Serif History
Tiro TypeWorks
>Part of Catich's argument is based on examples of Roman signwriting
>(perserved, until relatively recently, on walls in Pompeii) - where
>such serifs were seemingly fluently written with a brush - and certain
>research indicating that there was certain overlap between the sign
>writers and the lettercarvers.
I've seen the examples from Pompeii and, if I didn't make it clear in
my earlier post, I'm certainly in agreement with Catich about most of
this stuff. Certainly the particular style and employment of classical
roman serifs can be linked to brush lettering. However, as both
Professor Bigelow and I have noted, there are earlier, Greek seriffed
forms that do not owe their form to the brush.
>Greek inscriptions that are earlier than the ones you refer to -
>were essentially sans serif forms. So - if there were a tendancy to
>carve serifs - why wouldn't it have manifested itself earlier? It
>would seem to have been a conscious design decision.
'Essentially' sans serif? Perhaps, in the sense that Optima is
considered to be 'essentially' sans serif. I've always considered
Optima much closer to the larger body of seriffed faces than to the
general run of sans serif, and I feel the same way about these
'essentially' sans Greek forms.
>> Quite simply, when a chisel is driven
>> into the terminous of a stem, no matter how carefully, it is almost
>> impossible to achieve a neat, square angle.
>It certainly is (i.e. almost impossible) for me - but then I've only
>dabbled in it(!). However, I've talked to a fair number of the best
>English lettercutters - who, despite their Johnston/Gill tradition of
>serifed inscriptional lettering - claim that they can just as easily carve
>SS forms rather than serif forms - and that in fact it takes less time.
I've almost never seen a truly squared sans serif carved in stone, and
when I have it has been in flat incised forms, not v-cut. Yes, there
are a number of examples, out of David Kinderlsey's workshop for
example, of 'essentially' sans serif forms, but they seem to support
my contention, being so close in form to the Greek letters to which I
refer.
>> Indeed, if one also takes
>> into account the slight inward curvature of the stems in both Greek
>> and Roman inscriptions, one immediately realises that the chisel must
>> be driven outwards in the corners of the terminous. That the resulting
>> form should appeal to the Greeks and Romans, and be developed by the
>> latter into the fully feldged serifs of the Trajan inscription, should
>> come as no surprise to anyone who considers the nature of classical
>> architecture and art. The masters of the column knew that it was more
>> than a simple cylinder; it required entassis, a base and a capital.
>> Frankly, one cannot imagine the classical mind being satisfied with a
>> stem that lacked serifs.
>
>I would tend to agree that the earliest forms of non-plain stroke
>endings were probably an attempt to decorate or to elevate the forms
>to more elegance - and that they were *not* influenced by a broad edge
>brush - of which there is no evidence of - in that period.
No, no, no! Not decoration! The base and capital of a column are not
decorations, they are essential elements of the whole. The fact that
the forms of the capitals became decorative, particularly in the
Cornithian model, should not make you think that the relationship of
the capital to the column was so. Now, can you imagine truly squared,
sans serif letterforms beging carved on the Parthenon? Would it fit?
>Regarding the more wedge-like forms - Stanley Morison
>suggested that may have been influenced, essentially, by the "look-and-
>feel" (not his exact words;-)) of Abyssinian cuneiform writing - since
>the Greeks of that period did much trading with the middle east.
It's a suggestion; idle and unproveable, but a suggestion nonetheless.
>Having said that - I'd agree with Peter and Chuck that Catich's
>research explains a lot about the particular form of the serif most
>associated with Roman letterforms - even if not about the exact origin
>of "non-plain" stroke endings.
Yes, it explains a great deal very well. I have no doubt that if the
letterforms favoured by Roman brush letterers had been different, the
forms of serif on the Trajan column would have also differed. However,
I maintain my contention that the origins of a serif, per se, can be
most simply discovered in the act of stonecutting and in the Greek
feeling for proportion and balance.
John Hudson, Type Director
Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
Terry O'Donnell
> ba...@maui.net (Charles Bigelow) wrote:
>> There are instances of wedge-shaped serifs on Greek inscriptions well
>> before the classical serifs of the late Republican and early Imperial
>> Roman inscriptions. This doesn't mean that Catich was wrong about the
>> origin of the Roman serif, but we cannot say that there was a unique
>> origin of the serif. (I am, by the way, a fan of Catich.)
>
> I've looked at a lot of the Greek inscriptions, which tend to have
> very small, and as you say, wedge shaped serifs. Having watched
> stonecutters at work, and having tried my hand at carving forms in
> wood, I would suggest that these serifs, and very early Roman
> examples, derive more from the act of carving itself and less from the
> brush form of the laying out.
Part of Catich's argument is based on examples of Roman signwriting
(perserved, until relatively recently, on walls in Pompeii) - where
such serifs were seemingly fluently written with a brush - and certain
research indicating that there was certain overlap between the sign
writers and the lettercarvers.
Greek inscriptions that are earlier than the ones you refer to -
were essentially sans serif forms. So - if there were a tendancy to
carve serifs - why wouldn't it have manifested itself earlier? It
would seem to have been a conscious design decision.
> Quite simply, when a chisel is driven
> into the terminous of a stem, no matter how carefully, it is almost
> impossible to achieve a neat, square angle.
It certainly is (i.e. almost impossible) for me - but then I've only
dabbled in it(!). However, I've talked to a fair number of the best
English lettercutters - who, despite their Johnston/Gill tradition of
serifed inscriptional lettering - claim that they can just as easily carve
SS forms rather than serif forms - and that in fact it takes less time.
> Indeed, if one also takes
> into account the slight inward curvature of the stems in both Greek
> and Roman inscriptions, one immediately realises that the chisel must
> be driven outwards in the corners of the terminous. That the resulting
> form should appeal to the Greeks and Romans, and be developed by the
> latter into the fully feldged serifs of the Trajan inscription, should
> come as no surprise to anyone who considers the nature of classical
> architecture and art. The masters of the column knew that it was more
> than a simple cylinder; it required entassis, a base and a capital.
> Frankly, one cannot imagine the classical mind being satisfied with a
> stem that lacked serifs.
I would tend to agree that the earliest forms of non-plain stroke
endings were probably an attempt to decorate or to elevate the forms
to more elegance - and that they were *not* influenced by a broad edge
brush - of which there is no evidence of - in that period.
Regarding the more wedge-like forms - Stanley Morison
suggested that may have been influenced, essentially, by the "look-and-
feel" (not his exact words;-)) of Abyssinian cuneiform writing - since
the Greeks of that period did much trading with the middle east.
Having said that - I'd agree with Peter and Chuck that Catich's
research explains a lot about the particular form of the serif most
associated with Roman letterforms - even if not about the exact origin
of "non-plain" stroke endings.
Terry O'Donnell
Terry O'Donnell
> However, I maintain my contention that the origins of
> a serif, per se, can be most simply discovered in the
> act of stonecutting and in the Greek feeling for proportion
> and balance.
John - thanks for your useful comments - I learned from them -
and agree with all but one point - which for the sake of
the search for truth and beauty (!) - I'll argue about.
I agree fully with you - if by "act of stonecutting"
you mean that serifs developed gradually - either through
experimentation with the forms - using the tools - and/or
guided by an aesthetic sense of form. But I believe that the
tool itself - the chisel - had no direct influence on the
forms cut - unlike the case of the broad-edge pen and brush
with respect to Roman lettering - for two reasons:
1) The earlier Greek inscriptions (6th-5th C BC) did have
square stroke endings - and the flaired terminals and tapered
stems (apparently) appearing in the 5th C and becoming more
frequent from then on. If the chisel dictated flaired ends -
one would expect to see them in the earlier inscriptions.
2) Any competent lettercutter will tell you that it is
perfectly easy to cut a square-ended stroke (i.e. *no* flairing
or Optima-like features at all) - even though their artistic
sense may prevent them from ever doing it for an actual commission.
It may be that it takes a little more time to cut square stems
- to make them look perfect - and that a flaired end is visually
more forgiving as well as elegant - but this is still a question
of form and expediency - not of the influence of the tool.
I recently talked to a local expert lettercutter - Chris Stinehour
- who recently did an inscription in Futura (! - at the client's
insistence!) - and claims to have had no problems doing so. Also,
one sees quite a lot of industrial sans serifs in the 19th C
Grotesque style - on headstones in English cemetaries - with no
tendancies toward flaired terminals.
This is all to say that that's why I so much like the second
part of your contention - that of the "Greek feeling for
prpoportion and balance".
Terry O'Donnell
Tiro TypeWorks
>It may be that it takes a little more time to cut square stems
>- to make them look perfect - and that a flaired end is visually
>more forgiving as well as elegant - but this is still a question
>of form and expediency - not of the influence of the tool.
It's this forgiving aspect of the serif that I was really trying to
get at, the fact that driving a chisel into the ends of a straight
stroke, if not done with extreme care, is liable to result in a form,
at best, not quite square. Serifs, however small, are the natural way
to turn this to advantage. The very early Greek inscriptions tend to
be somewhat rough and ready in their interpretation of letterforms
(indeed, this is often a large part of their charm), but as the shapes
of the letters became canonised, more effort was made to reproduce
them exactly, at least within a single inscription.
Perhaps I havn't expressed myself entirely well. What I was really
trying to get at is the idea that the chisel, as a tool, combined with
cultural and philosophical factors and the simple matter, as you say,
of seeking forgiving forms and a certain expediency, seems to explain
the Greek development of the serif, independent of a brush lettering
tradition.
David Lemon
> The interesting question to me (I've never seen Fr. Catich's book) is: *why*
> did serifs begin to be used? Were they purely an artistic/aesthetic thing?
As this thread bears out, some are inclined to argue that the form is
influenced by the tools, while others believe that it's primarily an
esthetic need (no less fundamental), independent of the tools. Of course,
it's probably both - there's a strong esthetic case for some kind of
special treatment of stroke endings, and the tools influence the form of
that treatment. This is how I read Catich's argument. His point was the
contention that the tool in question was a brush, not the final chisel.
> Did they result from the desire to "finish off" the chisel strokes in a more
> or less flat way (otherwise the ends would be pointed)? Do they serve any
> functional use? Did they ever in the days of metal type?
It would have been easier to cut sans-serif types, but that was a
relatively late development. Some suggest serifs promote legibility by
leading the eye horizontally along the line - a nice theory, but
unfortunately unsupported by empirical evidence. I suspect serifs persist
in large part because we're used to them, and because they provide more
material for the expressive nuances that give type its feeling.
- David Lemon
posessor of a sans-serif haircut
Six big juicy steaks sizzled in a pan as five workmen left the quarry.
Jeffrey Joel
Lemon wrote:
> I saw an article a decade or so ago (I wish I could cite the source, but
> must plead premature senility) which pointed out that a Fourier (sp?)
> transform applied to a sans-serif letter results in something very much
> like serifs. The math is outside my experience, but they wnet on to
> theorize that there's an inherent legibility benefit because of this. The
> author seemed to think this demonstrated that a seriffed form resisted
> degradation more, although I'd say the higher contrast found in most serif
> fonts would tend to counter-balance that benefit.
>
The first part about the Fourier transform of a sans-serif letter resulting
in a serif-type letter is sort of true, but brief calculations show that it
is not strictly true. The theory behind the improved legibility would go
something like this: When you take the Fourier transform of some function
(for example, the function describing a letter), you are changing the space
in which you are analyzing data. In the case of letters, you get something
after Fourier-transforming that is more nearly linear than the original
sans-serif letterform. If one assumes that linear images are more easily
comprehended than non-linear ones, I suppose that makes them more legible.
I'm not too convinced by this.
Another question(s):
Looking through books on the history of alphabets and inscriptions makes it
apparent to me that serifs started with stonecutting/-carving.
The interesting question to me (I've never seen Fr. Catich's book) is: *why*
did serifs begin to be used? Were they purely an artistic/aesthetic thing?
Did they result from the desire to "finish off" the chisel strokes in a more
or less flat way (otherwise the ends would be pointed)? Do they serve any
functional use? Did they ever in the days of metal type?
JJ
- via BulkRate
Berthold K.P. Horn
In message ID <typenerd-241...@eb239.slip.net> on 10/25/95, David
Lemon wrote:
> I saw an article a decade or so ago (I wish I could cite the source, but
> must plead premature senility) which pointed out that a Fourier (sp?)
> transform applied to a sans-serif letter results in something very much
> like serifs. The math is outside my experience, but they wnet on to
> theorize that there's an inherent legibility benefit because of this. The
> author seemed to think this demonstrated that a seriffed form resisted
> degradation more, although I'd say the higher contrast found in most serif
> fonts would tend to counter-balance that benefit.
>
The first part about the Fourier transform of a sans-serif letter resulting
in a serif-type letter is sort of true, but brief calculations show that it
is not strictly true. The theory behind the improved legibility would go
something like this: When you take the Fourier transform of some function
(for example, the function describing a letter), you are changing the space
in which you are analyzing data. In the case of letters, you get something
after Fourier-transforming that is more nearly linear than the original
sans-serif letterform. If one assumes that linear images are more easily
comprehended than non-linear ones, I suppose that makes them more legible.
I'm not too convinced by this.
What nonsense! (Hmm, didn't I just started as response that way recently :=)?
The Fourier Transform of a two-d pattern does not look anything like the
original pattern. For example, the value at a particular point in the
frequency domain is affected by *all* points in the spatial domain, and
vice versa. And if you inverse Fourier transform the transform of an image,
you get back the original pattern, not the same shape minus the serifs!
However, when you spatially filter an image with a smoothing filter,
sharp corners tend to become rounded, tiny details tends to disappear,
counters tend to get filled in, ends of lines tend to be truncated and
so on (think of a smoothing filter followed by a thresholding operation
or edge detector perhaps).
Any optical system has limited bandwidth, and so in effect performs some
kind of blurring or smoothing on an image (In an ideal system without
imperfections, the upper limit on angular bandwidth depends on the ratio of
the aperture of the lens to the wavelength of light). Our visual system also
has limited accuity and in effect performs some sort of smoothing operation.
How much this smoothing affects text obviously depends on the point size and
the distance from the eye, since the smoothing has a fixed spatial scale
in terms of distances on the retina, not on the page (it also depends on the
state of correction of the lens/cornea combination and the opening of the
iris, which will be larger in dim light).
(Arguably the neural wiring behind the retina does a `sharpening' operation
that suppresses lower frequencies --- many reasons for this are given
including edge detection, compensation for above image smoothing, reduction
of bandwidth before pumping the signal down a rather poor communications
channel and so on...)
What all this does to readability is not obvious. But a sans serif font with
thin stems will suffer from erosion of the ends of the stems at small size
and when viewed from a distance (so, for example, the ratio of
height to width of an H will be reduced because the two top ends and the
two bottom ends will be shortened). Some short lines may disppear.
One can greatly reduce this erosion by adding extra weight at the ends of
the stems. Serifs themselves may get smeared out and disappear, but their
effect on preserving the lengths of the lines remains. It has been argued
that this is the advantage of serifs and that this should make seriffed
text more readable, particularly under poor conditions (small point size,
page far from the eye, dim light, poor eye sight etc).
(By the way, this kind of `over-compensation' --- adding blobs at the ends
of lines to prevent them from being shortened --- is used in some high
resolution optical equipment for making integrated circuits, where the
limitations of the optical system otherwise would produce rounded
corners and shortened lines).
So while one may argue that serifs originated because of physical aspects
of cutting stone (or maybe not --- as some have argued here), one might argue
that the serif idea has been preserved long after most text was written on
something other than stone for the above reasons. Unfortunately such as
neat theory is hard to substantiate since reports on relative readability of
seriffed versus sans serif text contradict one another. It seems very hard
to do readability tests that stand up to careful scrutiny.
As for Fourier transforms, any spatial convolution is equivalent to
multiplication in the transform domain. Smoothing in the spatial
domain amounts to attenutation of higher frequency components
(come to MIT and take 6.003 if you want to know the details :=).
Sharp detail tends to yield energy at higher frequencies and this is
what is suppressed by smoothing operations. So serifs tend to be
suppressed because they tend to be small narrow features. But looking
at it in the transform domain does not help one understand the effect of
serifs on suppressing the shortening of stems.
Regards, Berthold.
GusLoupy
in message <clive-03119...@158.152.67.91>
Clive Bruton (cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk) wrote
> I remember reading a shortpiece about the introduction
> of Roman forms into German publications (mainly
> newspapers), one chap was arguing against the adoption
> in the form"how can we use these ugly Roman letters in
> the place of our beautiful, legible blackletter?".
I've read that the Roman form was introduced into German printing by none
other than Hitler. He originally felt that the Gothic/Fraktur was the
proper expression of the Nordic spirit; it was, however, a
public-relations failure outside Germany, so he denounced Gothic/Fraktur
as "a Jewish invention" (?) and decreed that Roman was to be used
henceforth. Hmmm.
Dan
gusl...@aol.com
dh...@ubmail.ubalt.edu
--
address picture "witty quote" **disclaimer**
David Lemon
wrote:
> And so, to ignore this entire thread,
Par for the course here ;-)
> I've read that the Roman form was introduced into German printing by none
> other than Hitler.
Well, he didn't *introduce* it, but he did make it virtually mandatory.
Although I rather like a good Fraktur, this may have been the most
positive of Hitler's questionable contributions.
> He originally felt that the Gothic/Fraktur was the
> proper expression of the Nordic spirit; it was, however, a
> public-relations failure outside Germany, so he denounced Gothic/Fraktur
> as "a Jewish invention" (?) and decreed that Roman was to be used
> henceforth. Hmmm.
Theories differ as to why Hitler changed his mind regarding Fraktur (no
behind-the-scene documentation survived), although most suggest it was a
pragmatic necessity, since the Third Reich hoped to rule much of the
world, and Fraktur might be even harder to stuff down our throats than
fascism. At any rate, the balance of power among Hitler's advisors
apparently shifted, and the rest is history.
Back to this thread, I believe I recall a citation of a study (is that
vague enough?) showing that Germans who'd grown up reading Fraktur did
actually find it more legible than Romans. This is a rather strong point
for Zuazanna Licko of Emigre who contends that legibility is little more
than familiarity. I think there may be more to this than most typographers
would care to admit, but I refuse to believe optics aren't at least as
important (see Berthold Horn's previous posting - makes me proud to read
this group).
- David Lemon
type nerd
Waltzing zephyrs quickly vexed Jumbo.
Laurence Penney
> [a most enlightening exposition of the serif deleted]
I wonder if it would be fruitful to use the serif idea recursively. Serifs would
thus be applied to serifs in a fractal manner, setting up a kind of gradient in
the brain's visual circuits - directing perception towards the sans-serif
Platonic ideal!
It inspired me to pen the following lines, with apologies to the author of the
original (who was it now?)
Big stems have little serifs
Upon their ends to brighten ’em *
And little serifs need smaller serifs
And so, ad infinitenum.
* as in Lucida Bright
-- Laurence Penney
Kathryn Bassett
postings. I saw some discussion about monospaced fonts but here is what
I need. I need a font that is condensed enough to print at 16.5
characters per inch while in a 10-12 point height.
I have lots of things that are retreived from ascii text so that stuff
lines up. For instance a descendant chart. (Have lots more complex
stuff, but this is easiest to show what I mean.)
Person
|Child
| |Grandchild
|Child
| |Grandchild
| |Grandchild
Since the spacing is important, this is why I need monospaced fonts,
and I have used some, but in order to get everything to print when the
chart is 120-130 characters per line, I have to print out at something
like 6 points which is too hard to read. Monotype News Gothic Condensed
(by Monotype) is an example of a condensed font that would probably
work but it's not monospaced.
I do not have a CD so can't get something from that arena. I prefer
freeware or shareware, but will consider commercial if it's not too
expensive. Can you please help me? Thanks.
--
Kathryn "Genealogy Is My Bag" Bassett
ac...@lafn.org (1st choice)
kath...@ix.netcom.com (2nd choice)
GH is my Soap
Tobias Benjamin Koehler
> I've read that the Roman form was introduced into German printing by none
> other than Hitler. He originally felt that the Gothic/Fraktur was the
> proper expression of the Nordic spirit; it was, however, a
> public-relations failure outside Germany, so he denounced Gothic/Fraktur
> as "a Jewish invention" (?) and decreed that Roman was to be used
> henceforth. Hmmm.
More precisely it was like this... (forgive me if I'm not
historically precise)
In the 19th century, Fraktur was most common, but sometimes being
replaced by roman already. Gradually roman became more and more
important and almost replaced broken typefaces until the Nazis
took over power and reversed the typographic revolution that had
taken place in the more avant-garde media. Some rather ugly,
simplified gothic typefaces were introduced (such as "Tannen-
berg"). During his first success in the 2nd world war, Hitler
saw that the annected peoples could not read these. Then black-
letter was suddenly called a Jewish invention, and replaced by
the roman typefaces (including sans serif and slab serif fonts)
that had been banned some years before. After the war, Fraktur
was identified with the Nazi regime and completely out of
fashion.
--
tobias benjamin koehler ,-/o"O`--.._ _/(_
t.ko...@tu-bs.de _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
un...@tigerden.com (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
``--o___o..o.'' :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
can be found somewhere `-`.,) \`.o`._
in central europe fL `-`-.,)
Lindsey Thomas Martin
type...@slip.net writes:
>Back to this thread, I believe I recall a citation of a study (is that
>vague enough?) showing that Germans who'd grown up reading Fraktur did
>actually find it more legible than Romans. This is a rather strong
point
>for Zuazanna Licko of Emigre who contends that legibility is little
more
>than familiarity. I think there may be more to this than most
typographers
>would care to admit, but I refuse to believe optics aren't at least as
>important (see Berthold Horn's previous posting - makes me proud to
read
>this group).
alphabet, so that one can say that there are more and less legible
Fraktur typefaces and more and less legible Roman Typefaces.
Similarly, I read Greek and, having learned it as an adult, I can
remember the unfamiliarity, now gone, of the Greek alphabet when I was
first learning to read and write the language. But, there are Greek
typefaces that are more legible that others and some, certainly, that
are much easier to read. So, in this schema, legiblity would be a
subcategory dependent mainly upon optics within the category of
alphabet, comprehension of which is dependent mainly upon familiarity.
LTM
Barncats
>Similarly, I read Greek and, having learned it as an adult, I can
>remember the unfamiliarity, now gone, of the Greek alphabet when I was
>first learning to read and write the language. But, there are Greek
>typefaces that are more legible that others and some, certainly, that
>are much easier to read.
Which designs do you like to read the most? I have always bewen bothered
by the fact that, for example, Phidias looks like a classic collection of
Hermann Zapf strokes recombined to make Greek letters, rather than Western
(is Western the right term here, or should one say Latin?). Same goes for
other fonts that are merely adaptations of things produced by the Western
European?American Industrial Conglomerate and foisted onto Greek culture.
Just curious what readers think of the existing, available designs. Any
native Greeks want to comment on which designs have the most natural
Greekness about them?
Bruce Kennett
Martin Brilliant
> I just discovered this newsgroup, and read through the 400 most recent
> postings. I saw some discussion about monospaced fonts but here is what
> I need. I need a font that is condensed enough to print at 16.5
> characters per inch while in a 10-12 point height.
First idea - most printers have such a font built in. At least, my Epson
24-pin dot-matrix printer, and my newer HP DeskJet printer, both have
them. These fonts are accessible in Windows.
Second idea - if you have Windows, you have a license for Courier. I have
Atech AllType, which can modify any typeface (it won't look pretty, but it
will work) and I could condense Courier to just about any pitch you want.
Would it be lawful for one licensed user to send another licensed user a
condensed version of Courier?
Marty
Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
Tiro TypeWorks
I have a very interesting little booklet from the Greek Font Society.
I'm afraid I can't give you their address, as it appears only in
Greek; it is, however, somewhere in Athens.
Their collection includes a Greek Bodoni and a Greek Didot... how's
that for western influence? The nicest of their faces, to my mind, is
one called Artemisia. Interestingly, all the families come with both
Greek and Latin alphabets.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
I'm sadly ignorant of the names of Greek fonts, but I've a =strong=
preference for whatever type is used in the Loeb Classic series.
It's always Dark. Light only hides the Darkness.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (619) 535 - 0546
atha...@UCSD.edu 132.239.147.2 <75013,676>
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
<LMA...@SFU.CA> wrote:
> Perhaps the way to look at this is to consider Fraktur as a different
> alphabet, so that one can say that there are more and less legible
> Fraktur typefaces and more and less legible Roman Typefaces.
Except that Fraktur and Roman faces are essentially "saying" the same
thing, whereas a Cyrillic or Greek font is using completely different
signs and sounds.
But, I think your point of familiarity is more valid, as this thread has
touched on, there is no imperical evidence to prove serifs are more/less
legible than sans, IMO it is a cultural phnomena.
Clive Bruton (AKA The Typonaut)
Stephan Heilmayr
>
> at 16.5 characters per inch while in a 10-12 point height.
Well, there's a freeware font called LetterGothic-EGG that has 16
characters per inch at 9 points. Not quite as condensed as what you're
looking for, but perhaps it could be squeezed a bit further with a font
manipulation program. This would probably look better than what you'd get
if you tried to squeeze Courier that much. Mac Postscript and TrueType
versions are available at the usual Mac archives. I don't know if there's
a PC version available, but I assume the Mac version could be converted.
-- Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)