anywhere. It's the preferred font choice for me, but I | know a lot of editorials also use it (or a variation of it). | ghaff wrote: | The font choices are a little odd. | | There are a number I'm not familiar with or have maybe heard of | in passing. But probably Georgia and Verdana in particular seem | to be missing. | | The delta between Helvetica and Arial also seems a little | strange. Yes, there are a few type-nerd differences but AFAIK | (feel free to correct) they're basically the same font. | laristine wrote: | I like that the article about best reading font research itself | has Arial as its font. | ggm wrote: | depends what you're reading. fixed-width fonts make some inputs | easier, like code, and data. So if the word "read" means solely | flow text, I can buy an argument the pretty fonts have value | which goes to character recognition, kerning, ligatures and the | role of caps and serif. | | If the word "read" includes "do a rapid scan of a column of data | to confidence check it makes sense" or "find the longest number | (==longest string) in a list of unsorted numbers" then fixed | width will score higher than almost any other quality in my | opinion. | | My reading of the history of fonts suggests some people thought | italianate styled writing was a mistake. florid, and hard to | read. to my eyes gothic is sometimes impenetrably hard to read. | dandongus wrote: | Personally speaking, I think it's kind of silly that this article | neither mentioned screen resolution nor the font rendering | differences inherent to various operating systems. | timonoko wrote: | 1. xkcd-script.ttf | | 2. Opera Lyrics Smooth | | 3. Crete Round | | All others should be banned. Especially creepy spidery fonts on | some ebooks. | tristor wrote: | The default font on a Kindle, Bookerly, is pretty great, | honestly. Of the ones in the article, I think Lato suits me best. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-25 23:01 UTC)