I used to work with the typography team at Microsoft (say what you will about MS, but they've invested a fair amount of money into readability -- sadly, not all of that work has made it into their products).
The general thinking there was as follows:
- In print, serif is more readable
- Traditional computer screens didn't have the resolution to display subtle serifs, and sans-serifs typically looked better / were more readable
- With higher-resolution monitors and ClearType (and similar sub-pixel technologies), you're getting closer to the point where having serifs can make a difference
- However, a big part of reading speed has to do with familiarity. At this point most computer literate people have spent far more time reading sans-serif fonts on screen, which can skew results toward sans-serif.
(edit: apparently, i'm too retarded to know how to make lists on HN. where art thou, markdown?)
Most studies conclude that there is no discernible difference between the legibility of serif and sans serif. Some studies that claim serif is better used poor methodology; however, they are still widely cited as evidence in favor of serif typefaces.
I voted the article up, not because I found the subject matter all that interesting, but I loved how thoroughly cited it was, especially the notes on the various sources.
Personally, I found when Slashdot went over to sans-serif fonts I read a lot less of the comments than when they had a serif font. My eyes just seemed to get tired more quickly.
Having done some fiddling around with fonts after noticing this effect I've found that I prefer serif fonts for large / long lumps of text. However, I'm sure if you ask around you'll find lots of people who prefer it the other way around. I've been thinking of adding a little control panel to some of my sites to let people easily switch between the two. It's probably not worth it for short pieces, but for articles it could be worthwhile.
Pick up the book "The Elements of Typographic Style" or just read the first chapter. Not sure if that counts as one of those studies that uses poor methodology, but they generally go with serif for easier reading of long passages, but not much difference with short passages. More importantly, column width, line spacing and justification (depending on columns of course) can also make a huge difference in readability, so its not just the font that's important.
I know that Georgia and Verdana are both Microsoft-made fonts designed for screen reading, that is, around pixel boundaries.
However, if most the studies cited in this article are to be believed, then there's no conclusive evidence pointing to a specific font or style of font that is "better" for reading on a computer, only personal preference.
The general thinking there was as follows:
- In print, serif is more readable
- Traditional computer screens didn't have the resolution to display subtle serifs, and sans-serifs typically looked better / were more readable
- With higher-resolution monitors and ClearType (and similar sub-pixel technologies), you're getting closer to the point where having serifs can make a difference
- However, a big part of reading speed has to do with familiarity. At this point most computer literate people have spent far more time reading sans-serif fonts on screen, which can skew results toward sans-serif.
(edit: apparently, i'm too retarded to know how to make lists on HN. where art thou, markdown?)