[Jeff W]

Which do you prefer? Fonts with serifs? Or fonts without?

Personally I prefer fonts without. Curious what everyone else thinks.

 

[Manxfeeder]

Serifs. I'm old school.

 

[tortkis]

For computer, sans serif is better.

Google recently changed its logo because sans serif has better visibility for mobile devices.

I like Helvetica.

 

[Piwikiwi]

Serif, I find it much more pleasant to read than sans serif.

 

[Guest]

The serif is less important to me than the proportions and letter shape.
For example, I like a font that gives the child's 'a' (such as Avian - which can't be rendered here unless anyone else knows hwo?)
Of the few fonts available here, I like Tahoma.

 

[ptr]

I'm undecided, I think that it depends on the context of the published text!

For longer printed texts I usually prefer serif's like Garamond or Sabon, for reading on mobile devices usually a sans-serif with sharp edges for better contrast as my eyes are old and week!

For design purposes I don't really have favourite, I'd say, use what ever works/looks good/stands out!

/ptr

 

[Nereffid]

Print = serif.
Online = doesn't matter except in certain contexts.

So I guess serif wins.

 

[haydnfan]

Books should be in serif, internet sites and newspapers should be in sans serif. Both help with readability in their own medium. So it's not so simple as just one or the other.

 

[elgar's ghost]

Serif these days always reminds me of those early do-it-yourself websites before extensive customisation options were available.