Why wouldn't one use Futura as body text?

[junglist]

This is not specifically a Quark question, but it certainly applies to typography and setting text.

Is there any reason you wouldn't set a document using Futra as body text?

It just doesn't seem like too many documents get set in Futura.

Is it a typographical faux pas, or is it just
that there are more readable typfaces for setting body text?

 

[MarcusStringer]

Usally Books a produced in a serif font I find that it is easier to read. if you have it in a serif font (times new roman for example) and any tables etc in a sans serif font (helvetica) they stand out more, and don't get lost in the page.

Marcus

http://www.midlandtypesetters.com.au

 

[junglist]

The project I am working on is more like a mini booklet/zine. Each of the articles are only a few hundred words.

Stylistically, a serif typeface would probably not match the content of the articles.

 

[duncdude]

I think it's rubbish - i think Futura would be a good face for a small document - don't listen to them!


Kind Regards
Duncan

 

[signal49]

I agree with duncdude... I LOVE Futura!!

 

[rickwells]

Futura is one of the most versatile fonts around - it's been a favourite of mine for a long time. Body text - no problem. Who put it into your head that it's a no go for body text ????!!!!!

 

[junglist]

Thanks for your feedback guys.

"Body text - no problem. Who put it into your head that it's a no go for body text ????!!!!!"

Just that it never seems to be used for setting body copy.

I'm sure that it wouldn't very be good for particularly long passages or documents, as a serif or even a humanist sans serif would be more readable for that context.

I guess just the geometrical appearance of futura means that people seem to veer away from using it for large documents????

I was just curious to know if any typographical gurus out there know if any theoretical substantiation for not using Futura as body text.

Any typography gurus out there?

 

[rickwells]

Have alook here

http://www.fontsite.com/Pages/RulesOfType/ROT1-08.html

 

[tad1952]

Just thought I'd give you my 2 bits.

I was trained by a fabulous typographer & he would agree that an entire book would be difficult to read if typeset completely in a san serif font. But he would also be the first to say that if, as you say, "Each of the articles is only a few hundred words" and a sans serif font such as Futura would make your piece look interesting yet easy to read, then go for it.

The site you referred us to also says - "If you are using sans serif typefaces for body text, leading needs to be increased even more, sometimes to as much as 135–140% of point size. For example, a 10-point sans serif font would probably look best with line spacing set somewhere between 13 and 14 points." So, your job is to take a sans serif font and make it work within the parameters of your design.

The primary purpose of producing any printed piece is to entice your audience to read it & to retain the information you are presenting. Sacrificing readability for prettiness defeats the whole point of a well-designed project.

If you are uncertain, I suggest setting up style sheets & building one section. Make a copy & change the style sheet to a serif font you think might work. Print out both & give them to someone else to read if you want a second opinion. Who knows, futura might be exactly the font required to get the job done.

 

[junglist]

Thanks for your tips guys - that link is a keeper!

I vaguely recall reading about inreasing the leading for sans serif typefaces somewhere else. I will try setting and printing a page with "auto" leading vs. a page with 135-40% leading, so as to compare.

Would the general rule then be, for sans serif typefaces, the more geometic the face, the more leading?
Or is that just getting a bit too fussy?

 

[MarcusStringer]

Thanks "tad1952"

That's what I was getting at. (but you explained it better).

Marcus

http://www.midlandtypesetters.com.au