Garamond v Impact: How economical is your type?
JA
January 31
This is a rather amusing little experiment carried out by Matt Robinson and Tom Wrigglesworth, both recent grads of Kingston University. In order to find out how economical the most commonly used typefaces were, they hand drew large-scale samples (literally) of each using separate ballpoint pens. The amount of ink needed by each font was reflected in the amount left in the pens. Garamond came out trumps, while Impact is clearly the font to avoid if you value your cartridges. Impressive use of stationery, with an e.
Our Friends
- Overland
- Alien Onion
- Ampersand Duck
- Andrew McDonald
- A Pair of Ragged Claws
- Arts Victoria
- Australia Council for the Arts
- Ben Eltham
- Bookshow blog
- CAL
- City of Tongues
- Crikey
- darkly wise, rudely great
- David Astle
- Elmo Keep Does Stuff
- The Ember
- Fly the Falcon blog
- Going Down Swinging
- Griffith Review
- Hackpacker
- Harvest
- HEAT
- Island
- Killings blog
- Literary Minded
- Lorraine Crescent
- Lynden Barber
- Mandy Ord
- Marcus Westbury
- Matilda
- Meanland
- Melbourne University Publishing
- Mel Campbell
- The Monthly
- Musings of an Inappropriate Woman
- Oslo Davis
- Paul Callaghan
- Read, Think, Write
- Sleepers Publishing
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- SPLOG
- Tom Cho
- Virgule
- Wet Ink
- Wheeler Centre
Comments
31 Jan 10 at 5:07
How bold is that!
...31 Jan 10 at 12:27
groans at David's comment
Also, is it just me or are both of them left-handed? Weird.
...31 Jan 10 at 14:45
Ah, so THAT'S why I've written down pretty well everything that's come out of my brain in Garamond. All along I just thought it was the most readable font, where in fact it's actually the most sustainable. Who'd have thunk it.
...