Calibri v. Times New Roman
-
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/politics/rubio-typeface-changes
During the Biden administration the State Department changed its preferred font from Times New Roman to Calibri, citing studies that show that the latter is more accessible to people with certain visual impairments. Sec. State Rubio just announced the reversal and have the State Department back to using Times New Roman, saying the previous change to Calibri was a wasteful sop to DEI wokeness.
I used to prefer Times New Roman, but that was before the iPhone. As more and more of my reading is done on a phone/tablet/computer screen rather than on printer papers, I changed to prefer sans-serif.
I still like certain serif fonts (e.g., Cambria) when the fonts are big, but for most day-to-day reading, I think sans-serif is easier for me.
@Axtremus said in Calibri v. Times New Roman:
the previous change to Calibri was a wasteful sop to DEI wokeness.
And changing back won't be wasteful? The cognitive dissonance continues....
Also the cruelty.
On a separate note, I hate Microsoft's new default font, Aptos. Hate hate hate it! And now, the default font for Japanese also looks horrible, and for many characters, doesn't actually look like Japanese but looks more like Chinese. Which is fine if you're typing in Chinese, but not good for Japanese, and I worry about the impact on my students' writing as well.
It's not super hard to change the default settings in desktop applications, but in browser versions, I can't get it to set my desired font for Japanese, so I have to go in and change it manually every time.
-
I am not a fan of sans serif fonts except for display purposes. When I was a typesetter in the '80s, it was generally accepted that sans serif were easier to read in printed material. Then computer screens became ubiquitous. For screen reading, sans serif became more popular because the screen resolutions were not up to providing clear serif rendering.
-
Times New Roman has been the default font in publishing almost since word processing programs came along, after a brief period of Courier dominance when we were still trying to make documents look like they were typed.
I believe the research saying that sans serif is easier to read for most folks, but the popular wisdom has always been to use a serif font because they were considered easier to read by editors and agents, who read all the live-long day and reportedly really felt the difference. My guess is that they felt the difference because serif fonts were what they were used to seeing. When I was teaching I worried that I was telling students to use an antiquated format (like my colleague who still--still!--insisted on Courier, as if it were still 1988.) To guard against that, I would do spot-checks of various publications, agents, and so on. Few of them specify a font in their guidelines, but when they do it's usuall Times New Roman. I don't think I've ever seen anybody specify NOT to use Times New Roman, but I do often see advice against using odd fonts, colored fonts, or other nonstandard ways of presenting one's work. My guess is that current standards are that basic fonts like TNR, Arial, Calibri, and Bookman are all just fine, but not Comic Sans or Wingdings.
I myself have always liked the look of a serif font. Sans serif fonts make a document look unfinished and draft-like to me, but I one-hundred-percent know that this is subjective and generational.
-
Times New Roman has been the default font in publishing almost since word processing programs came along, after a brief period of Courier dominance when we were still trying to make documents look like they were typed.
I believe the research saying that sans serif is easier to read for most folks, but the popular wisdom has always been to use a serif font because they were considered easier to read by editors and agents, who read all the live-long day and reportedly really felt the difference. My guess is that they felt the difference because serif fonts were what they were used to seeing. When I was teaching I worried that I was telling students to use an antiquated format (like my colleague who still--still!--insisted on Courier, as if it were still 1988.) To guard against that, I would do spot-checks of various publications, agents, and so on. Few of them specify a font in their guidelines, but when they do it's usuall Times New Roman. I don't think I've ever seen anybody specify NOT to use Times New Roman, but I do often see advice against using odd fonts, colored fonts, or other nonstandard ways of presenting one's work. My guess is that current standards are that basic fonts like TNR, Arial, Calibri, and Bookman are all just fine, but not Comic Sans or Wingdings.
I myself have always liked the look of a serif font. Sans serif fonts make a document look unfinished and draft-like to me, but I one-hundred-percent know that this is subjective and generational.
@Mary-Anna said in Calibri v. Times New Roman:
My guess is that they felt the difference because serif fonts were what they were used to seeing.
I imagine this is a huge part of it.
Once when I was reviewing cover letters and CVs, I remember one applicant who used an odd (to me) font that I found incredibly hard to read. It was so distracting that I stopped and looked at the font for a while, trying to get used to it. I also tried to make sure that what I perceived as a lack of readability wasn't making me judge the contents more harshly. It was a serif font. It still doesn't make sense to me why I reacted to strongly. But I did.
I always tell my students to use TNR, 12 point, 1 inch margins and to not right-justify.
Also, have I mentioned that I hate Aptos?
-
I am not a fan of sans serif fonts except for display purposes. When I was a typesetter in the '80s, it was generally accepted that sans serif were easier to read in printed material. Then computer screens became ubiquitous. For screen reading, sans serif became more popular because the screen resolutions were not up to providing clear serif rendering.
I just re-read my post and can't believe that I wrote it was generally accepted that sans serif was easier to read in print! No, I meant serif was generally accepted as easier to read. I must have got my thoughts crossed! Sheesh.
The industrial revolution cheapened everything.
-
I just re-read my post and can't believe that I wrote it was generally accepted that sans serif was easier to read in print! No, I meant serif was generally accepted as easier to read. I must have got my thoughts crossed! Sheesh.
-
I just re-read my post and can't believe that I wrote it was generally accepted that sans serif was easier to read in print! No, I meant serif was generally accepted as easier to read. I must have got my thoughts crossed! Sheesh.
-
I wonder if the argument that serifs make text easier to read is related to the notion that cursive handwriting is better for the flow of ideas. After all, they both involve extra strokes that guide you from one letter to the next.
