I’ve always been a bit particular about how my documents looked, but I felt a bit like a nerd with OCD. It seemed that other lawyers just didn’t care, or didn’t care as much. It’s nice to know there are other lawyers who care about the aesthetic of their work product. After reading MB’s Typography for Lawyers, I fear I may be entering a new level of OCD, but that’s fine. It’s amazing how his tips really improve the look of my documents. Things like using only one space after all punctuation and using “Space After” to separate paragraphs rather than a hard return. It saves space, too. And what is it about Equity that makes it look so much better than TNR?
1 Like
There are many differences between Equity and TNR, but the one I like more is that Equity color is darker.
Same here with a new level of OCD; thanks a bunch MB! 
Seriously though. Not only Typography for Lawyers, but also MB’s Practical Typography are insightful sources of information. I refer to each regularly.
TNR, simply put, just looks old to me. While it continues to offer an appearance of professionalism, it also looks outdated and, in some aspects, fragile; ready to crumble apart. And after a while of reading it the font begins to take on a monotone appearance, causing the eye to strain more.
With TNR in mind, Equity on the other hand appears vibrant, fresh, and stout. Yet provides a smooth, respect-demanding, and, in a sense, luring visual aesthetic. Equity’s unique nuances ever so slightly draw attention to them while reading. But unlike TNR, those nuances seem to assist the eyes recognize the words, making it a smooth read regardless of time spent.
Here’s a thought… If all you have to work with on your court-filed documents are the Windows system and Cloud fonts, what are your top three font recommendations for body text and headings combinations?
I agree with your assessment of Equity. I like the “heft” of it. Equity stands out more.
“Here’s a thought… If all you have to work with on your court-filed documents are the Windows system and Cloud fonts, what are your top three font recommendations for body text and headings combinations?”
I didn’t know if you wanted me to answer or you were waiting for MB, but as a lawyer I’m arrogant enough to think that my opinion means something. After getting OCD from MB’s Typography book and doing some “experimenting,” I find that wider fonts are easier to read. I suppose I should make a bit of a disclosure. I am of that certain age where I need reading glasses. Yes, getting older sucks. I don’t know if this preference is related to my age-related change in vision or if it was always there and I just didn’t notice it because I always used TNR. I’ve also noticed that at smaller point sizes, a sans serif font is easier to read - the serifs at smaller point sizes make the font “busy” and detracts from the ease of reading.
When I played around with the various fonts, both system and the ones I purchased from MB, I noticed that fonts differed in height (how much space they took up top to bottom) and width (how much space they took up across the page). I also noticed a “third dimension” - weight. This refers to the thickness of each letter. This is why Equity is better that TNR despite having the same height and width - it has more weight and stands out more on the page.
The problem with system fonts is that it depends which system you are using. I have a MacBook but use a Windows-based machine at work. I’ll try to limit my recommendations based on fonts available in Windows. Here goes:
Serif Fonts:
Sitka - The Sitka Text version is taller and wider than TNR so it takes up more space. But it is very easy to read. Sitka Banner is smaller and narrow than TNR, but it seems easier to read, probably because the serifs aren’t too busy. It almost looks like a hybrid sans serif/serif similar to Heliotrope. MB placed Sitka on his “A” list of system fonts, which he considers fonts that are “generally tolerable.”
Cambria - I know. This is a font that MB said to avoid. However, it’s a bit wider than TNR which makes it easier to read. I like it better than TNR.
Sans serif font: I only have one and that’s Aptos. Recommending Aptos may get may banned from the forum. Aptos replaced Calibri as the default font for all applications. And some of the reviews of the font reflected vehement hatred. However, when I did my font comparisons, I noticed that Aptos is nearly identical to Seravek, which made MB’s “A” list. I found Seravek on my MacBook but not my Windows machine, so I’m going with Aptos. Note that Aptos is free and I was able to download it on my MacBook. Aptos was desgined to be very readable and I agree - I find it easy to read. It’s way better than Arial. At the same point size it is shorter and narrower than Arial, but increase the size 1 point above Arial (gor from 10 to 11, for example) and it becomes a bit wider than Arial. This increases readability but doesn’t take up much space. I like it and use it for documents such as deeds where I want to fit everything on one page if possible while maintaining readability. It has a clean, modern look.
Honorable mentions: These are fonts that I have on my Mac but not my PC, so they may not be always be available for PC users.
Charter - a great replacement for TNR. It’s wider and taller, which means it will take up more space at the same size, but very readable.
Optima - This one made MB’s “A” list but I only found it on my Mac. It almost looks like a hybrid sans serif/serif font, which makes it very readable. I really like hybrid fonts and think that they may be the future of typography. But what do I know?
Not so honorable mention - Garamond: This one made MB’s “A” list and many reviewers recommend it as an elegant font. I don’t like it. Same width as TNR but it seems shorter. What makes it a no go for me is its lack of weight. It’s too light and wispy. While Equity announces its presence with authority and says “Read me,”, Garamond sort of sits in the back and says, “Go ahead and read, but only if you want to, no pressure.”
My thoughts on Arial - hint, I agree with MB. I mentioned that I find wider fonts easier to read. I think there may be a physiological basis for this. As a short, stocky guy, I was told to wear shirts with vertical stripes because they create the illusion of height and leanness (assuming the stripes aren’t too fat). I think that’s because vertical stripes cause the eyes to focus on moving up and down, while horizontal stripes cause the eyes to focus on moving across. Applying this to fonts, a wider but somewhat short font would cause the eyes to focus on moving across the page, which is how most people read. This may be why Aptos seems so easy to read - it’s somewhat short but wide. Arial is the opposite. In my font experiment, I noticed that Arial is somewhat tall, but narrow. It has decent weight, which grabs your attention, but that actually makes things worse. The weight says “Read me, it’s important,” but once you’re sucked in, Arial forces your eyes to focus up and down the page rather than across. This combination makes it clunky, just like MB described. So yes, avoid Arial.