Teen to government: Change your typeface, save millions

[namey]

An e. You can write it with one fluid swoop of a pen or one tap of the keyboard. The most commonly used letter in the English dictionary. Simple, right?
Now imagine it printed out millions of times on thousands of forms and documents. Then think of how much ink would be needed.

OK, so that may have been a first for you, but it came naturally to 14-

Comments

[belleweather]

I work for the government and would love to see this. But... in our organization, the 'head office' sets the standards as far as type-face and margins and whatnot and they're slavishly adhered to by the rest of the organization, like some sort of deeply powerful religious ritual. Every time we change administrations, they change the font/margin/size rules AGAIN, and we slavishly adhere to the different ones. So basically, he'd have to either get someone higher than our head of office -- like, say, the President -- to impose font guidelines (and then watch the wingnuts go crazy about how it's an inappropriate exercise of executive power) OR psychically divine who the next, say, five heads of office are going to be and start sweet-talking them from the cradle.

It's issues like this that make me so miss the private sector.

[fluteaphrael]

Yep. Heck even making the margins wider would save paper. But no the one inch margin thing is so standard everywhere. You're right about the need for a very high up authority to set the standard, because every low level bureaucrat who wants to make a name will change up things when they get in power. Just to be seen as doing something DIFFERENT.

[layweed]

No mention of Helvetica/Arial font?

ETA: Also seriously COMIC SANS? WTF WHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY USES COMIC SANS lol

[squeeful]

One that wants its font to be non-dyslexia-triggering?

[suwiel]

Wait, what? There are fonts that "trigger" dyslexia?

[squeeful]

Yes? There are fonts that are more likely for dyslexics to letter-switch than others and there are fonts that are less likely for dyslexics to letter-switch than others. Comics Sans is a dyslexia-approved font.

[grace_om]

Except that you also have to consider readability -- especially for people who are not teens, and whose jobs require reading stacks of paper daily.

Open up a document and type a line in Garamond, then retype it in Times, and again in Arial. Which one would you want to stare at all day? Especially after it's been scanned into a pdf?

I work for a state agency, and the powers that be decided we should switch from Times to Arial. Many people pointed out that Arial uses the most ink of any of the common fonts (as none of this is new info, it's well known), but the decision stood. I was fine with Times, and use it for personal work. However, Arial *is* easier on the eyes. I value what's left of my sight far too much to support a switch to Garamond.

[roseofjuly]

This. I hate Garamond. It's difficult to read, especially at smaller typefaces.

I prefer Times New Roman or Georgia, but Arial/Helvetica's okay. My vision starts to swim after staring at sans-serif typefaces for too long.

[grace_om]

Garamond is grey! No contrast at all :-(

I save the good taxpayers money by working paperless as far as possible. I don't print anything unless I have to send it on with an original signature.

But hey, bashing public workers is way more fun, right CNN?

[oceandezignz]

Yay! Someone else who liks Georgia! I thought I was alone. ._.

[un_fantasma]

Ehhhh, what could save people in ink could also screw over people with dyslexia or with poor eyesight. Certain fonts are easier on the eyes and supposedly easier to read (I'm not dyslexic but apparently a lot of sans serif fonts are easier on the eyes). Garamond is really hard to read for those who DON'T have dyslexia. What of those who do? Ink is costly, but is saving money worth the cost it will be to those who may already have a difficult time reading government documents? I mean, as I read the article, I thought of how grainy a lot of government forms are, at least those that I've filled out. Please take a second to imagine how hard it would be to read Garamond font on an already-grainy copy.

[ljtaylor]

I've read a lot of books that use single 'apostrophes' in place of regular "speech marks". I never understood why as a child, until my high school English teacher explained that it was to save on ink. MIND. BLOWN.

Also rather than simply judging a book by its cover I also choose a book by its font. I don't know if I am alone in this, but I find some fonts waaaaay more pleasurable to read than others. Traditional Arabic and Californian FB are my favourites! (The first UK editions of Harry Potter were printed in the latter. Not seen it in many other books).

[sentinelsoul]

Ah, that makes sense! I've noticed it often with books originating in the UK (that is, not reprinted US editions) and I thought it was simply a US vs. UK preference. (Which it is, I'm aware, I just didn't realize it's also used for saving ink.)

With ebooks and such I tend to prefer sans-serif, but I can tolerate Times New Roman well enough. It's the opposite with physical books, I much prefer serif fonts. In that case it's not a matter of readability for me, I just have this thought that books should have serif fonts, as it's "classical" or some such. It's a silly reason, I know, and I don't begrudge sans-serif typefaces in books as I know there's often readability reasons for them.