"We should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility."
Exactly. It's an aesthetic choice. Arguing for legibility or readability or any scientific purpose is a secondary argument to simple design sense.
Typographical choices involving both styles of font can work great; it's up to the designer to make the font match the target style for the correct functional and emotional impact. Simple as that.
Scientific arguments over fonts and typography have always seemed to me like analyzing the chemical composition of paint on a canvas to determine its value. Completely missing the point. Is there a certain measurable utility? Of course. But when a design works, and evokes the correct emotions for the presented work in a readable and understandable way, it just works. It's more functional for being beautiful.
Scientific studies of fonts only 'miss the point' insofar as they don't find anything useful... for example, failing to find any real, consistent legibility difference depending on serifs.
If you are not just pleasing yourself whimsically, the point of fonts (like any other thing) is not just to do whatever you want, regardless of whether it is effective or not. Even in the realm of aesthetics. Unless those aesthetics are for my benefit only, I am probably trying to get SOMETHING done.
And unless the way it works is obvious (bearing in mind that many obvious things are actually untrue, and that many true things are not obvious)... it is reasonable to depend on research.
If my art tries to convey sadness but I am so out of touch on how to do that (comic sans) that my peers laugh at me instead, that is likely a failure. If I write a blog post meaning to persuade people to back up their data but rather make people feel content without backups (comic sans), I have failed. If I try to get attention for my product and am ignored because I used comic sans, I have failed.
On the other hand, if comic sans is beautiful to my audience, and if it works for my boss - I had better consider comic sans ;)
The reason we don't follow any recommendations, when we don't, isn't that actually finding things out is point-missing, but rather just that nothing has been found out (yet).
Very observant and lots of truth, thanks for the reply. In my opinion, the art and science of design takes all that into account. It's not simply aesthetic, but also purpose and utility as you say. It's a combination of art and science, but like most things, if you look at it strictly from one side or the other, you fail to grasp the whole and quality will suffer.
Exactly. It's an aesthetic choice. Arguing for legibility or readability or any scientific purpose is a secondary argument to simple design sense.
Typographical choices involving both styles of font can work great; it's up to the designer to make the font match the target style for the correct functional and emotional impact. Simple as that.
Scientific arguments over fonts and typography have always seemed to me like analyzing the chemical composition of paint on a canvas to determine its value. Completely missing the point. Is there a certain measurable utility? Of course. But when a design works, and evokes the correct emotions for the presented work in a readable and understandable way, it just works. It's more functional for being beautiful.