Thinking about this thread, a question popped into my head.

I can see how "font" could mean both a basin holding water, and more generally a source ("a font of knowlegde.") But how is it that it also has the meaning of "a type font"? Are the meanings related?

Yes, I could look it up, but what fun would that be?

Interestingly, they are not related. According to Dictionary.com the "basin" meaning comes ultimately from fons, fontis, the Latin for fountain.

The "typeface" meaning comes originally from the Latin fundere meaning to pour forth. Remember, of course, that before the recent advent of computerised typesetting, type was produced by casting hot lead.

Examples of typeface are Times Roman and Arial. Examples of fonts are 10 pt Times Roman and 12 point Times Roman. You could say that a typeface is a family of fonts of various sizes and styles (italic, bold, etc). These days, the word font is shifting meaning so that it has the same meaning as typeface.

Last spring Richard came to Chicago to facilitate a focus group my company was holding. My assistant and I were surprised to find so many fonts that we had never heard of. Richard did a draft of a report, and then we worked on it, finding some really strange fonts. Even my assistant, a computer wizard, hadn't heard of them, and she thought it a cultural difference.

Yet, Sigg talks of Times Roman and Arial, both very common fonts here. I suspect there isn't a cultural difference with fonts. What do you think? What are your favorite fonts? I like Times Roman, but I don't like Arial. I like Poster for signs and the like.

Times New Roman is probably the most economical font there is, being highly legible in even the smallest sizes. Its display size is far less than its font size would imply and I always use it for documents where space is an issue. Its sole disadvantage is its bold italic which is a bit muddy.

Arial is a sans serif font and like all such needs a larger display size to be as legible as a serif font like TNR.

It seems to me that the modern tendency is to move towards sans serif fonts, especially in electronic media. I prefer, though, to stick to serifs in anything on paper.

Research has indicated that for second language speakers Comic Sans is the easiest font to read.
Me experience with my classes seems to bear this out.

I'm so glad to hear that Comic Sans is easier to read - it's my favorite! I like it's smooth lines and easy curves . . . and yes, it's easy on the eyes.

I have used comic sans for some of my training manuals and I agree, it is a "friendly" font. However its display size is relatively large with ten point comic sans being approximately equal in size to 8 point TNR.

If both fonts are used in similar display sizes I still think the TNR is easier to read - although I accept it is a more formal and scholarly-looking font.

It's said that this actually appeared in the classified ads of a newspaper, many years ago.

Evangelical vicar, in want of a portable, second-hand font, would dispose, for the same, of a portrait, in frame, of the Bishop-elect of Vermont.

If the significance isn't apparent to you, paint over the following:
[start-white]An unconscious limerick, that can be read thus

Evangelical vicar, in want
Of a portable, second-hand font,
Would dispose, for the same,
Of a portrait, in frame,
Of the Bishop-elect of Vermont.[end-white]

I had heard that this was to get around a newspaper's strict embargo on what it deemed to be frivolous advertisement - which obviously included those written in this form.