Saw this article here today, here's an excerpt:
Texts in easy-to-read typefaces make it harder to recall information than if it is presented in less legible formats, research suggests
A study by Princeton University found that a significant number of those tested could recall more information when it was presented in unusual typefaces rarely used in textbooks.
The research suggests that introducing 'disfluency' - by making information superficially harder to understand - deepens the process of learning and encourages better retention.
The psychologists said information which has to be actively generated rather than 'passively acquired' from simple text is remembered longer and more accurately.
The study raises questions over how much fonts like Times New Roman and Arial, which are used in the majority of academic books, help readers revise for tests.
He said the study showed the whole history of typography was had missed the point when it comes to learning.
Mr Lehrer said: 'It has been a movement towards easy to read fonts. We assume that anything which makes it easier to see the content is a good thing.
Jonah Lehrer's take on it is here
The study, Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency
on educational outcomes can be read here.
Thoughts anyone? Did Emigre have exactly the right idea then after all, and are the rest of us really missing the point?
Perhaps there are holes and flaws in this study. One group's retention rate was tested with material set in Monotype Corsiva, Comic Sans Italicized and Haettenshweiler whilst the group being compared against in the study were reading material set mostly in Helvetica and Arial (legible?), could it just mean reading material in profusely overused typefaces bores the reader easier and allows for laziness.