|
Interesting. The article never mentions what version of Windows is affected.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The comments on that article indicate this issue goes back to at least Windows 10 v1809. The problem is it's not only intermittent but also relatively rare so it's going to be hard to track down the underlying cause.
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. State Department is changing the decades-old tradition of using the Times New Roman font for internal documents. Perhaps Comic Sans would be more appropriate?
And don't get them started on the number of spaces after a period.
|
|
|
|
|
So they're ditching Microsoft Word. That's where the Times New Roman "craze" started. As for readability, TNR sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: So they're ditching Microsoft Word. That's where the Times New Roman "craze" started.
It is? I wasn't even aware that The Times had access to MSW during WW2.
I didn't even know that there was an MSW version that didn't allow you to choose from a number of different typefaces. What I have heard as a criticism of MS is that they strongly pushed sans serif typefaces - highly justifiable given the typical low resolution of matrix printers of the day, used by the great majority of MSW users. Serif fonts usually fared badly on matrix printers. The criticism was raised by typesetters with access to phototypesetters, often with analog font definitions - hardware way out of reach for the typical MSW user.
Times New Roman actually was in use years before WW2, but became important due to the paper shortage: It could fit more text per area unit than other typefaces, allowing The Times to bring more information in a given number of pages, or reduce the number of pages to save paper. I never noticed any pressure from MS towards Times New Roman, but if there was one, it might have been justified as a similar cost reduction factor, saving paper and possibly ink. I do recall proportional typefaces in general being more cost effective and paper saving, but that goes for all proportional (non monospace) typefaces, with no particular reference to Times New Roman.
"Readability" is to a large degree determined by current typographical fashions. Times New Roman was introduced because of its high readability, especially at small sizes. 40-50 years ago, typographers frowned at sans serif fonts: Serifs are absolutely required for the reader to follow the lines. (Last time I met typographers still insisting on this was a couple of years ago.) But then: If you print any serif font on a 72 dpi dot matrix printer, I certainly agree that it looks terrible. Then rather Arial!
|
|
|
|
|
Word aside - that was a joke. MS Word used to use Times New Roman as the default font. Looking at a brand new Word document I see that it now uses Calibri (11 pt) as the default body font. This is much better. I do wonder how many of those State Deptartment employees realize that Microsoft has changed the default Word font, specifically to deal with readability issues.
Times New Roman is a lousy font for anyone who has vision issues. It was the best font at the time because it was easy to print and there are very few possible letter/digit confusion options in TNR. However, it's significantly harder to read than other fonts. State is going to Calibri 11 pt, which is definitely better for those who have a hard time with fonts smaller than 12 pt (1/6th of an inch per line).
|
|
|
|
|
But they replaced Arial, a sans serif typeface (not the serifed Times New Roman) with Calibri, another sans serif!
You do not 'replace' a serif typeface with a sans serif one! You can tell the users: "We suggest that you switch from serif to sans serif", but typographically, those are distinct worlds, not 'replacements' for each other!
The Wikipedia article on Arial states that "In Office 2007, Arial was replaced by Calibri as the default typeface in PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook" - but I saw the same change in Word.
Actually, I never saw Times New Roman being the default Word typeface. I've been working in Word at a number of different locations since Word 2.0, and of course at my home PC. I doubt that all the places I have worked changed the MS default, and I certainly did not on my home PC. Could MS be running different policies in Europe and in the USA? I see that Wikipedia also states that "In Office 2007, it replaced Times New Roman as the default typeface in Word" - but that could reflect US market.
A system manager may set up default style definitions applying to the entire organization. The US State Department could have changed their default from a serif to a sans serif typeface regardless of whatever decisions MS makes.
I have never before seen anyone turn Times New Roman down for poor readability! Quite to the contrary, I have repeatedly seen it praised for its 'excellent legibility coupled with good economy' (that is an MS wording, after they switched to Calibri). It has been pointed out that especially at small sizes, it is more readable than similar (serif) fonts.
I repeat what I wrote in my previous post: 'Readability' is strongly influenced by typographical fashions. Nowadays, sans serif is the great fashion, so it is more readable - according to current judgement.
When I was a kid, there was a similar change in handwriting taught in schools: In our parents' handwriting, the letters of a word was tied together - the pencil or pen looped over to the next letter (it was termed 'loop script'), very much like serifs. A handful years before I started school, the decorative curves and loops were replaced by simplified, straight lines (termed 'stave script'). Each letter was independent formed and mostly detached from other letters, like a sans serif typeface.
Old timers were very critical to the legibility of this stave script: Identifying words is far more difficult. New timers insisted that each individual letter is more distinct, less obscured by ornamentation, improving legibility. The war went on for many years - one of my playmates learned stave script at school, but at home his parents taught him proper loop script handwriting, and he never used the stave script for anything but hand-ins at school.
Not knowing the appropriate English search terms, I was only able to find Norwegian web pages to illustrate the hand script differences - but figures are language independent. For stave script, see Stave script[^] - even though the first three variants are claimed to be Norwegian, the handwriting I learned was more like #4 (French) and #5 (New Zealand).
Loop script samples can be seen at Loop script[^]. To me, the similarity with serif typefaces is quite obvious. Most Norwegians today would consider especially the last example to be very old-style, reminding them of the lace cloth of great grandma 
Similarly, serif fonts are old style. However, even though I have seen some really heated argument among typographers, I have never seen them in serif vs. sans serif wars at anything approaching the intensity of the handwriting wars in my childhood. The two main styles have been accepted as side by side alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
I like Arial better than Calibri. Starting with Word 2007 TNR was the default body font. Arial was the default before that. And no, I don't know why MS changed but I heard rumors that Arial isn't free and the copywrite holder wanted money from MS to use it as the default font in Word.
As with all Serif fonts, TNR simply doesn't scale to smaller screens. Sans Serif fonts do scale to smaller screens but Calibri scales better than Arial. Also note that Verdana, which seems to be the default for most web-sites, is also a Sans Serif font.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: As with all Serif fonts, TNR simply doesn't scale to smaller screens.
Or let us say, serif fonts don't scale to poor resolutions, whether on screen or poor resolution dot matrix printers.
Screens/printers of today have the resolution to handle serif fonts 'reasonably' well. Screens of 20 years ago did not. That was a good reason for favoring sans serif. I guess that is part of the reason why serif fonts went out of fashion. I came to prefer sans serif myself.
Arial fills out the kegel (is 'cone' the English typography term?) more than Calibri. Even though they are both called '11pt', the Calibri letter shapes are smaller, providing more air between the lines. I always found it hard to follow the lines in a packed page of 11 pt Arial set on 11pt line spacing, so in everything I wrote, I set line spacing to 1.2, or if you like, 11/13pt. With Calibri, I have changed my default to 1.1 line spacing, or 11/12pt. The smaller character size also goes sideways, so more text is packed to the line. I don't think taht reduces readability. I think that Calibri 11/12pt is easier to read than Arial 11/13pt.
(Edit typo in par.2: Serif fonts went out out fashion, not sans serif!)
modified 20-Jan-23 22:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
No, still Word. It’s just that the default font in Word has become Calibri (and that’s what they’re switching to)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any independent studies at all suggesting that the typeface design is helping dyslectics overcome their problems?
I never heard about it before (although that does not mean it it not true!). What I certainly have heard, from several sources, is that kids who learn to read not by letters, but by entire word symbols (learning to break words down into individual letters long after they learn to read) have a much lower dyslexia frequency than those who learn to read by individual letters.
One of my friends learned to read that way. She was born and grew up in the US, and when I asked her to read out loud "English is tough stuff", without preparation, she did so without a glitch. It was as if she didn't see the point of the poem at all. I pointed out all those words rhyming, but spelled differently, or spelled similarly but not rhyming. 'But those are different words!' she said. Why did I expect them to rhyme?
Personal experience: I had a 'visually challenged' daughter, with some eyesight left but she preferred braille to the magnifying TV. When she started school, her teacher chose to introduce braille to the entire class. One of her classmates turned out to have a strong dyslexia ... when reading printed text. He very quickly learned to read braille with his fingertips, almost as well as my daughter. When reading with his fingertips he had no sign of dyslexia whatsoever.
So maybe switching to another typefaces is something like switching from visual reading to fingertip reading. But I sure would like to see an independent study showing it, before I trust the claim that it is so.
|
|
|
|
|
kalberts wrote: One of her classmates turned out to have a strong dyslexia ... when reading printed text. He very quickly learned to read braille with his fingertips, almost as well as my daughter. When reading with his fingertips he had no sign of dyslexia whatsoever.
This argues that dyslexia is caused by a problem in the visual cortex rather than in whatever part of the brain processes words, and makes it more plausible that a change of font would help dyslexics.
Interesting.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly, but my impression is that the scientists think dyslexia can have a great variety of causes.
My first thought here: If one of the causes is purely visual, call it 'optical', related to the photographic image your eye lens forms on your retina (so the typeface comes into play), then I would expect this to affect other images as well. The dyslectic would not as quickly pick up identifying details in other images or drawings, e.g. to identify the type of sailing ship or dog breed. It sounds improbable that the brain should have no problems visually identifying all other kinds of shapes and forms, but incapable of processing letter shapes properly. I consider it much more likely that it is related to the shapes being letters; they are expected to have 'letter semantics'. It still has to do with associating the letter image with letter semantics, but it would largely apply to any a-shape, b-shape or c-shape.
I am not completely rejecting that typeface may have an influence, but I would certainly like to see independent studies before making a conclusion. My guess is that e.g. serif/sans-serif can be essential, as well as how the dyslectic has learned to read - character by character, or word by word.
In my childhood, there was at least one pupil in each class plauged by stuttering. A fair share of people argued that this was caused by physical defects. However, their stuttering was cured through therapy, no operation. I haven't seen any kuid plagued by stuttering for many, many years. Appearently, we are no longer creating the mental conditions causing the mental blocks inhibiting their speech.
On the other hand: An incrasing number of kids raise similar blocks if you give them even a very simple math problem to solve: When seing numbers, they immediately block out all logical reasoning and strategic thinking, completely unable to know where to start to attack the problem. Dyscalculi is definitely on the rise - certainly here in Norway, but I think in some other countries as well.
I've seen very similar reactions when trying to teach kids elementary sheet music reading: Some kids panic immediately, cannot fixate on the sheet, if you ask them whether they think a sequence of notes go up or down in pitch, they have no idea ... What kind of dys-xxx is that? Dys-musicality? The majority of kids have no problems. Some of the kids terrified by sheet music can play or sing in perfect pitch, as long as there is not a music sheet in sight ...
Even hysteria (Wikipedia: Female hysteria[^]) wore off as the psychiological conditions for provoking it gradually faded away. Like with the stuttering. I am no saying that neither hysteria, stuttering nor dyslexia is 'self induced'. Some people obviously will trigger far more easily than others on certain conditions. Therapy must aim to reduce that hyper-sensitivity, to teach the patient to 'control the panic'. Psychology, mostly. Of course, in some cases you can reduce or remove the triggers, but that is the exceptional case. Finding a typeface that is more readable to some dyslectics (I strongly doubt that it will help all of them) is of use only for text specially prepared for dyslectics - hoping to make it the standard or only typeface on every web page on the internet, every printed newspaper or book ... We all know that it will never happen. I doubt that the typeface will be seen anywhere but in articles claiming that would be an improvement for dyslectics.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how much that will cost taxpayers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Aligning with branding changes moving Microsoft Office to Microsoft 365, the program will now be known as the “Microsoft 365 Insider” program. Now it's so much better
|
|
|
|
|
What's in a name? Not as much as you can put in two or more.
|
|
|
|
|
As the dust settles from the news of massive layoffs over at Microsoft, details of who and what is getting cut are surfacing and parts of the HoloLens hardware team appear to be on the chopping block. Virtual Reality meets economic reality
OK, sorry. Augmented Reality...
|
|
|
|
|
This new version includes highly requested new features, bug fixes, and massive performance improvements to the MVVM Toolkit source generators, to make the developer UX when using them better than ever! It takes a village to raise a toolkit
|
|
|
|
|
It actually looks interesting. 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
This release continues to bring new productivity improvements for all developers and enhances many of the capabilities that shipped in 17.5 Preview 2. Download it while it's still warm!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd prefer to see the words "fixes" and "bugs"
|
|
|
|
|
"This release continues to include zero fixes for any of the bugs that affect you."
Better? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The signals from WiFi can be used to map a human body, according to a new paper. It even works better than those X-Ray Spex I got in the mail
|
|
|
|
|
Can they read between lines? .|||.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
