<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Typography Part Deux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ideadesign.ca/the-naked-idea/2008/07/20/typography-part-deux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ideadesign.ca/the-naked-idea/2008/07/20/typography-part-deux/</link>
	<description>A weekly look at how charities can communicate better with donors through design.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:13:40 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dean Rieck</title>
		<link>http://www.ideadesign.ca/the-naked-idea/2008/07/20/typography-part-deux/comment-page-1/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Rieck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ideadesign.ca/the-naked-idea/?p=84#comment-97</guid>
		<description>According to many of the studies I&#039;ve seen, typeface legibility is largely the result of familiarity. A face such as Times is usually found to be highly legible because people see it frequently, while a face such as Rockwell is seen only now and then. 

Among older direct mail consultants, using Courier or &quot;typewriter&quot; fonts is an unchallenged rule of design. But while I frequently use these faces, I also use others depending on the audience and product. I wouldn&#039;t generally go with courier to a young business audience because it would scream &quot;direct mail&quot; and may interfere with the message. But for a hardcore direct mail responsive audience, a typewriter font will do nicely. 

In design, there are no rules, only rules of thumb. It&#039;s up to the designer to intelligently apply these guidelines to achieve the best result. 

For the typical charity, I&#039;d think a Courier or standard serif face would be a safe choice. Then again, I&#039;d love to see test results on a highly legible san serif face such as Verdana.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to many of the studies I&#8217;ve seen, typeface legibility is largely the result of familiarity. A face such as Times is usually found to be highly legible because people see it frequently, while a face such as Rockwell is seen only now and then. </p>
<p>Among older direct mail consultants, using Courier or &#8220;typewriter&#8221; fonts is an unchallenged rule of design. But while I frequently use these faces, I also use others depending on the audience and product. I wouldn&#8217;t generally go with courier to a young business audience because it would scream &#8220;direct mail&#8221; and may interfere with the message. But for a hardcore direct mail responsive audience, a typewriter font will do nicely. </p>
<p>In design, there are no rules, only rules of thumb. It&#8217;s up to the designer to intelligently apply these guidelines to achieve the best result. </p>
<p>For the typical charity, I&#8217;d think a Courier or standard serif face would be a safe choice. Then again, I&#8217;d love to see test results on a highly legible san serif face such as Verdana.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
