Fonts in MS Office

I began my first new document with the new MS Word 2007. What
immediately strikes me is the default fonts used for the styles:
Headings use Cambria font and Body text Calibri.

What I have learned is that serif fonts are better in body text and sans
serif in titles. The same is also mentioned in an MS article (which only
applies to PowerPoint 2003, though...)

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/po...243941033.aspx

Now, Cambria is a serif font and Calibri a sans serif, so Word 2007
suggests the exact opposite than what has been found to be the best
practice! Has anyone else noticed this or any reasons why this is so,
except that no-one really cares?

Jouni

PS. Not quite certain if non-tech is the right group for this complaint,
but as I follow that one myself, I could not resist.

Hello,

microsoft.public.word.application.errors would be a better NG to
complain ;-) (it really exists!)

Greetings

Markus

"Jouni Aro" <jouni.aro@prosys.fi> wrote in message
news:48999e52@newsgroups.borland.com...
> What I have learned is that serif fonts are better in body text and sans
> serif in titles. The same is also mentioned in an MS article (which only
> applies to PowerPoint 2003, though...)

I've always heard it as serif fonts being considered best for printed
documents (paper), and sans sarif fonts best on screen.

Yes, I've heard this too. Apparently sans serif fonts are easier to read
on screen.

best regards

"GrandmasterB" <Fizzle@shizzle.com> wrote in message
news:489a1b2f@newsgroups.borland.com...
> "Jouni Aro" <jouni.aro@prosys.fi> wrote in message
> news:48999e52@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> What I have learned is that serif fonts are better in body text and sans
>> serif in titles. The same is also mentioned in an MS article (which only
>> applies to PowerPoint 2003, though...)
>
> I've always heard it as serif fonts being considered best for printed
> documents (paper), and sans sarif fonts best on screen.
>
>

Markus.Humm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> microsoft.public.word.application.errors would be a better NG to
> complain ;-) (it really exists!)

Thanks. Let's see if I mind going there as well. Might be interesting to
hear their opinions, after all

GrandmasterB wrote:
> "Jouni Aro" <jouni.aro@prosys.fi> wrote in message
> news:48999e52@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> What I have learned is that serif fonts are better in body text and sans
>> serif in titles. The same is also mentioned in an MS article (which only
>> applies to PowerPoint 2003, though...)
>
> I've always heard it as serif fonts being considered best for printed
> documents (paper), and sans sarif fonts best on screen.

Exactly. Plus that in printed text sans serif is better for titles, as
they stand out better. But as Word documents are supposed to be printed
(at least they look too bad on screen anyway), body text should have a
serif font. So the opposite for defaults is a bit hard to understand.

GrandmasterB wrote:
> I've always heard it as serif fonts being considered best for printed
> documents (paper), and sans sarif fonts best on screen.

OK, I found this feature: Themes (in Page Layout), which has, for
example, a Paper theme (and a couple of others) for printed docs.

So Word 2007 is primarily for docs read on screen...?

> Now, Cambria is a serif font and Calibri a sans serif, so Word 2007
> suggests the exact opposite than what has been found to be the best
> practice!

Well, a lot of people make this assertion. But - perhaps frustratingly to
tech-heads like us - typography is as much about fashion as science.

Certainly, the use of sans serif fonts (like Calibri) for body text is
becoming more popular, as are those fonts which are half-way between -
strictly serif but the serifs are so tiny they look more like sans serifs.

Also there is the issue of the subject material. For instance, sans serif
fonts seem to be very acceptable in technical documents, including
instruction booklets, and so on; whereas most people would find it rather
odd to read Jane Austen if it were printed in Helvetica or Arial!

I'm a technical author and spend a lot of time producing non-fiction work
using Word 2007. I have to say that - in my opinion - body text in Calibri
at 10pt with 1.1 line spacing looks *superb* when printed - it's an absolute
cracker of a typeface. Clean, clear, modern and just friendly enough
without being patronising or too informal. BUT - it is hideous on-screen: I
really dislike working with it.

For sheer on-screen clarity, Verdana and Segoe UI are great, but they don't
look good when printed.

Cambria is, in my opinion, a bit of an abberation on Microsoft's part. It
makes a very good quality serif body font - very elegant when printed - but
I agree with others who say it looks horrible when large and bolded for
headings. I don't really know why they put it in that role. I actually use
Calibri - bolded - for headings as well as body text, and it looks really
good.

I should point out that Microsoft brought in some world-class typography
consultants to design their new Office fonts and style sheets, so they
probably do reflect current typographical thinking (for what that's worth!).
I've read some White Papers on these fonts and style sheets; very
interesting, although I can't remember where on MS's site I found them now.

SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:
> [...]
>
> I should point out that Microsoft brought in some world-class typography
> consultants to design their new Office fonts and style sheets, so they
> probably do reflect current typographical thinking (for what that's
> worth!). I've read some White Papers on these fonts and style sheets;
> very interesting, although I can't remember where on MS's site I found
> them now.

Thanks Steve, for your insights: something I was actually wishing to
hear, especially the remarks from your experience.

It helps to know there is some reason behind this, since it seems quite
absurd at first.

I have also found out (from the MS newsgroup) that there are new ways to
define and set your default styles ('Change Styles' in the Word 2007
'Home'-ribbon): only you need to know a bit more to be able to select
the right fonts for your documents.

BR,

Jouni

> I have also found out (from the MS newsgroup) that there are new ways to
> define and set your default styles ('Change Styles' in the Word 2007
> 'Home'-ribbon): only you need to know a bit more to be able to select the
> right fonts for your documents.

Now that I've got used to it, I'm a real fan of the new ribbon interface. I
think it was pretty courageous of Microsoft to make such a fundamental
change to the user interface on their number one cash cow (after XP and
Vista, I suppose). The traditional cascading menu paradigm is entrenched
everywhere in modern computing, including Mac OSX and Linux applications.
To abandon it and come up with something completely new was quite
impressive.

For what it's worth, I still don't think it's perfect. If you want to
insert a cross-reference, you'll find it in the Insert tab; but to insert a
footnote you must go to the References tab. There are probably other
examples we could come up with, but you'll never satisfy everbody!

However, in terms of making the features more "discoverable" it is
definitely a success.

Apart from the absolutely infuriating difficulties in keeping pictures in
the right place on the bloody page, I think Word 2007 is a great piece of
software. I'm sure that, if you persist with it while you learn the new
interface, you'll come to really like it.

Steve