The first part of this is simply not true - the eye moves in numerous extremely fast jumps ('saccades') we are not consciously aware of, and the motion between jumps is too fast for any information to be taken in. There's an old-fashioned justification for serifs based on the idea that the eye follows a line of text, and the serifs, by hinting at a cohesive horizontal, help the eye along its way. Can we give it a solid, rounded, nuanced factual answer?Ī couple of asides relating to common arguments I've seen: Readability (as defined by the speed of error-free reading) is something objective that can be, and has been, measured. There's certainly a case to be made for this in the context of legibility, but I've not seen anything convincing on this for readability.Īll other things being equal, do serifs on a typeface genuinely make lengthy body text easier (faster and less effortful) to read? Essentially, it characterises the arguments for the second viewpoint as merely pointing out that good (well produced) sans type is better than bad serif type, and maintains that, for extended reading, all other things being equal, good serif type is better than good sans type.Īnd finally, there's a fourth viewpoint that it doesn't matter anyway - that there are no differences between serifs in general and sans in general that are not merely artefacts of the differences between the example fonts and typesetting used in any particular test or comparison. Hence the popularity of websites with sans body text and serif headers, and of printed materials with serif body text and sans headers. There's also a third viewpoint I'm aware of, which says that the second viewpoint is a myth that comes from the fact that serif fonts tend not to reduce well on pixel screens, making sans type the better (least worst) choice for long passages of on-screen text or poorly-printed reproductions, but serifs still the best for long passages of printed type. Within the last decade or so - certainly since reading on screens became commonplace - I've seen an increasingly common viewpoint that this is an outdated myth - that actually, serifs are faster for reading long text for no reason other than that we are historically accustomed to reading long passages of serif text, and that long passages of well typeset, well chosen sans can be just as good for readability and fast reading, as people become accustomed to it. Sans-serifs, according to traditional wisdom, are better for legibility - the letters are simpler, less room for error - and so are better suited for short text, like road signs.
![adobe error lucida sans unicode adobe error lucida sans unicode](https://www.wfonts.com/sample-character/data/2016/07/08/lucida-sans/LucidaSansRegular.ttf.png)
As I was taught, this is the reason why book typesetters almost always use moderately florid serifs like Garamond. The eye passes over the text more easily, there is less "fatigue" on the eye, and reading speed is improved.
![adobe error lucida sans unicode adobe error lucida sans unicode](https://wiert.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/screenshot-2019-08-14-17.59.37.png)
So, old-school wisdom (certainly, how I was taught back in the day) says that serif text improves the readability of long passages of text. Let's see if we can get a good, nuanced, ideally evidence-based answer. For more information visit this page.It's an old question, but an important one. This typeface is also available within Office applications. Products that supply this font Product name
Adobe error lucida sans unicode software#
Adobe error lucida sans unicode mac#
Pend.ġ252 LaLatin 2: Eastern Europe 1251 Cyrillic 1253 Greek 1254 Turkish 1255 Hebrew 1257 Windows Baltic Mac Roman Macintosh Character Set (US Roman) 869 IBM Greek 866 MS-DOS Russian 865 MS-DOS Nordic 863 MS-DOS Canadian French 862 Hebrew 861 MS-DOS Icelandic 860 MS-DOS Portuguese 857 IBM Turkish 855 IBM Cyrillic primarily Russian 852 Latin 2 737 Greek former 437 G 850 WE/Latin 1 437 US The ampersands, interrobangs, and circled Lucida Sans numerals in Lucida Icons combine well.Ĭopyright © 1993 Bigelow & Holmes Inc.
![adobe error lucida sans unicode adobe error lucida sans unicode](https://countrytravel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/winterberg-5.jpg)
Lucida Fax at smaller sizes and lower resolutions. Complementary fonts include Lucida Bright, Lucida Arrows, and Lucida Stars. At larger sizes, space capitals more tightly. When using all capitals, you can use small amounts of additional letter spacing. Guidelines: At larger sizes (14 points or more), subtracting a few units of letter spacing gives a tighter look. Uses: Wide range of uses including directories, tables, forms, memos, telefaxes, manuals, heads, titles, posters, and displays.
![adobe error lucida sans unicode adobe error lucida sans unicode](https://s1.manualzz.com/store/data/047218447_1-b7702be009d0875067833a920a77472a.png)
Lucida Sans Unicode Characteristics: Large x-height, making it readable at all sizes.