Like others have said, serif fonts are *generally* considered more readable. However, NSF's decision wasn't based solely on readability. It was based in large part on establishing equitable parameters. While NSF does have the goal of the proposals being easily readable by the reviewers, they also have a goal of establishing parameters that are equitable to all proposers. This created several situations: 1) They had to choose fonts that were available (and free) across multiple formats (PC, Mac, LaTex). 2) They had to choose fonts that were generally readable (if not the *most* readable, they had to have good readability). And 3) They had to choose fonts that were not easily manipulated. Times and Times New Roman are very easy to manipulate by changing the kerning, leading and other font characteristics so that a document that is *technically* in 10pt font is now holding as many characters as an 8-9 pt font; this not only decreases the readability, but also gives the manipulators an advantage over the ones that played strictly by the rules (they can fit more info into their 15 pages). My above analysis comes from discussions from multiple NSF policy office representatives. Hollie Schreiber Proposal Development Specialist College of Arts & Sciences 206 LSE Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-8458 (405) 744-3285 fax -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bienkowski Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:30 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NSF font issues There has been a lot of research on readability of fonts, and you can start tapping into it by doing a Google search. While the research supports the common wisdom that serifed fonts are generally easier to read, readability depends on the context and the medium. There was a very instructive article in last Sunday's NY Times magazine about readability of - I'm not kidding - readability of fonts on highway signs. ONE UNIVERSAL CONCLUSION FROM THE RESEARCH, HOWEVER, IS THAT USING ALL CAPITALS DECREASES READABILITY. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) bOB bIENKOWSKI -- Robert S Bienkowski, PhD xxxxxx@att.net -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Bill Campbell <xxxxxx@UWRF.EDU> > > When I first started in this business, I heard Lynn Miner say in a > proposal-writing workshop that 'reading research shows that 80% of > readers find serif fonts easier to read than sans-serif.' That matches > my own experience, so I've repeated it to countless proposal-writers. > But now I wonder, is this like the David Bauer reference discussed > earlier? > > In any case, as an ED reader, I appreciate serif fonts, especially when > time is tight, the light is dim, or it's the fifth proposal I've read > that day. In those situations, a proposal written in Arial--or worse, > Arial Narrow--annoys me. The last thing a proposal-writer wants is an > annoyed reader. > > Regards, Bill > > > > Bill Campbell > > Director, Grants & Research > > University of Wisconsin-River Falls > > 410 S. 3rd St. > > River Falls, WI 54022 > > 715/425-3195 > > FAX 715/425-0649 > > > > > > Ruth Tallman wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > If this has come up before, please forgive me. I'm working on a > > proposal to NSF and the PI has just told me: > > > > "Almost all technical manuscripts are written in either Times or Times > > Roman. These are serif fonts and are the default fonts also used in > > virtually all mathematical equation software. To convert equations to > > a sans serif font, like Arial or Helvetica, is insane and won't look > > very good. How are Greek letters supposed to be done, i.e., is Symbol > > font one of the permitted fonts?" > > > > Has anyone submitted a proposal in which the mathematical equations > > are in Times Roman? Do you have any tips for PI's with lots of > > formula's in their proposal? > > > > Your feedback will be appreciated! > > > > Ruth Tallman > > -- > > > > > > /Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments to > > this message may contain confidential information. It is > > intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity > > named above who have been specifically authorized to receive > > it. Any further distribution of this message and any > > attachments to this message should be strictly on a > > need-to-know basis. You should consider the confidential > > nature of the information before disseminating, distributing > > or copying this material. Thank you./ > > > > ====================================================================== > > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including > > subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available > > via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") > > ====================================================================== > > > > > ====================================================================== > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including > subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available > via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") > ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
