Count Taka – question on font size

At the moment, Count Taka is four-hundred-odd pages at twelve-point Times New Roman font, which may be a little bit large.

In the interests of simplicity, I tend to use Times New Roman. 1) It’s a readily-available and recognizable font. 2) I like reading it. 3) It’s recognized by every e-reader out there, so I don’t have to reformat things for the Kindle version as much.

There is, however, one slight difficulty with TNR. When I look at it in 10-point or 12-point, it’s fine; but for some reason, to me, 11-point looks “off.” So… if I want something smaller than 12-point, I jump to 10-point. Which works just fine for me when I’m printing out rough drafts to read, but how does it work for other people?

At the moment I have Count Taka in 12-point, which may be a somewhat large print for a book, but I’ve thought it was better to have print too large than too small.

Does anyone else have thoughts or feedback?

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Count Taka – question on font size

  1. Opinions of someone who loves typology, so take it with a grain of salt…

    If you’re using Times New Roman, stick to 12 point font. For people who don’t have problems focusing on type, 10 points is doable, but for people who need reading glasses and the like, that’s starting to push it. Definitely don’t go smaller then 10 points.

    If you were using a font that had thicker serifs, then I’d say go ahead and make it smaller, but Times New Roman has really thin serifs and the smaller the point size, the harder it is to notice the serifs and that is needed for (quick) readability.

    Personally, I really don’t like reading large paragraphs of Times New Roman; it’s an extreme font with a lot of contrast in it. When I’m using an e-reader, I usually go for the font with the least amount of contrast in it that’s a serif font. If you take a look at printed books, the fonts that get used the most are fonts like Garamond and Caslon which take up a lot more space then Times New Roman does, but are a lot easier on the eyes. Generally speaking, it puts less strain on the eyes to read 400+ pages of larger, easier to see type then fewer pages with more type on them. And in the case of e-readers, the length really depends on how the reader has customized the type options.

    Like

    1. *Nod* Thanks for the advice. I checked out both – Caslon’s not available in Word, and apparently the version of Garamond Word has is known for its lack of readability compared to most Garamond fonts – it comes off worse than TNR, in fact. Ow.

      Like

  2. Yeah, please don’t go down to 10 pt. I find it unreadable(and even 12 pt at times can be pushing it), though admittedly my vision is fairly bad. I’m not a big one on fonts, as long as it’s not obviously unreadable I usually don’t notice.

    Like

  3. I agree with your first responder. I tend to enlarge the font when I read my kindle. But a default size I think should be 12. Just my opinion take it with massive grains of salt 🙂

    Like

  4. Speaking as someone who ordered a PoD physical copy of A Net of Dawn and Bones I think I initially felt like the type was slightly larger than I was used to, but was absolutely fine. It looks like there’s a pretty solid consensus so far, so the one consideration for the smaller type is if it would decrease the page number, and therefore possibly save on printing costs? But I’m not someone who really knows much about that end of things.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s