What font do you use for your specs?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 351 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 01:42 pm:    I read somewhere that a serif font such as Times Roman is easier to read than a sans serif font such as Arial. This is why most books are written in serif fonts. Can anybody confirm that serif fonts have less eye fatigue than sans serif fonts? BTW our specs are written in (sans serif) Lucida Sans Unicode 10 point. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 92 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 01:53 pm:    It is well known that sans-serif fonts are much slower to read. Everyone knows the saying "The serif will arrest you". Oooh David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 352 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 01:57 pm:    Dave, I believe you, but can you prove it? I would like to present a case for changing spec fonts. BTW WHAT IS REALLY HARD TO READ IS ALL CAPITAL LETTERS THAT ARE PRINTED ON DRAWINGS. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 147 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:05 pm:    Well, I shot the serif and we use Arial 10 pt for the body of the text and 11 for headings, 12 for titles. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:07 pm:    Dave: Why should speed be an issue? We are writing instructions not a novel. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:19 pm:    Check this article about fonts. http://www.fact-index.com/t/ty/typeface.html William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 308 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:28 pm:    David and Dave, No, its the serif won't arrest you -grin! Serif fonts are 'sometimes' easier to read. There are some serifs that are really exotic, or for large visual displays that are actually harder to read. Times is not particularly easy to read unless the ledding between lines is increased. It was created for narrow columns and when you go to the font/typography specialists, it is recommended that Times never be on a line over 40 characters in length. As a note, the font called New Century Schoolbook (sometimes Century Schoolbook or just Schoolbook) was created specifically for text books. That is the font that I use in my specs. Alan's reference is a good starting point on fonts. William Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:37 pm:    Here is another one from Ireland. This actually has a few good tips there. http://www.nala.ie/download/pdf/writing_design_tips.pdf I did a google search using these words and came up with 12,000 entries. I am sure it can be narrowed down further. easier to read font sans serif print Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 32 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:39 pm:    David: I think your last reply (RE: CAPS) makes the point I was about to suggest, and that is it's a matter of familiarity. People learn to read by recognizing words they see in print. Most newspapers and books are printed in serif fonts. Therefore, recognition of serif fonts is quicker for most people because that is what they see most often. I think serif fonts are little denser than sans serif. You get more words on a page. That may have something to do with print media leaning that way. However, the media does make a difference. Road signs are designed to be read quickly, nearly always in sans serif. Once again, recognition in that media is best in the form that people are most familiar with. Could you imagine a highway sign in serif text? The electronic world makes extensive use of sans serif fonts, such as Arial and Lucida. As people spend more time at the computer screen, they will gain comfort with those font styles and that could eventually overtake their preference for serif fonts. As for our office, our marketing materials use Ottawa, but for all our correspondence and specs we use Times New Roman. It seems to me, since you spend more time with your specs than anyone else, you should use what is comfortable for you. Print out a page of the same text in several fonts and sizes and see which looks "right" to you. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 354 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:44 pm:    Anon, Who said anything about speed? I am talking about fatigue. I recently had LASIK eye surgery and my eyes get very tired reading all day. BTW, speed is a good thing. The quicker a contractor or architect can find information the quicker they can get on to the task at hand. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:46 pm:    David refers to the all capital letter notes on drawings ... I agree. I assume this is just a carryover from the olden days when all handwriting on the drawings was in upper case. After all, isn't that the way we all learned to print, architecturally speaking? With the prevalence of the use of computers now in putting together drawings, is there any reason to be using upper and lower case letters in the notes? I know that I would have a tough time getting those in the office to turn off their caps lock, but I've at times used lower case in the notes ... for "and", for "w/", for "dia", "x" (as in 2x4 rather than 2X4), etc. ... to have the more important terms or numbers stand out better. I just feel it looks a little bit better on the sheet to do some minor sprinkling of lower case fonts. BTW, we use Arial 10 pt for the body and headings, with bold fonts for the header/footer, the 3 parts headings, and for article headings. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 44 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:48 pm:    Richard: I like your road sign metaphor. What we want is to get people to read the specification more, so maybe we should take the advertising method and put sexy pictures or beer ads on the cover to get the contractors to, at least, open the project manual. Take a look at all those ads on the highway billboards. ;) Said with a sense of humor. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:55 pm:    I have another poll(?) to ask. Has anybody ever experimented with double columns? I have seen a set of specs done this way and found them easier to read. I did a test myself with a section and asked a few architects what they thought and they found it easier to read. I never went any further, but would like to hear any other opinions. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 35 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 03:14 pm:    I too have experimented with double-column specs. I had hoped it would get more information on a page without a loss of legibility, by reclaiming some of the blank spaces found to the right of each heading, short sentence, and list entry. However, I found this space savings was almost equally offset by the loss of the center gutter space. At that point, it didn't seem worth the extra effort to configure the dual columns. I have also experimented with various fonts, including Times New Roman, Arial, and Century Schoolbook. I am now using Zapf Humanist, a sans-serif font which I find to be extremely legible and space-efficient at 11 point. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 83 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 03:21 pm:    I experimented with a few formats several years ago, using various margins, line lengths, and fonts. The only one that generated unsolicited response was using two columns; several contractors and suppliers said they found it easier to use. In 1998 I did some research on fonts and other page format characteristics, and submitted a summary report to CSI's Technical Committee. It's on line at www.northstarcsi.com/PageFormat.pdf Shelby N. Gordonswyth Senior Member Username: shelbyng Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 03:24 pm:    I have wanted to use a two-column format for some time, but never have; it would increase legibility and reading speed a lot more than a serif font, and that would be worth it, regardless of whether it saved space or not. 11 point Times was my first spec client's standard, and it became my default--not 12 point (too big), not 10 (too small). Just right. Arial and Helvetica are substantially bulkier, size for size. For beauty, my favorite is the well-named Optima, the perfect font, clean and timeless, but not traditional. Its thick and thin strokes give it the grace of a Roman, but without the serifs. (AIA documents used to be set in Optima, but aren't, I regret, any more.) Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 84 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 03:29 pm:    The success of a two-column format depends to a great extent on the wrting style. If a terse, bulletin point style is used, two columns will put more information on a page, as the lines are generally short. If a more narrative style is used, with long sentences and paragraphs, little is gained. A few changes in indents also helps. Rather than indent paragraphs from articles, setting both at the left margin works wonders. The difference in addressing (1.01 vs. A), plus use of bold for article titles, eliminates any possible confusion over subordination of content. Reducing indents from the default 0.5 inch also picks up space at no loss in readability. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 148 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 03:36 pm:    One thing to remember when choosing fonts is that not everyone will have the same computer fonts and if you are sharing files, it may create a problem. (those little rectangles are the devil to decipher). Make sure that the font you choose is one that is universal (no pun intended). Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 57 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 04:05 pm:    I've never considered going to a two-column format for the following reason: It's hard enough getting consultants to follow even the most basic formating requirements, such as: -left, right, top, and bottom margins -font size -footers John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 264 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 04:11 pm:    We use Times New Roman 10 point for our specs. I'm just not too fond of Arial. Optima is a very nice font, and used it for a while at a firm that used it for everything. We also use non-justified paragraphs since justification can create some odd spacing with long names or items with non-breaking spaces. Two columns works better, in my opinion, only with much smaller fonts where the line length becomes excessive. As a Masterspec user, I have written a macro--which resides with some others on a special "Spec tools" spot on my menu bar--which nearly instantly re-formats Masterspec to my preferred style. It is easier to use, and more powerful than what's provided in MasterWorks. Vivian Volz Intermediate Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 04:49 pm:    We use Times New Roman at Gensler, too. Interestingly enough, my kid has some flashcards for early reading exposure. The words are about an inch tall, red, and in a serif font that might be New Century Schoolbook. Apparently the authors of the kit also believe serifs increase quick word recognition. And no matter how easy it might be to read double-column specs on the page, I can't imagine editing them on the screen. What a pain! John, do you edit the specs in a single column and convert them when you're done if you want double columns? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 33 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:38 pm:    Over 15 years ago, I developed a double-columned spec section for use on smaller projects where an abbreviated spec format was appropriate. It was and still is favorably received. I would use this style a lot more if my projects were smaller or of limited scope - which they aren’t. My pages are formatted for single side printing using a 1" left margin, 1/2" right margin, and either a 0.1" or 0.2" space between columns. The font is a 10-point Arial. I further condense the text by eliminating all article, paragraph, and subparagraph numbering and lettering but retaining the 3-part format (but not identified). The article or paragraph key words are underscored and with small bullets indicating subparagraphs. I also use the line numbering feature outside the left margin. With further judice editing of the text, sections can be as short as one or two pages. I have used this format on projects up to $1M, but it was the exception. It works well for residential, interior commercial-retail retrofits, pre-engineered buildings, and similar projects. I write for the ease of the end-user who generally does not speed read nor reads a lot. In fact, I would be greatly honored if the spec was folded up and carried around in the contractor’s hip pocket. The above format works well with either single- or double-columns. The conversion from a single-column to a double-column is only two clicks [using WordPerfect] so choose your methodology. Ron John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 183 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:00 pm:    There are many enhancements to the page format for specifications that can and maybe should be done. However, remember that it is not only the (architectural) specifications writer who produces specifications. Traditionally, there are specification sections produced by mechanical and electrical engineers and by specialty design consultants such as the food service equipment designer, medical equipment designer, low-voltage systems ("Division 17") designer and roofing and waterproofing consultants. Some of these consultants have only rudimentary word processsing capabilities. If the (architectural) specifications writer reformats specifications produced by others, then perhaps the exotic format and typeface (font) can be used. In my experience, however, it is preferable to use a "plain vanilla" format and typeface to avoid spending considerable time trying to get consultant specs to blend in. I use Arial 10pt for specifications because it is a universal font for contemporary word processing programs. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 45 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:13 pm:    When deciding upon a new "office standard" I fought for and won the serif argument. I then went and searched the topic on the web and found that: 1. I was wrong (kind of) 2. Familiarity with the type face issue was more important. 3. And for SCREEN fonts the test results from studies were a mixed bag some leaning towards serif and some towards san-serif. I had a harder time finding good test results on print media. I did find references leaning towards serifs. I did not go back to my bosses and change my mind. I like Times Roman. I like century schoolbook but too many consultants do not have it so … I’ve settled there. I use 11 point. (Oh BTW the reports on screen fonts almost universally agreed on between 10 and 12 point for size.) Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 82 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:21 am:    Interesting conversation. I’ve always heard that serif fonts are easier to read / comprehend, but “not” in small sizes where the letters can run together. I have always used a Sans Serif font (currently Arial 10 point) for that, and one other reason. With most serif fonts, the numeral 1 and the lower case l (el) are nearly identical. It doesn’t happen often but I’ve seen cases where the two characters have been confused or at least confusing. “Paragraph 1.l” comes to mind as a simple example. I don’t have that problem with a sans serif font. Regarding page formatting, I always thought that “I” was anal. I have given up years ago in trying to get consultants to conform to my specific page formatting. And No, I have not won any specifications competitions. Personally I can’t think of any other reason why I would care if the Division 26 specs looked like they came out of my computer. In fact it is sometimes a benefit to be able to simply look at a spec section and identify it as the work of a Consultant. I do insist that all consultants use my official Page Header format with my Project Title and Project Number at upper right hand corner (apologies to CSI Page Format) and Client’s Project specific information at upper left if applicable. Sometimes I have to threaten to hold my breath just to get them to do that! I am For Sure not going to spend any of my time reformatting specs from others just to make them all pretty! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 265 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:49 am:    In reply to Vivian's query: I haven't done a spec in two-column format, just responding to some I've seen. One client the-Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose-uses that for their front end documents and it worked okay since the font was small. I generally edit in "normal" view (not "print layout") in Word so I don't have the distration of text popping around as pagination does it's thing near the end of the page, nor the wasted space showing me header and footers. Plus, I set Word to wrap text to the screen margins in Normal view so I use the full width of my screen. I get much more text visible that way. If I was to produce specs in two-column or any other format, I'm sure I'd work the same way. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:42 am:    We also had a tough time getting consultants to reformat their specifications to our format when we did the two column approach with lines numbered down the middle of the page. We've changed back to single column since, for various reasons. We normally print our spec books with different colors for different disciplines ... blue for civil consultants, green for mechanical, yellow for electrical, etc. Then, we can quickly identify Div 2, 15 or 16, etc. Richard L Matteo Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 61 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:41 am:    The firm I worked for in Connecticut used Arial 11pt. which I tend to like. In the firm that I am now with in California we decided on CG Times 11pt for the body of the text and 12pt for section number and title. It's okay, but I still like Arial better, but it's not my call. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 106 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:11 am:    I'll throw any scenario in the mix-- we moved from Times Roman to Tahoma, 11 point, with bold face for Section numbers and titles, Part indications, and numbered articles. More readable [good text to white space ratio]; more strength in the printed text; data more readily located; removed "academic paper" look that we had. We feel this adds a positive dimension to the specs, and this is reflected in the comments we have received. Some may call it is pure pazazz, but we tried other fonts,and settled on Tahoma. We are an A/E firm, so we do not encounter consultants or other points needing coordination. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 92 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:13 am:    ... but I swear it was in self-defense (there are definitely days that I get a good laugh from this group). Our office is standardized on Ariel. We use 10 point Ariel for our specifications with an 8 point Ariel for the footer. SpecLink's "standard" is 10 point Ariel so we decided it was easier to switch ours (it used to be Times Roman 10 point) to match. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 38 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:05 pm:    Ralph, the reason Tahoma is so easy to read on the screen is because Microsoft commissioned the font specifically for use with Internet browsers. Tahoma and its sibling Verdana (spaced a bit wider) are included in every copy of Windows/Internet Explorer. Since it is so universal, most consultants should be able to reproduce it. It is also one of those new fonts that include all the foreign characters. If specs are destined to be used on construction sites with wireless tablet computers, then readability on screen will be more critical than what it looks like on paper. Your use of 11 point may be an advantage as well. Since larger electronic files don't waste paper, the larger font size will not be a disadvantage. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 121 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 01:38 pm:    oh why not throw in my 3 cents here, too... Every office I've worked in has gotten in some uproar over the fonts for the specs, and I've been pretty insistent and usually get my own way. Originally, government specs were required to be in Courier, and so that was the office standard at my old firm for a long time. When I had a choice, I switched to 10 or 11 point New Times Roman, primarily because I think its easy to read, every word processing program had it (which used to be an issue); it laid out nicely on the page, and came in both italic and bold version, and it scaled up and down in size for headers/titles, and such. As for two column format: I think this is the most stupid idea I've seen in a long time. It does not increase the content of the page; makes it IMPOSSIBLE to annotate for addenda (especially if printed double sided) and impossible to reference for addenda, and makes my eyes hurt. We are working with an associated architect who insists on double-column specs, and I refused to do it without a lot of additional fee. I mark up my specs electronically on a tablet PC and the double-column format makes that harder, as well -- there just isn't enough space in the margins for comments. I also resist having to change fonts unless we are being paid additional to do that. I know its easy to do electronically, but every type face lays out differently on the page, and if you change a font (even at the same size) I feel as though every section should be printed and reviewed for page layout. And David -- I bet if you just changed your font and didn't tell anyone, no one would really care. It goes into that "ask forgiveness, not permission" thing. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 355 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 03:00 pm:    If I changed the font without asking, the old guy in the office will blow a gasket. I guess I will wait until he retires. FYI, He originally wrote specs in Times Roman but changed to Sans Lucida Unicode when his cataracts made it hard for him to read the computer screen. I understand that Courier was orginally used in specs because it closely resembled a typewriter (remember those things?). That way corrections could be typed in. When CAD first came out, most architects chose ArchStyle font to emulate hand lettering. The thought was that corrections could be hand lettered on the drawings. We once had a client that was upset that we did not use CAD for our drawings. We had drawn the entire project on CAD but used the ArchStyle font. So we changed the font on the drawings to Arial and he was happy. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 122 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 07:21 pm:    you're right from my experience about Courier: when I first started doing specs, we had a mag-card and the word processor (the person, not the software) worked very strict 8-5 working hours. I used to stay until midnight some nights, making corrections by whiting out the text, and either inserting (with X-acto knife and tape) or overtyping in the typewriter the correct text. We were doing only government work at that time, so the Courier font was required. (we had IBM Selectric typewriters, which meant we could change out the type balls if needed.) Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 93 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:14 pm:    Anne: Your posting brings back memories--IBM Selectrics? white-out tape? That's almost back to styluses on papyrus. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 26 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 08:53 am:    35 post on fonts! Arial 10 point for text. Ariel 7 point for footer that includes architect’s name, section name, project number on first lint, and project name, section-page number, and issue date on second line. I’m thinking about changing to Ariel 9 point for the text in hopes to use less paper. 36 post on fonts! Sharon Lund Member Username: slundsehinccom Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:20 am:    Our multiple-discipline, multiple office firm uses Times New Roman 11 throughout the specs, with levels 1 and 2 in capitals and bolded. Our footers consist of section name and number and project number. Simple, but macros make the editing for different projects a snap. We use 1 column for Division 1, and 2 columns for Divisions 2-16. We like the readibility and have had no complaints. It's very easy to use and on-screen review is easy on the eyes. We also adhere strictly to CSI formatting and rules, some of which I don't like such as periods after lists and capitalization rules, but as with others of you, I can't budge the decision makers. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Intermediate Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:53 am:    We (Perkins + Will, Dallas) use Arial 10 point for text, 9 point for footers; Bold all caps type for section number and title, Part headings, and End of Section; all caps (but not bold) for Article headings. I believe the Chicago and L.A. offices use 11 point Times Roman. Not sure about the others. Like many others, we have had some difficulty in getting consultants to adhere to SectionFormat, MasterFormat, and our page format. Switching to two columns - although easier to read as it may be - would surely prove to be an insurmountable hurdle. We can't even get them to use MF '95 section numbers. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 72 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:06 am:    Hmm, do you text experts have an opinion on memo-faking? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 34 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:51 am:    <<Your posting brings back memories>> ....and what about 2A, 2B, 3A, etc. sections numbers? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 35 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:58 am:    <<I’m thinking about changing to Ariel 9 point for the text in hopes to use less paper>> Ron: You might reconsider the smaller font, hence longer lines after reading Sheldon Wolf's article at: www.northstarcsi.com/PageFormat.pdf (see his Sept 8th post) Ron PS (Sheldon): Great article! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:00 pm:    Wow! I had always heard that "body copy" in a serif font was easier to read and "headlines" in a sans serif font were easier to read. The Helvetica/Universe/Arial font was developed specifically for recognition and readability on signage. I would like to use something other than Times New Roman or Arial, but these are such common fonts and can be found on 99.9 percent of the computers in service. Optima (my favorite) or Century Schoolbook (or Goudy Old Stile or Palantino or ...) are, in my opinion, much more attractive fonts, but I have run into problems when I am required to transfer word processing files with these fonts to others for their review or use. I use a 11 pt. Times New Roman for specification text at the Paragraph level and below and 10 pt. Arial bold for the Part and Article levels. The "bulk" on the Arial gives the impression of its being the same size, and the bold type seems to assist in finding information. I do make use of templates and styles on my documents so I could accomodate a change in font very easily. Even if this were to happen at the end of the project ("Oh! didn't we tell you? We require ... "). Formatting is interesting since the format in which text is presented is controlled by the settings on the output device. I can change the font on many web pages myself by changing the settings on my software. Some may have had the experience of a carefully paginated spec being printed out differently on a different printer. If you have one laser printer at your desk that you use while you are editing, and another printer for final production (either inhouse or a service), you will find differences in the way they handle the font (letterspace, kerning, etc.) that can cause unexpected results. This has to do with the drivers for various output devices. I have begun to print my "final" to Adobe Acrobat creating a .pdf file. This file prints out the same no matter where you send it (as long as you don't change the magnification). This makes the final appearance less dependent on the specific device used for printing--and I have an electronic record for the project files or for distribution. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Advanced Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:17 pm:    Another thing to keep in mind is which font, and in which size, remains easier to read after multiple generations of copying or faxing, since most contractors copy and fax sections to subcontractors and suppliers. Regarding Ron's post about the alpha-numeric section numbering - As late as 1990 (maybe even later), at least one firm that I know of still utilized this method. For as long as MasterFormat has been around, that's a bit late / long to not have implemented it. Mitch Miller,AIA ,CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 16 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:04 am:    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I use Times New Roman 11 for the body. It is what Masterspec uses. I change the header and footer to Times New Roman 12 so it can stand out a bit. I also BOLD the section title, and 3 part titles as well as the end of section. This helps with finding relavent info when searching over the specs. Why make it more complicated - KISS principle! Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:52 pm:    I note that many of these postings are talking about using smaller and smaller pt. - form 11 to 10 to 9, with footers at 7. For those who are considering going to small sizes, have you given any thought to the "readability index", especially for the older people who need the "slightly larger letters". As the population and the workforce ages, their ability to read small things also gets worse. It would be interesting - and in a way a shame - to see a contractor use as his/her defense that the type was too small for him/her to read and therefore the designer was age discriminating against him/her. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 36 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 03:39 pm:    Of course, if you sign your work "Anonymous" you can never be sued for anything.