Garamond v Impact: How economical is your type?
January 31 2010 — JA
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.
Comments
How bold is that!
groans at David's comment
Also, is it just me or are both of them left-handed? Weird.
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.
Leave a Comment