Life of a Lab Rat

As I now frantically go back through all of my presentations to ensure I haven't sinned, I wonder: What is your favorite font?

>I have here, on a Post-It note from long ago, a message that reads who thought Times New Roman was a good idea for slides?.

I think we've written that same note at some point. Maybe more so when Comic Sans is used. It must be a common first-time presenter mistake. But better Comic Sans than too-small-to-read-even-in-the-middle-of-the-room fonts.

I bloody hate Times New Roman. For things that need to look serif-y, I prefer something rounder, like Goudy or Garamond.

Comic Sans is pretty silly. Certain persons to whom I am related by marriage like to use it and Lucida Casual though, so I have to be careful what I say.

'Course my blog's in Verdana, which is hardly the best solution...

Kelli: I'm rather fond of Lucida Grande. This is the default web font Apple supplied with OS X, but it looks pretty good up large at the end of a room. Helvetica retains a certain old world charm, I find.

I still prevaricate when it comes to serif fonts. Times Roman is pretty good at a slightly larger point; it's not as spidery as TNR.

Part of the problem is that Powerpoint handles typography appallingly so you're pretty much limited to Arial, and Windows in general is crap when it comes to presentations and display. I've just checked Keynote, which I haven't had chance to use in anger yet, and its default is Gill Sans, which is actually quite nice in a modern sort of way.

PS.

Mail.app does not allow you set the default to be 'view all messages as plain text' in the GUI. But just quit Mail, then type
defaults write com.apple.mail PreferPlainText -bool TRUE
in the Terminal to fix this. Then if you want to see the rich text look look for 'Next Alternative' under View/Message in Mail.

Fonts do have fashions. I've always loathed TNR except for a brief period in 1985 when I first got a Mac and had control over my presentations. Comic Sans is too informal for presentations although a San Serriffe font is generally thought to be more readable. I hate Arial with the same passion as TNR but on the other hand Verdana is quite pleasant -it must be doing something right or it wouldn't be the default standard for 90% of existing websites.

BK - Perhaps you should consider spending more time focussing on the content of talks rather than getting your knickers in a knot about font selection. I don't think that professionalism (as valued by font choice) is required in an intradepartmental talk by pre-honours students or anyone else for that matter. If you do have such a preoccupation with professionalism then perhaps you should shun your habitual "shorts and boat shoes" and paltry attempts at presentability (http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/labrats/2007/04/rainy_day_in_soho_1.html). PS I would have added this comment in Comic Sans if I had the technological know-how.

Perhaps I shouldn't be replying to anonymous cowards, but as we're supposed to be training students then I think it is wholly appropriate to talk about font selection. The best work in the world is useless if people can't read your slides. I have more to say on this later.

And by the way, stupid email addresses do not obfuscate your IP.

Fair enough about Times New Roman - when you're having difficulty reading slides, it's a pain in the backside. But disdaining a talk because it's done in perfectly legible comic sans is going a bit far. Perhaps in some instances it should be avoided, but it depends entirely on the forum it's being presented in.

Anonymous? This whole blog is written by an anonymous person and thrives on having shots at individuals/student organisations etc. Perhaps you should have a bit more tolerance towards your peers and embrace the love :)

I am trying to get across that presentation is important. If you want a career in marketing, then sure, go for Comic Sans and Powerpoint templates. But don't expect to get taken seriously in scientific circles. (There's a major problem here, and you shouldn't feel bad that you don't get it. Presentation is not taught to undergraduates, and maybe it should be. I'll try to remember to make time to write a few notes about it tonight.)

This weblog is anonymous in the same way that 'Mark Twain' was anonymous. Plenty of people who read this weblog know who I am. I use a pseudonym for good reasons, mostly to do with the omnipotence of Google and the desire to protect those I write about.

The bias of your second paragraph I will leave to my actual peers to judge. And when they do something stupid I call them on it, too.

And again, stupid email addresses. There is an automated junk filter running, and it's full of addresses like the ones you're using. Please also check my comments policy.

Wow BlogBitchFight(TM). I work in marketing, and Comic Sans and a huge range of other script fonts and stuff are considered not nice if only for their naff-ness. Marketing is singles out as a potential source of naffness, but I have to defend us her and add that serious companies are way more sophisticated in their choices. 'Myriad', being one of my client's adopted fonts, is very nice. Serif fonts are also used with abandon (Thomas Pink uses an iconic one to great effect)

As publication and presentation experts, we avoid serif fonts for projection as the 'thins' disappear. More importantly, there are certain colour combinations that cause baaaad trapping on projection (worst and most common being scarlet on a dark blue background). We focus on that stuff before worrying about the typeface as doctors do get possessive about their slides and usually tolerate only minimal edits for style.

For web fonts, it depends on size. A site of mine at http://www.goytvalleyroundtable.org.uk looks fine in a serif font so long as you don't go too small - I protest that it is always a bad choice.

Finally, I agree that shorts in the workplace are for those special days when you simply cannot function due to heat and are actually downright bloody dangerous in a lab should you splash yourself with conc H2SO4 or catch fire. At least you have half a chance you get yer kegs off if you do something like that. Shorts were specifically banned in the labs I used to work in ... and if you wear a lab coat (which often times one should) it looks like you are wearing a dress.

My email address is a real one. I have no problem offending people so long as they don't offend me in return - the bastards.

Thanks for the comment Nige. My perception of marketeers is probably slightly skewed after that stint working for those muppets in Cambridge.

I have no problem wearing a dress — you know that! — but given that this is Sydney, then 'shorts days' are a tad more frequent than in Blighty. Plus we tend not to mess around that much with stuff that's going to do you serious injury in such a way. We're more into the subtle ways of killing ourselves.

Oh dear, my whole world has just tilted. Did you know that the MLA referencing style used widely in the Humanities, if not the Social Sciences, specifies the use of Times New Roman 10pt minimum?

You can see why I'm flustered. I wrote an entire Master's thesis using it. I have plans that way for the PhD too. And I regularly give out instructions to students to use Times New Roman.

At least it's quite unlikely that the students I teach will be turning up for your classes.

Still on your general point about the importance of clarity in presentations, and to that I would add the importance of following the conventions of the discipline you're in, then I concur. (Of course, where I'm from, we're against Powerpoint. We're of the belief that it's too often used to cover up a supreme lack of content: 'Don't think those animations fool anyone, young lady!')

Heh. TNR in printed material — in my humble opinion of course — is more or less OK. On screen and project, as Nigel points out, you lose the 'thins'.

But 10 pt? Wow.

I actually had something to add, an anecdote, on covering up a 'supreme lack of content' (and it was me doing the cover up) but I forgot to write it in. Some other time, perchance.

Helvetica is renowned, and heavily used in the corporate world because it scales. It's readable in small type, and in huge iterations. It's an ideal font to use for slides, because it's readable no matter the size of the screen or the distance from the projector.

In general, the rule of thumb is that serif fonts are faster to read in the range of text in a book, 10-12 points. San serif works better for both larger signs, and for fine print.

As an anectdote, Microsoft decided not to pay the licensing fee for Helvetica, and instead created their own knock-off, Arial. Yet, when it came time to create the Microsoft logo, what font did they use? That's right, Helvetica.

Thanks for the anecdote DC. I didn't know that.

Your points about serif for print and sans for display are well made. And yes, Helvetica is nice.