Best Book Sans?

[Ryan Maelhorn]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

I really havent delved into book fonts too much yet. My opinion right now is just use Garamond, lol. It's hard for me to imagine any sans looking right in body copy, except maybe Helvetica.

I'm sure this question has been asked before here, but it'd be nice to get as many current opinions as possible.

[snow is nigh]

First of all: “lol”?

Helvetica for body copy? Helvetica is structured in a very monotonous way, making it hard to distinguish the individual characters and character-groups that make up words. Helvetica for body text is an absolute mis-use of it. Pick a humanistic sans if you need to go with a sans. Garamond has an absolutely different flavor than Helvetica, which tells me you do not know what tone the text should communicate. So for which tone do you want to go, what is the environment of the text?

[Ryan Maelhorn]

Yes I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to body text. I said LOL because I was laughing at my own super limited view of it.
Isn't Helvetica technically the default sans for the web?
I suppose I would just be looking for something very readable, very clean, doesn't make itself stand out. The context would be actual body text in a book or longer pamphlet.

[Florian Hardwig]

Here’s a list of sans-serifs that can be used for longer texts:
http://www.typophile.com/node/39592#comment-258784

[J. Tillman]

Ryan Maelhorn, you will get more suggestions with a little more information about your publication. Is it a fashion pamphlet for young women? medical information for older people? technical sales brochure for an affluent audience? a romance novel?

Or are you just looking for an all-purpose sans serif more-or-less suitable for all projects. That's tough to recommend.

[hrant]

Ryan, first of all: you're new here, and it's clear you're not shy
about going out on a limb, exposing your typographic limits.
Bravo - it's the best way to learn. Due to human nature, most
people will usually only reply when you say something they
don't agree with; if you cajole people they probably won't teach
you anything. As I once stated: "Blind speculation is the key to
efficient data mining." :-) But you need titanium skin to go along.

Just wanted to start off by saying that.

--

Yes, Helvetica is LOL for text. In fact for me the only way it
ever works is very light and very large. And no, it's not the
default sans for the web, because Windows (you know, 95%
of systems out there) doesn't even have it. Arial fills in for
Helvetica, and it's close (it's less un-texty) but anyway on-
screen things change so much compared to print that it's a
moot point.

All things being equal, assuming there's no stylistic clash the
one sans that I believe in (in terms of textiness) is Legato. See
my mini-review - the last one here:
http://typographica.org/on-typography/our-favorite-typefaces-of-2004/

But yes, the context of content will guide better than anything else.

hhp

[charles_e]

Best way -- at least, to see what's current -- would be to go to a book store & browse. If you want to see books with a sans as body type, stay with art and travel books, at least in the States.

Yes, I'm saying we don't use sans serif for text much in the U.S. I believe Europe is a different story. But unless you're aiming at a European audience, or the author is willing to put up with diminished sales so that you can show 'em, by God, you would most likely be better off with a serif typeface.

Having said that, we've used TheSans successfully in art books, usually semi-light, or regular if the setting size is small. Also Scala sans and Quadraat sans.

We do set one (sort of) academic journal in Helvetica, boundary 2. A number of people have tried to get them to change the typeface for the journal over the years; they won't. I guess if I worked it over some more I could make it a little more attractive. That's on my list, down near the bottom.

* * *

BTW, how does your Garamond work out for war stories? I was appalled to see The Pacific set in Adobe Jenson. World War II as bought to you by the Italian Renaissance. Maybe one style doesn't fit all?

[Ryan Maelhorn]

I'm really really really liking Yellow by Jürgen Weltin.

http://www.typematters.de/tmt_Y1.html

Pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. Alas, it is a commissioned font and does not seem to be publicly available.

[rs_donsata]

Kievit and Caspari and work very good for long copy, even for a book, they are somehow close to garamond in proportions, structure and maybe even color. Quadraat Sans has a better color and better modulation. These three faces also have good italics.

The thing with sans serifs is that most designers are used to set them a bit tight by means of negative tracking and in the case of body copy you need them to set them normally and with more leading that if you were setting a serif face because the visual cohesion of the line is weaker due to the lack of serifs.

Also light sans faces are no good for long body copy and disastrous in books, you need the lines to have good color.

[quadibloc]

Although I think that Helvetica Medium is a wonderful typeface for signage, Univers, the looks of which I'm not particularly fond, is clearly better for body copy use than Helvetica.

But, really, one should not use a sans-serif for text. If you don't like serifs, use Optima. If you don't like varying stroke width, use a face like Memphis or Stymie.

[rs_donsata]

Yes, I had a book set in Univers, I lost it and the new copy was set in Helvetica. I really liked it better set in Univers.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

Sans Serif is the way. Sans Serif is the light!

[hrant]

I love Yellow (partly because it has a blackletter vibe).

hhp

[rs_donsata]

But aren't Yellow's letters a little too individualistic? They seem more fit for signage (short outstanding settings) than for paragraphs.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

The creator of Yellow has been gracious enough to email me, and he assures me I don't want to use Yellow for running texts. Never thought I'd see the day. What a world!

[hrant]

Jürgen is a good guy.

hhp

[oldnick]

It probably goes without saying—not that such a qualification will prevent me from going on—that when you design a book, you usually design it for an audience, rather than for yourself—unless, of course, the book is your personal diary.

Older readers, like myself, tend to prefer serif faces for body copy; I can't really speak for the young whippersnappers, but I hear tell that they're cool with sans faces. You could always split the difference, and look for a nice semi-serif.

[rs_donsata]

Once I read a 380 pages book set in futura, It wasn´t the most comfortable read of my life but it didn't hurt either. I helped that futura has humanist proportions.

[brianskywalker]

I can read entire books set in bold.

[rs_donsata]

Who set a book in bold?

[hrant]

You know the guy who used ITC Garamond? His brother.

hhp

[Nick Shinn]

Who set a book in bold?

Paul Rand.

Notably, the regular weight of Gill Sans, long considered the most readable sans, on account of its humanist qualities, is more like a medium.

[hrant]

These days we call that a Demi.
Which to me is an awesome weight for text.

hhp

[rs_donsata]

That bratty old man!

[brianskywalker]

See also Type Now by Fred Smeijers. I don't have it, but it was surprisingly comfortable to read. Also note the unusual way lists are set.